Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 April	11 April >

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golden Plate awardees[edit]

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

Considering the nature of the Academy of Achievement, as shown by their article, I do not think that the award given by this body is separately notable. That they are given to people already famous does not make the awards notable, and I consider all sources as in the nature of PR, even the remarkably extensive Washington Post article. I've been involved in giving advice on some related articles, so I have refrained from doing what i normally would do with an article like this, which is delete it under criterion G11, entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If Academy of Achievement which has a page is notable then nominees could be listed there. Oxy20 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When G11 is referring to promotional, it's speaking of the tone of the article. In a way, G11 isn't looking at notability at all and I don't see how it could apply here at all. The article seems quite neutral to me. As for the subject, the Academy of Achievement is clearly notable, there's no question about that. The question is, is this award notable? Using it as a list definitely makes it easier to lower the bar for notability, as we only have to consider whether it meets WP:LISTN. First off, I definitely disagree with the nominator's statement about considering all sources as PR. We have no way of determining if sources are or are not press releases (unless they specifically say so), so it seems useless to try and against policy to just try and say all sources are useless because we don't know. So, ignoring that, I see that there are sources that discuss the award as a group, like the Post article, along with a number of news sources discussing people who have individually won the award, such as here, here, here, here, here, and so much more. Based on all of this, I see no reason why this article doesn't handily meet the notability requirements for lists, indeed, the award itself seems to be notable from these sources. Silver seren^C 04:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the original author of this article, although because of my COI with the topic, I discussed its viability with an uninvolved editor who agreed to take my draft live. A significant portion of our discussion can be found here; relevant guidelines were WP:NLIST, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:STANDALONE. Then as now I think this article satisfies those requirements.

Meanwhile, the Golden Plate awards and ceremony have received much more coverage over the years than I originally included. Some date back 40 and 50 years, which means that many of these are not online, but I have provided citations for them in the collapsed box here:

Additional Golden Plate Award sources

Online sources

<ref>{{cite news |title=L.A. Designer Wins Golden Plate Award |url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0glKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AB4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=4515,5263964&dq=golden-plate-award+academy-of-achievement&hl=en |newspaper=The Modesto Bee |date=July 22, 1969 |accessdate=April 11, 2012}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news |title=Prophet given "Golden Plate Award" |url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=OeZHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r-wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5051,2141135&dq=golden-plate+academy-of-achievement&hl=en |newspaper=The Deseret News |date=July 6, 1996 |accessdate=April 11, 2012}}</ref>

Offline sources

<ref>{{cite news |title="Giants of Endeavor" Win Salutes |author=Clark Lobb |url= |newspaper=The Salt Lake Tribune |date=June 30, 1974 |accessdate=April 11, 2012}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news |title=Golden Platers |author=Gayle Pellesen |url= |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=June 27, 1977 |accessdate=April 11, 2012}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news |title=Awards dinner set for Freedom Festival, '75 |url= |newspaper=The Evansville Courier |date=July 23, 1974 |accessdate=April 11, 2012}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news |title=Another Golden Plate Banquet Planned for 1962 |author= |url= |newspaper=Monterey Peninsula Herald |date=September 11, 1961}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news |title=Top Guns: Academy salutes world-changers |author=Jean Novotny |url= |newspaper=The Arizona Republic |date=June 27, 1987}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news |title=Academy Honors Leaders |author=Judy Burton |url= |newspaper=Dallas Morning News |date=June 16, 1968}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news |title=Whiz kids rub elbows with right stuff |author=Rebecca Jones |url= |newspaper=Rocky Mountain News |date=June 30, 1985}}</ref>

Happy to answer any additional questions. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was requested to post the article (written primarily by WWB Too who disclosed a COI). Before posting the article, I researched relevant policies regarding list articles WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists and WP:Manual of Style/Lists and notability WP:Notability (people) and the article met these standards. Also, sufficient reliable sources WP:RS exist to make the article newsworthy, not promotional.Coaster92 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy deletion criterion G11 is for unambiguous advertising- this article is pretty neutral. Given the sources provided by WWB Too, and what seems like non-good faith by the nominator by assuming all sources are PR, I see no clear rationale for deletion, given that it seems notable. A412 (Talk • C) 01:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The awards are notable, the recipients are notable. I wonder if the page could be formatted a bit better as I'm seeing one narrow column, but that's beside the point. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must be your browser. Internet Explorer? Silver seren^C 14:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sources in the article are enough to pass the GNG, so keeping the article seems to be the correct course of action here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 00:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations: Effectiveness, Design, and Cultures[edit]

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

This seems to be much more essay, and much less article. New editor, one edit, maybe a project? In spite of their writing skills, it would seem to be inappropriate for inclusion. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is so wide that it is suitable for university essay or book. Not encyclopedia article. Written as essay - possibly undergraduate work Oxy20 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently written as an essay, I don't see how this can improved to make it an encyclopedic article. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. Beagel (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Chernyakhovsky[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON Undergrad student, SPA creater. Borderline A7. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite francly I do not even think it is a case of "Too Soon". If this is kept Wikipedia might just as well become a CV repositary. Notability not established. Oxy20 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone went through the effort to properly research a young, upcoming scientist. The deletionist trend on Wikipedia is quite disheartening. What requirements do you want to have for an undergraduate student that has publications, that won multiple national awards? Additionally, I do not know what a "repositary" or a "francly" are, perhaps you meant "repository" and "frankly". If that is the case, please point out how this is a CV? Surely the article can be improved, but it cannot be if you decide to delete it. My personal opinion is that someone that has won multiple national competitions and even has an Asteroid: 24968_Chernyakhovsky named after him is notable! Surely it is worth keeping, few people have that honor.

--18.189.117.151 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)— 18.189.117.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The asterois probably also fails to meet corresponding Notability requirements. Will probably propose that page for deletion. You have used "upcoming scientist" so you basically you accept that he has not established Notability yet. No evidence of publications in any significant peer reviewed journals. With regard to "What requirements do you want to have for an undergraduate student" - we do not try to assess potential. We assess Notability. No relaxed requirements in this respect for pupils or students. At this point in time, in my view, this requirement is clearly not satisfied.Oxy20 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the MIT SPAs should please familiarize themselves with the established notability guidelines. There are no "special categories" that accept lower boundaries for students, precocious though they may be. Mr. Chernyakhovsky may indeed be notable in the future, but he isn't now. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Sources given are all primary sources or otherwise unusable at this point; he needs some outside coverage before he meets WP:GNG. For Mr. Chemyakhovsky, it really is too soon at this point. Good luck, Alexander. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 24968_Chernyakhovsky, the asteroid named after him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thhink that the asteroid page should also be deleted - does not meet Atronomical Objects Notability Oxy20 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...you do realize *all* of the named asteroids exist? List of minor planets: 24001–25000 18.96.6.177 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In short, yes we do. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that all named astronomical bodies that are notable enough to be named are automatically notable enough for inclusion here, just as all geographical locations are. We are an encyclopedia, after all. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have we included geographical locations simply because they have a name? In short the answer is we don't! Polyamorph (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NGEO says Named geographic features are usually considered notable. for starters. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NGEO is an essay, not policy, not even a guideline. Besides that it doesn't say being a named geographic feature alone is sufficient notable for an independent article, in fact it explicitly states the contrary. Every independent article on wikipedia must satisfy WP:Notability, i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. They can be (and in the case of named asteroids already are) included in a comprehensive list, but not seperate articles unless there is sufficient coverage. As per WP:NASTRO (an actual guideline). Anyway, this is more suited for the other discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With a GS h-index of 2, total failure of WP:Prof#1. There is nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There's an article about him winning a scholarship in the Cincinnati Enquirer but it's not enough for WP:GNG. WP:PROF is far out of reach. And delete ~~his little dog~~ the asteroid too, per WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now also at AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24968 Chernyakhovsky. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because really, you guys are being really quick to judge. You want publications? Here are some links: Article published in an Elsevier journal, Article Published by ACM, Article published by the AIP -- is this enough? There are more.18.96.6.177 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — 18.96.6.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Sorry, but no, a few-cited journal paper and some conference papers are not nearly enough. WP guidelines, especially for BLPs are now quite stiff. Have a look at WP:PROF, for example, to get an idea. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Not an A7 (given the asteroid), but otherwise way too soon. Misses WP:PROF and WP:GNG by a mile. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails our notability guidelines on academics. Sure, this person may become a leading academic one day, but in the meantime wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Polyamorph (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has 1 paper listed by WoS with 3 citations (h-index 1). With very very few exceptions (like multiple wins of the Putnam (Barton AfD), undergraduate honors/competitions do not qualify either. The SPAs above that geolocate to MIT and the SPA that created the page are evidently unfamiliar with the notability guidelines, which essentially mean that undergraduates, however precocious, rarely if ever pass. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Clearly lacks encyclopedic notability. ylloh (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet GNG, sorry Alex.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—You had me at "h-index of 2". Fails GNG and subject-matter notability guide, this BLP based on WP:SPSes has no policy-backed reason for being kept. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Foley[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also any lack of significant media coverage means he fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 23:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 23:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. has not received significant media coverage therefore fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the Conference isn't fully professional. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never heard of him, due to the lack of significant media coverage, therefore he shouldn't have an article. Cloudz 679 11:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone needs this userfied, let me know. ‑Scottywong | express _ 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurusha Magzub[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. I can't find any information about the Royal Family of Tehran, or a modern Avestan Royal Family. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G3 obvious hoax. I found no hits for the English or Persian name, and the dubious claims of the article are, well, dubious. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, wouldn't you know it, we put up AFDs at the same time for this guy! =) Anyway, I'll transcribe my rational for the other one. Claims for Crown Prince of Tehran - which confuses me, I am unaware that a city would have such a chain of royalty. There is also Kurusha Arya Magzub which was deleted A7 a couple of days ago. I am not seeing notability of any sort here. Hoax is a maybe. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, this AfD was started yesterday, but the article ended up being speedily deleted and then recreated. Apparently this one wasn't closed once the article was deleted. ... discospinster _talk 12:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this is unprecedented. Eh, no matter, I say we just roll with this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dear administrators, we are understanding the rules and procedures of wikipedia. At the moment we are studing and research for editing all the history of Prince Kurusha and his oldest Family. Infact he is presenting himself officially in this year because he has the knowledge and background for representing all that we wrote. we agree to the wikipedia rules and we are changing and before editing all the documents and request to be correctly with wikipedia. Tehran is a city that come from Rey, a oldest Achemenian province, but if you would love to read more about his person, you should read and study the Baha'i books, where the Magzube Tribe born and for reading the lineage of Prince Kurusha you should read all the Jewish background lived in Hamedan. We are editing al lot of documentations in web and editing on the book, for give to you all the information that you need for judging the article. Delete this article is means help the bad sistem in Iran but (most of important) prevent and limit the freedom of thought and expression, especially based on facts and real people who expose themselves in person to the ideals of justice and freedom in his country.

Prince Kurusha is at the beginning of his career and it is normal (given his young age) that there is still little information about his life or his family fled into exile during the Iranian Revolution. (on his family until 1996 he weighed the death penalty in case of repatriation)

about its provenance is uncertain, and certified, and we are willing to give you all the information and explanations required by wikipedia.

we drafted the article and made neutral, as required, and we find no real reason to cancel the debate, because (now) is in line with the standards of wikipedia.

also (being a very complex procedure) we ask the courtesy to help us write and write up in the best way to Prince Kurusha related items, as it is our desire to respect and rappresentre wikipedia with honor and esteem.

regards and i'm awaiting the advice for making (together) the discussions in the best mode.

thank you

--Fiorenza longato (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dear administrator -

the first time we ask to delete both the articles because we wrong to write the title and also we was not able to use wikipedia ! I inscript last yesterday and my first lenguage is italian, so for that firstly errors. i'm so sorry. and thank you so much for understanding our intent, and please help to us (we are the official secretary of the Prince Kurusha) for presenting Him in the right way ! if you need a informations or anything else, just write me and i'll answer.

regards

--Fiorenza longato (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

expecting a kind answer from you for proceding

--Fiorenza longato (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fiorenza, it might be best, then, if we could put this in your user space so that you can work on it properly and in a way that it doesn't run the risk of being deleted yet again. Please bear in mind that Mr. Magzub MUST meet our general notability guidelines in a way that is verifiable with reliable sources, though, as you work on this. Review these links - and in this case, you should check out that first link I just gave you in order to understand what I'm talking about. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, notability not established. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy based on Dennis The Tiger's rationale, unless it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that this is a hoax. Can anyone establish whether there is/was an article in Italian or Persian (and results of any AfD's there)? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Clear COI for the author, and the total lack of findable coverage on the subject leads me to believe that userify-ing this is just going to lead to the same problems down the road. If User:Fiorenza longato wants to try to get this article created, he/she should prepare a list of reliable sources which cover the subject, and consider asking the WP:AfC team for help, or getting someone to WP:ADOPT them to guide them through the process. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBIZ[edit]

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

I really don't see evidence of notability. It's more of a advert, as would be expected for something made by a paid group account. 86.** IP (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The good news is they did a good enough job this time to avoid a speedy delete. The bad news is that they are still not notable. Press releases, incidental mentions, and more buzzwords than you can shake a stick at. No clear claim or proof of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete? Seriously? A company that is nationally ranked in its field in several categories? If the article needs to be revised to meet Wikipedia standards (better sourcing? what?), then allow time for editing. BerthaPWatson (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — BerthaPWatson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention the author was blocked for sockpuppetry as well. 86.** IP (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then WP:DENY would indicate a painful and protracted death is appropriate. After the article is deleted. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. 86.** IP (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NYSE company, which is sufficient notability. It could be written more concisely, but that's easy to take care of. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being listed on the NYSE does not satisfy the WP:GNG, nor WP:CORP. Indeed, WP:CORP specifically denies inclusion on a list (save ones on the level of the Fortune 500) as a criterion for notability. 86.** IP (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—So I looked at the impressive number of references and thought "how can an article this well cited be at AfD?" Then I started checking the references. Every single one of them is trivial mention of the company or WP:SPS. Most of the independent articles are really about other companies that CBIZ has bought out... the coverage is far more detailed on the targets of the acquisitions, not CBIZ. Not wanting to give up so quickly, I ran a search through Highbeam Research and came up with nothing better than the current crop of references. This is a subject that appears notable, but on further inspection, clearly fails the WP:GNG. All of this is independent of the issues with the author/creator... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be no agreement about whether the article can be improved to overcome the nominator's concerns with it. Issues like "synthesis, OR, essay-like, peacock words" are all issues with the content of the article, not the subject. The keep voters make a convincing argument that the subject may be able to be covered in an appropriate way. I think the best course of action is to give the author(s) some time to make improvements, and then revisit this at another AfD if it is deemed necessary. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 17:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business in Maryland[edit]

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

Messy, incoherent glob of original research with dubious sourcing ("Maryland Division of Tourism, Film and the Arts." — what from it?). Synthesis, OR, essay-like, peacock words. I don't think that the article is reparable as a.) there are no other "Business in state" articles, and b.) the title itself is too generic and casts too broad a scope. Note that the same author made the identically craptacular article Biotechnology in Maryland, whose own AFD has a few deletes already. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom.--ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has many of the same problems as Biotechnology in Maryland, where I also support deletion. It has the same excessively promotional tone and collection of Maryland-related facts massaged into suggesting synthesis-type conclusions. Obviously, some of the statements present here could be included in the Maryland article but I don't see how this could be pared down to an encyclopedic article that is compliant with policy. Chillllls (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds more like a brochure from the Chamber of Commerce than an article. Advert, essay-ish. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Mollskman (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - This is harder than the biotechnology article because the biotech article is such a small specific niche, whereas "commerce" or "business" in a state seems like a worthwhile subject. But this article is infested with promotional tone. Take that away, and I don't know how much more information there is than what's already in the Economy section of Maryland. We do have "Economy of ..." articles for some of the larger states. I would be ok with that being extended here, although if there's not enough worthwhile material to form a separate article, by all means integrate it into the Maryland article. I think the author expressed some interest in improving the two, so they should probably be userfied in any case. Shadowjams (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but edit - This article has been posted/maintained for three years and not received tags or controversy until now. It was one of the few articles to receive a B-rating (only 279 out of 8841 articles received this) and was rated as high-importance on Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland importance scale. I agree that it has some promotional language issues and now that I am more familiar with wikipedia guidelines I will work to remove them. Despite what Ten Pound Hammer says, the article is very well sourced (I fixed the Tourism reference he mentioned, apologies for that) using third party references such as the Census Bureau, National Science Foundation, US Dept. of Labor, etc. As Shadowjams mentioned, there are already expanded Economy of State articles so there's no reason Maryland shouldn't have an expanded article about it's economy -- I welcome any and all edits to remove any promotional sounding elements. Thanks for listening. Mdbizauthor (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is representative of an important class of articles. The material is too extensive to be treated properly in the general state article, and it;s important part of the necessary information about any state or similar entity. There seems to be a feeling here that business is not a significant part of the world, or not worth encyclopedia coverage, which is pure prejudice; I have very little interest, but then I have very little interest in about 2/3 of the material covered here, & I'm not preparing an encyclopedia for my own use only. It's been mentioned that this attracts spam, but I don't think it does so more than any other articles. Our articles on entertainment or sports or education attract spam also, and the fanboys can be much harder to deal with than the pr people. Since we are concerned with neutrality and encyclopedic importance, we can do a much netter job of this sort of topic than a chamber of commerce, which will feel obliged to give a positive spin to everything and mention as many as possible of the companies that support them. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, DGG. The importance of this article cannot be denied and I think that it helps explain why it received a high importance and b rating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland. While it still needs a little more work, I have spent a lot of time improving the article over the last week and making it sound less promotional. I fixed the questionable reference and the article is well-supported by reputable third party sources. Most seem to agree the topic is a worthy one. I hope everyone will take a look and reconsider their vote before tomorrow's decision. I strongly believe there is enough substance in the article for it to avoid deletion and be improved upon by the wiki community. Ferddog (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (name change, formerly mdbizauthor)[reply]

Delete Not suitable for encyclopedia 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with all the sources in the article, and the other issues (original research, synthesis, peacock words) can be handled through normal editing. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is also not a valid reason for deletion. If the article is too broad, parts of it can be spun off into new articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro García (producer)[edit]

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

Believed not notable. The article claims that García produces for Alacranes Musical, but that page does not mention him and does identify a different producer. Neither his page nor that of Alacranes Musical on allmusic.com bear out the claim. The article contains a list of albums; the first in the list is "Furia Alacranera". This album's page on allmusic.com does not mention him (its page on amazon.com does not list the producer). a Google Nesws archive search for articles in English lists articles in Spanish. Searches on Google Books and Google Scholar are unhelpful (it's a common name). Citations in the article are unhelpful (the majority are Myspace pages martked as deleted or private). Stfg (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

Speedy delete I call WP:HOAX, since "Alejandro Garcia" + "Alacranes Musical" turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors, with no hits on Google News. Searching for "Alejandro Garcia" + "Productor" ("Producer" in Spanish) turns up nothing on a record producer, but rather information on a filmmaker of the same name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a hoax; the nominator's link above to an AMG profile for a regional Mexican producer/session guitarist named Alejandro Garcia substantiates that it's not a case of blatant invention. The case is complicated a little by the fact that metadata for Mexican releases, even on the discs themselves, is often far thinner than on US/UK/Canadian/etc. releases. Nevertheless, I don't see anything to substantiate the claims that he's done work with K-Paz or Down AKA Kilo, let alone Nate Dogg or Twista, and so his notability is still quite at issue. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still falls under blatant hoax if everything in the article is a total lie, regardless of whether or not there is an actual producer/musician by that name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally insufficient evidence to support such grand claims made in the article. Most likely hoax Oxy20 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's very difficult to determine consensus (and what's best for the encyclopedia) when accusations are being flung around, and when politics and/or history between editors is the main topic of discussion. There doesn't appear to be any agreement on what the fate of this article should be. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 17:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darka and Slavko[edit]

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

Notability, Verifiability, NPOV Oxy20 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Information and potential conflict of interest dosclosure: This page has been created by a beurocrat of Ukrainian Wiki with whom I am not on good terms and I believe he abuses his position to push his POV very heavily on Ukrainian Wiki and in view abuses his position. So this is as far as conflict of interest goes. As far as this article is concerned I believe it fails to meet Notability, Verifiability and NPOV principles. This is supposed to be a ukranian duo but actually there are 5 times more hits for them in English then in Ukrainian - so most users do not have to take my word for it and can check Notability themslevles. In my view they are not well known at all and this is confirmed by a small number of hits in Google. Below I provide a fuller description of the work done to reserach Notability and Verifiability.

Being a Ukarinian who listens to different styles of music a lot I have not heard of this "one of the most popular duos in Ukrainian diaspora and Ukraine." I have searched them on Google and "Дарка й Славко" returned 1330 results and "Darka and Slavko" just 7240. As a refernce I used anothe reasonably popular Ukrainian singer with a reasonably unusual name to avoid false positive counts in search results: "Ani Lorak" 2,540,000 results, "Ани Лорак" 8,710,000. So 1000 times more pages. Therefore I consider the claim as to popularity unforunded. I have looked at some of the results for this "duo" and it appears there is little good quality coverage of their activities a all - most pages just contain their name to attract search results with no actual information about them. Will be proposing this article for sletion as well.

Did some more work. Compared this "one of the most popular duos in Ukrainian diaspora and Ukraine" to just known (as opposed to well known) ukrainian singers. Choosing a duo that got 4th place in an X-factor like show in Ukraine in late 2009 early 2010. "Брати Борисенки" 71200 results, "Брати Борисенко" 53200 results, "Братья Борисенки" 56800 , "Братья Борисенко" 55800, "Borisenko Brothers" 31,400 and "Brothers Borisenko" 16,300 - so about 300,000 results across the two forms of writing their surnames in Russian and Ukrainian and two forms in English. They do not have their own En.Wiki page but are mentioned on the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrika_Zirok . So the Duo mentioned in the article produced about 30 times fewer hits on google then even fringe Ukrainian singers. I believe they fail to meet Notability criteria and the page is an attempt to promote them. I believe the page should be deleted. Oxy20 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are the sources (ukrweekly.com, The Ukrainian Weekly, and the cyrillic one) reliable sources? Most are in a DjVu file format which I can't actually view. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the The Ukrainian Weekly, notable Ukrainian diaspora newspaper, there is even an article about this newspaper in Encyclopedia of Ukraine --Ilya (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worthwhile to explain what "Ukrainian diaspora" means here. It is a particular ethnic and political section of Ukrainian immigrants. So we are talking about Notability of the Paper amongst a particular section of Ukrainian immigrants in the USA (I am a Ukrainian immigrants who lived for 5 years in the USA (and more then 10 in the UK) and never heard of those papers as even though I was a Ukrainian immigrant I do not belong to that particular ethnic-political section). Also it is worthwhile to note that Ilya's other involvement in this dicussion was to correct spelling misstakes of the article creator Yakudza. I am not saying there is strong evidence of meetpuppetry here - but if I did use bureucrat Yakudza's standard of proof I would present meetpuppetry as something obvious. Oxy20 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know know something - just get to know it, very ridiculous to shout about your egoistic ignorancy all over this page. --Ilya (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First link - is actually in English and I do not know what it has to do with this Duo but then as it is in English you can open it as well and check. Subsequent three I can not open either but I presume it is similar to the last link which opens and is in English as well. This leaves penultimate link http://www.ivasyuk.org.ua/names.php?lang=uk&id=duet_darka_slavko. This is a memorial page of the Notable Ukrainian Composer who wrote arguably the most notable song in Ukraine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chervona_Ruta_%28song%29 . On that page there is information about some Ukrainian groups including the article - exactly the same article as in wikipedia just in Ukrainian. I do not know who created that memorial page and do not think that a mention there establishes Notability. Oxy20 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contents that is in the three non-working links and the last link can be accesses from http://www.ukrweekly.com/ . I have not heard of that paper it appears local paper of "Ukrainian Diaspora" in the US. The duo are mentioned quite a few times in that publications with other performers in relation to various local "carbaret nights". So looks like they are of some very local significance. The paper is in English so if someone is interested can do checks - it is all in English. To me it appears they are no more notable then bands covered in my local paper that performed in local gigs / bar nights. As per hit count described above it appears most of the coverage of them is actually in English so all interested parties can actually carry out checks.Oxy20 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this book a reliable (and independent) source: Ukrainian Music Outside of Ukraine? --178.93.178.134 (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not. This is a dodgy publisher that just prints Wikipedia article and charges for such books! It actually says it in the description but not in so plain language. So basically all it means that a Wikipedia article was available at the time they were trolling for articles to publish. This publisher has bad reviews including one Truly Notable Author who is angry with them http://forums.theplenty.net/showthread.php?tid=373‏ . Oxy20 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaving aside the Ukrainian politics, the article doesn't assert the subject's notability and they appear to fail on both the GNG and WP:MUSIC. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 16:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy The article has been improved, so maybe it should be kept. If it is not kept it should be userfied, as I believe that there is evidence of clear notability, but as they were a late-80s and 1990s musical act not everything is easily accessible on the internet. I think the article has been significantly improved in response to the deletion proposal. I can see that further improvement is practical. In essence the current article is "start" class. There is no benefit in deleting it. The article in its current form does not have much evidence of notability. However, the case for them being non-notable seems to rest on their notability is not recent, and so evidence for it is not so easy to find on the internet. Paper sources ~~may~~ contain good evidence of their notability. If the article were userfied, then the creator would have more time to develop the article and bring it back to the main encyclopaedia-space at a later date.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC) modified--Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is a bureaucrat on Ukrainian Wiki he had plenty of time to substantiate it as he created it more than 6 years ago and he is surely fully aware of Notability and other Wikipedia requirements. Ukrainian language version has even fewer links - but with his position it is not under threat in Ukrainian Wiki. http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%BE Oxy20 (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also this one appears to be related - also will be recommending for deletion - no Notability at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slau Oxy20 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Oxy20 was blocked by me in Ukrainian Wikipedia for disruptive editing. Nomination for deletion is Harassment of my contribution. The nomination is absurd, Darka and Slavko, Kvitka Cisyk really the most popular performers of Ukrainian Diaspora USA and Canada, the mid-1980s. The duo was awarded "Best International Band" at the largest Ukrainian music festival. You can verify this by references to publications of most influential periodicals of the Ukrainian diaspora U.S. The Ukrainian Weekly: [1] [2] and Svoboda [3]. Duet is notability because has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Yakudza (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage appears to relate to them having performances in relatively small settings (rather then any major concerts - even if we strech the meaning of word major) during Ukrainian immigrant association meetings and it appears they are in the articles covered together with other musicians who also perform there. The paper appears to be not well known generally - though might be popular in that particulr community of Ukrainian immigrants in the US. Do you have any evidence of coverage in mainstream media in the Ukraine or US or any other country to support the Notability other then notability restricted to a particular niche minority community in a particular location? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.149.1.230 (talk • contribs)

I disclosed my potential conflict of interest in the first paragraph. As he raised it as well I will give some further insight. I raised NPOV on an article that essentially constituted a trial by Ukrainian Wikipedia. That involved a graphical decription of criminal act with the language actually saying who did it in graphical detail (rather then what was done and who are the suspects). However coverage of that in media was contradictory as to certain allegations and in any case there was no court verdict yet. I explained my reason for NPOV on the talk page. Yakudza deleted my NPOV tag with no explanation. Not knowing that he is a bureucrat in Ukrainian Wiki I restored NPOV tag. This resulted in a ban. "Proven until found guilty by a court of Law" is about basic human decency, but it is not a view of Ukrainian Wiki which reports guilt or innocence before the court verdict.Oxy20 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you bringing Kvitka Cisyk into this? This is not about Kvitka Cisyk. The page proposed fo deletion is Darka and Slavko. I noticed that you added a few more refernces and provided comments on the updated references below Oxy20 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:MUSIC 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya (talk • contribs)

Note as per standard the following does not count: "all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising" and "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings". Once such coverage is removed not much if at all is left. In any case all coverage in a relatively small community sources - a particular ethnic-political fraction of Ukrainian immigrans living in North America. Oxy20 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a OK if still a bit of a stub article. Darka and Slavko gets two and a half million Google hits. I can't see how Wikipedia would gain by the article's removal. You have to start somewhere with articles. Mike Young (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not have 2.5 million hits on google. If you search for the band "Darka and Slavko" the number of hit is just 7,210. You must have searched Darka and Slavko without quote marks - and Darka and Slavko being reasonably common Ukrainian names must have had lots of false hits 81.107.37.94 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Update to the articleThere have been some updates and Yakudza added some references. I still believe this band does not satisfy Notability requirements. Interestingly enough he did not bother to update the page in Ukrainian Wiki where he is a bureaucrat . There are even fewer references and the outrageous claim "one of the most popular duos in Ukrainian diaspora and Ukraine" is still there. Anyway I maintain that not only they are NOT "one of the most popular duos in Ukrainian diaspora and Ukraine" – they actually fail to satisfy Notability requirements. I reject the suggestions that the added references establish Notability and my points are as follows:

All the references are actually Ukrainian “Diaspora” publications in North America. More to it those publications are not even aimed at all Ukrainian immigrants that live in the US. They are aimed just at a particular ethnic and political fraction of Ukrainians in the US. This is especially evident as those references that appear to be in Ukrainian are actually in a dialect of Ukrainian – and in Ukraine itself dialects even in speech yet alone in writing are frowned upon. If we admit Notability based on this kind of media – we might just as well then write articles on whatever , say, English ex pats from Yorkshire that currently live, say, in Australia are writing about such as the band that are playing in their clubhouse.
The coverage looks like either trivial (covering which hotel / bar etc the band will be playing amongst other performers) or advertising. Of the coverage the link number 3 in references is in my view the most significant as quite a lot of space is dedicated to them. However it is a report of Debut. So no success as such is reported. ... and it ends with where to send a cheque for $11.50 to get the tape.... So basically advertising!
If the bureaucrat of Ukrainian Wiki Yakudza can actually provide details of multiple non-trivial coverage in reputable media of national significance in any country (Ukraine, US, etc) I would be willing to change my mind... But as it is – they just not Notable.
This article also fails verifiability. It is a translation of an article on a memorial site for a notable composer. There is no evidence who the owner of that site might be. The article on that site and the article in the Wikipedia prior to the recent edit contained plainly false claim that the band is "one of the most popular duos in Ukrainian diaspora and Ukraine" so in my view it deserves no credibility. Oxy20 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Verifiability Much of the article is based on single source that is not reliable as discussed on the Talk Pages. It appears that any other coverage of this Duo is so trivial that it does not look possibe to substabtiate much of the article. As it reports on biographies of people who are still alive (and includes such details as marriages and remarriages) much of it has to be deleted due to total failure of verifiability requirements Oxy20 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, also low Google count and just 15 facebook likes 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close. The nomination deals with the former duplicate and now redirect, but the actual article (the one to keep) was nominated. I'll have a look at the redirect, but if "The" is part of the official name then it's probably OK to keep as a redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Regional Environment Programme[edit]

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

Delete. It was a duplicate of the article that I redirected it to. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Pearce (journalist)[edit]

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Harmon[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable photographer. It would be a real stretch to say that he meets WP:CREATIVE. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books is a starting point: multiple pages of coverage in A Delicate Art: Artists, Wildflowers and Native Plants of the West by Mary-Beth LaViolette pp 129-136, and The Canadian Rockies Adventure Guide by Brenda Koller pp175-6. And other non-readable results, e.g. On the Roof of the Rockies: The Great Columbia Icefield of the Canadian Rockies, Lewis R. Freeman, Byron Harmon, Emerson Sanford[4] There's a book and film Great Days in the Rockies: The Photographs of Byron Harmon, 1906-1934, OUP, 1978, with a biography by Bart Robinson and an essay on Harmon[5]; and short film Great Days in the Rockies (NFB of Canada)[6]; Byron Harmon, Mountain Photographer by Carole Harmon, Altitude Pub Canada, 1992. Also various Canadian government/museum sources, which include his photos in their collections, e.g.[7][8][9], and he appears to be mentioned in the following scholarly article (though I don't have online access to this journal): Douglas A. Brown, "The modern romance of mountaineering: Photography, aesthetics and embodiment", The International Journal of the History of Sport, Volume 24, Issue 1, 2007, pages 1-34. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:GNG. This nomination is simply horrible! Alan, you'd be be much more useful if you didn't make such bad nominations like this one. I can see more than one book written about the man and his photographs, including Byron Harmon, Mountain Photographer (1992) and Great Days in the Rockies : the Photographs of Byron Harmon, 1906-1934 (1978).[10]. The number of books which call him a famous mountain photographer abound. Even Banff National Park links to a site all about him and his "historic photographs", [11].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As shown above there is plenty of significant coverage that establishes his notability. GB fan 04:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep via four independent rationales:
1. Above sources meet WP:GNG,
2. Quotes from DiViolette, from Patillo, and from BJP [12] meet WP:CREATIVE (1) clause 1
3. "Great Days" meets WP:CREATIVE (3) as a book (which itself received a journal review at [13] ) and a film, and
4. ....one might also argue it and the BJP also meet WP:CREATIVE (4), although, compared to the other three rationales I've provided, I find this one weaker.
I believe the first rationale should be sufficient. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep – per all of the above, the topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus is that coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Eldin[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Note that the absolute number of books published by an author is not a direct measure of notability for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I've added some references - mainly reviews of his books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this is a notable author, especially when considering the sources added by Colapeninsula, a few of which are detailed reviews of published works he has authored--for example the School Library Journal's review. Lord Arador (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marginally notable author. Large number of books but only sone limited evidence of notability - but probably just just sufficient. Oxy20 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 00:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Izu Islands earthquake[edit]

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

This is a rationale from another AfD

It's the usual thing that happens with earthquake articles. It happens, the USGS' earthquake monitoring program reports it, the press repeats it and says "no casualties or damage were reported;" think of it like this – earthquakes happen every day, whether we notice them or not. Even if we do notice them, as I said, there's no damage, and that's the case here. This article basically said "an earthquake occurred in XXX at XXX, and it was felt". Even if it was felt strongly, there was no lasting impact, and from a future perspective, this earthquake wouldn't be notable. WP:GNG. hf24 20:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We see no casualties/damage being reported. Earthquakes and Tsunamis are very common in Japan. Less notability and no need to have a separate article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 01:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there was no significant coverage (outside "there was an earthquake") and no significant impact from the quake. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At 350 km depth, this earthquake would not have caused significant damage - non-notable. Mikenorton (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another unremarkable earthquake with no lasting effects deserving mention here. --DAJF (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Pinkston[edit]

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

Subject does not meet any one notability criterion set forth by WP:CREATIVE. Also, most of the sources are unreliable: 3 sources are to the subject's personal website, 3 are to boutique music sellers, and 2 are to her employer (Bob Jones University). —Eustress ^talk 20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkston may not meet an individual notability criterion, but its her career as a totality that's important at Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing anything in her Bob Jones University bio supporting a keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources, not even brief mentions. Although I admit I'm not an expert on where to find material about hymnists, I've tried. She may do great things at Bob Jones, but she needs to have a wider influence to merit a Wikipedia article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually Pinkston's importance has nothing to do with BJU. She's edited a hymn book that includes 75 of her own tunes, and she's published 300 choral and instrumental arrangements. These are not the sort of accomplishments that usually get a lot of media attention, but I don't know of a late 20th century musician that could equal those two achievements together. Pinkston's influence is extensive, it just doesn't appear in places you can easily find on line.--John Foxe (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Clarityfiend. Don't see proof that she meets Wikipedia:Composers either. Symes (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:COMPOSER, and although John Foxe's arguments are persuasive, the facts available don't match up; the book in question is a major, wide-ranging hymnal into which Pinkston happens to have inserted several of her own compositions, none of which seem to have picked up any independent coverage, and I'm not finding any sources regarding her reputation as an arranger. If there are no readily-available sources to verify that her "influence is extensive", we can't just assume they must exist somewhere. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 16:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Max Semenik (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Justin Toth[edit]

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

It's a dumb article and serves no purpose but as an advertisement for the FBI. There is nothing notiable about this guy that deserves such an article. If someone wants to add his name to an article about teh FBIs top 10 list, fine. But I do not believe that he deserves an individual article since the crime he supposedly commited is not notiable or unusual. Albert14nx05y (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This page is of a person on the FBI 10 most wanted list. If you do a Google search of him you get 13,000 results.

He has been on CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, NY times, LA Time and even in the British, Mexican and Russian news. He is internationally notable.

He has been on America's Most Wanted 3 times. So his crime is notable enough to make the 10 most wanted list and to be on America Most wanted separate from the FBI list. I also suspect that Albert14nx05y may has a WP:COI. His account was created at 15:28 on 10 April 2012, just to nominate this page for deletion.

I will admit the article is brand new, so it is short on information and needed more sources, but it it should clearly be keeped.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He's on the list, that means naturally a heading on him on the main FBI list would naturally give him an article to list more about the subject. No questionable sourcing at all that I see, and I'm sorry, taking graphic pictures of children and being a teacher at one of Washington's most notable schools is pretty damned notorious and sick. Finally, 'it's a dumb article' isn't a proper nomination rationale. Nate • (chatter) 22:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FBI 10 most wanted is highly notable. Remember, the rule about "persons dont get articles if they are only notable for one thing" only applies if the one thing is not particularly notable. His alleged crimes may or may not be notable enough, esp if it turns out he's innocent, but getting on the list, and on TV, is. is that fair? not for us to say.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Why, yes. I am Eric Toth, and I am hiding from the FBI. But I like Wikipedia soo much that I just have to stay on it.

Actually, I came across the article by seeing a news article today about this guy and I googled him and saw this article. I just think it's dumb to have an article about this guy. His crime is a run-of-the-mill child porn case. There are millions of them out there every day. Its not like he robbed a bunch of banks or blew stuff up. The guy is only known for this one thing. He's not a famous person who then committed a crime. He's just a regular dude who got accused of some minor porn crime. That is why I do not believe he deserves an entire page or article about him. That is why I suggest that this info be somehow merged or put in the article about the Top Ten or something. I made the account today because making an account is the only way to nominate something for deletion. I've been editing for a while now just using my IP w/o an account simply because I did not want to bother with it. But this is why i thought the article shoudl be deleted.Albert14nx05y (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that sufficient sources exist to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Claydon[edit]

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

Not notable and no assertion of notability. No in-line refs and links provided demonstrate that he exists and that he is an artist who has exhibited - nothing demonstrates any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article does not do itself any favours. The "references" that look a bit like references but are not really references at all, just links to the top levels of some websites, are particularly unhelpful and made me very suspicious. Going hunting for something better to hang the article on reveals a bit more though. He does have three works in the Tate collection, although none are currently on show[14]. Here he is being reviewed by The Independent[15] and Frieze[16]. He is certainly not Picasso but I think he probably scrapes over the notability threshold. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the references shown above by DanielRigal constitute notability. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DanielRigal and Bus stop; not a very good article but seems to pass the GNG. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 16:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing identified by DanielRigal is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Coles HQ[edit]

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

Not notable and n special notability asserted. Has been around since 2006 but only one ref and that is in a trade publication. Looks like an unambiguous advert to me. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of Britain's leading contemporary art galleries. Various press coverage of gallery/Coles herself[17][18][19][20][21][22] and Art, Money, Parties by Jonathan P. Harris; also in Debrett's People of Today[23] which shows a certain amount of fame. And that's without numerous articles on individual shows. I've added some refs to article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing above and here is a link to the Harris book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – wide and significant coverage. For what it's worth, the 6th-favourite gallery of Vogue photographer Mario Testino. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Davis[edit]

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

Another of the Expewikiwriter paid group account articles. A lot of the articles made by that group were fairly obviously non-notable; however, in this case, I honestly don't know how you judge the notability of fashion designers. He's not so obviously notable that my lack of knowledge oof fashion wouldn't matter, but the standards may b somewhat lower for more obscure fields. AfD is usually pretty good at coming to conclusions on such matters. 86.** IP (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Advertisement. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep properly sourced. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate? Particuarly in the light of my !vote below. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 20:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to be notable and sourced properly. I don't see any major reasons for deleting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicalCreator (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think one could argue the sourcing is terrible: A good amount of content does not actually appear in the articles cited, for instance, only the first half of "In 2002, Davis was selected as one of Ebony Magazine’s 24 “Super Bachelors.” After his photo and bio appeared in the magazine’s June 2002 issue, he received more than 700 letters from women requesting to meet him." appears in the source, which is to be expected, since the source is the article which supposedly triggered the women contacting him. Now, that's not an argument against notability, of course, but please, please don't take the article at it's word, it's written by a PR flack. If kept, we're probably going to have to stubbify it unless someone has the offline sources, because, looking at how he uses sources (e.g. him addding material not in the Ebony magazine source, or the examples documented at WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Finney), one cannot WP:AGF about the offline sources being used accurately. 86.** IP (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - judging from the titles of the offline sources only "For Fashion Designer Eduard, Inspiration Comes From an Unlikely Source: Music," and “Antoinette King/Eduard Davis,” appear to be specifically about Davis. In addition, based on the other articles that I have delved into by the same editor who wrote this, it is difficult to AGF that they have accurately represented these sources. Unless someone else is able to get them, then I'm not happy about basing the article on them. Essentially, without more sources, it is unclear whether WP:BIO/WP:GNG can be met - "multiple reliable sources" requires more than two glossy magazine articles. I have looked on google news, books and factiva and can't find anything else suitable. The few things I did find were [24] [25] and [26] - no use. If he was really a notable designer, we would be able to find more than this. As for the content of the article as it is at the moment, I'd say it is very close to G11 (blatant spam). I just removed some of the worst but there doesn't seem much point doing the rest at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evience of notabilityOxy20 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think the sourcing is sufficient. Being on the Detroit list of Bachelors is not notability, and the proucts have clearly not made much of an impact. Fashion gets written about , so the failure to find really ood sources in an area liek this make the lack of current notability pretty clear DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parse.ly[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know a lot of people hate this sort of business-directory-style article, but The New York Observer, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, ZDNet, Mashable have all provided significant coverage: articles[27][28][29][30][31]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NCORP- "A company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The Next Web, Techcrunch, Gigaom, ReadWriteWeb A412 (Talk • C) 23:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not significant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGIN: nothing suggests that the subject has "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." I would also note, that most sources above discuss the products of subject, while per WP:PRODUCT the companies don't inherit notability from their products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup with abandon. The article more than passes general notability with the sources available. It's just a crappy article that needs de-spamification. Steven Walling • talk 00:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company is not notable it is a start up and the article does look like a business directory entry. Oxy20 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what is stopping WP becoming a business directory and a free advertising service if we are going to keep all of these articles about small businesses? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP carries neutral articles not advertisements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality and non-advertising nature of the article is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. The only question here is notability. AFD is not cleanup. A412 (Talk • C) 00:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — ξ ^xplicit 01:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Karachi Beechcraft 1900 crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS no WP:PERSISTENCE. Charter flight with no notable passengers. ...William 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -...William 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -...William 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: multiple news sources to establish notability for the incident. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not quite agree with the WP:NOTNEWS argument. This event had coverage in multiple sources, and had a fair bit of fatalities too. Thus, it is clearly not any ordinary incident that can be dismissed by NOTNEWS. Mar4d (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident continues to be notable and is still cited like in October 2011, January 2012. So WP:PERSISTENCE in no way applies here. And about WP:NOTNEWS, I agree with Mar4d. --SMS ^Talk 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a charter flight, this is in a bit of a gray area, but I believe it meets WP:AIRCRASH as a crash of an airliner involving fatalities. Appears to meet WP:GNG as well. (Might want to check again for WP:PERSISTENCE in a couple of years, but for now, I'm leaning keep.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it appears to pass the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This was very close to closing as delete, but there doesn't seem to be enough agreement on whether the documentary made about this person is enough to establish his notability. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 18:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sheffey[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability threshold per WP:BIO, as evidenced by the fact that almost all sources are attributed to a privately published family history book. Maybe a nice article for Familypedia or Werelate.org, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. —Eustress ^talk 20:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Bob Jones University made a fictionalized feature-length movie about Sheffey's life is sufficient indication that he's Wikipedia notable. It would be a disservice to readers to eliminate even an imperfect biography of such a person when their only alternate sources of information are a film and a novel.--John Foxe (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. However, if you end up keeping the article, it needs some serious editing -- a Bob Jones film and a private book are hardly sufficient evidence to support some of the claims made.JoelWhy (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is important because there's no other factual source of information about Sheffey—certainly not the BJU film or the novel on which it's based. We can't be too fussy about sources for a folk legend.--John Foxe (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, we can. In fact, we have to. Otherwise, we're left with an article based exclusively on two unreliable sources. If he's a folk legend of note, there may well be more academic sources on him. I'll look through Google Scholar to see if I come up with something, but as it stands, there just isn't enough to warrant a page, IMO.JoelWhy (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes basing articles on unreliable sources, especially when they don't have a ideological ax to grind, is preferable to prohibiting the reader from gaining no information at all. Deleting such an article means saying that reader ignorance is preferable to providing limited light.--John Foxe (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our personal opinions isn't the issue here. It's a matter of abiding with Wiki policy.JoelWhy (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A private book and a movie by an interested party are insufficient evidence per nom and JoelWhy Symes (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here: the movie is fiction. But it provides a reason why a factual article is needed—even if that article is mostly based on unreliable sources.--John Foxe (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As well as the film, there is a biographical novel about Sheffey by Jess Carr (The Saint of the Wilderness, Commonwealth Press, 1978). There's a little bit about Sheffey (not enough for notability) in Pearisburg And Giles County by Terri L. Fisher and something on JSTOR here (if you have access). There's a lot of bloggy/sermony content on Christian sites, but it makes me suspect there may be proper references out there somewhere. Reviews of the Jess Carr book or film would also help (if they have been reviewed). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The JSTOR article is already cited in the article. Carr's novel's there too.--John Foxe (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being the subject of a film confers notability, through WP:CREATIVE #3 if nothing else. St Anselm (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if this were some kind of major release. But, a small, private school making a "documentary"? That's an extremely low threshold for establishing notability.JoelWhy (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The main problem with this article is that essentuially it has only one source, a privately printed book of 1935. This is no doubt the source for everything else. On the other hand the fact that Bob Jones University took the trouble to make the film suggests that they think he is notable. Since they are an academic institution, I think WP ought to be willing to rely on theri view. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable on the basis of the film,. We ought to consider expanding the sections on that, and on the book,and possibly removing some of the anecdotes, bt there is the basis for an article here. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, Google count low. Also looks like no prospect of basing article on reliable sources - so notability aside no chance of article meeting Wikipedia standards. Interested parties can make the book available online. 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Mounier[edit]

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

This is the recreation of an earlier deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Mounier. I'm not convinced that the problems with the first article have been solved, and I'm still struggling to find sources that show notability for the actor rather than the films. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of how you spell him, he's not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - The article should be kept because the actor is notable in Egypt and Europe. He was a part of Labaki's Where Do We Go Now? which has won many awards, many of which are shared by Mounier (Ex: Audience Award at the Toronto Film Festival). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.193.169 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - read Notability is not inherited: a performer does not become notable by appearing in a notable film. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - He is not notable because he appeared in a notable film, he appeared in a notable film because he is notable. The are many articles written about Mounier in Egyptian, Italian, and Lebanese newspapers. He has also been on several talk shows and is involved in the industry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.195.61 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at the sources in the article and they're all broken. I did a search in the respective websites of these sources and also couldn't find anything. I searched in various Arabic sources, since the IP above mentions there is Egyptian and Lebanese newspaper coverage...but also didn't find anything. ~dee^(talk?) 08:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, I just found this from the British Video Association that lists Sam as one of the five writers. I still don't know if this is enough to prove notability, because I can't find anything else he's done. Here's another article in Al-Ahram (about the actual film) that does nothing but list him once as one of the writers, again. There isn't really any "content" about him. ~dee^(talk?) 08:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's another link to the Dallas International Film Festival that lists Sam as the writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.227.38 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And here's another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.227.38 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Notability not shown by any references in article or offered here. Claims of coverage in foreign sources are useless unless foreign sources are actually produced. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of marine biologists[edit]

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

This list is entirely incomplete and such a list is better managed through use of existing categories such as Marine biologists on the relevant pages. All of the referenced persons have appropriate category tags. bondolo (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See WP:NOTDUP. Lists and categories serve different functions. This list identifies scientists' birth/death dates and nationalities, allowing readers to browse more effectively. The list could be improved with further information about why each biologist is notable, making it even more useful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The whole encyclopedia is entirely incomplete - so let's expand it rather than delete it. Lists and categories complement each other, particularly when lists include additional information as this one does. --Michig (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is indeed incomplete (by any definition of "complete"), but there is nothing wrong with that. Could still be made more useful per suggestions by Calliopejen1 and Michig above. No good reason to delete. GregorB (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – valid list per WP:LISTPURP. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists and categories are not redundant to each other, as noted; and lists can be tabulated and made to include data that categories cannot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments about notability and sourcing concerns are convincing and not adequately refuted. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WorldVentures[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable pyramid scheme. Entirely sourced of 404 errors, an NBA article (?), "company profiles" and random internet listings. Laurent (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't help feel that this is somehow a personal issue for Laurent. I have corrected the broken 404 links to the Manifest Foundation website, as well as added additional references including coverage from industry publication Direct Selling News and a recent development involving Big Brothers Big Sisters. As to the "random internet listings" I completely disagree. The company was featured in the DSN 100, which is an industry accolade, the founders were nominated for Ernst & Young's Entrepreneur of the Year award, and the company was in the top 1000 of the Inc. 5000. Those hardly seem to be "random internet listings" and all point to the notability of the company. It may not be the MOST notable company on Wikipedia, but it's hardly a candidate for deletion. Virgil06 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

—Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete Agree with nom regarding WP:PROMO; the artcile as written completely whitewashes the subject. Judging by the article history, any negative information regarding the company has been slowly edited away in the past year or so. I would argue that the company satisfies WP:GNG given its membership and the amount of compaints it has generated. WorldVentures appears to be akin to Mary Kay or Vector Marketing. None but shining hours (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time looking for WP:RS in order to demostrate what I had asserted above. While there are articles from various local and college newspapers from around country, I hardly think that these establish WP:CORP and especially not WP:CORPDEPTH. I had also mentioned before that I felt the article was heavy on WP:PROMO content. As such, I have struck my weak keep vote. None but shining hours (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCORP:[32][33] and current ref1. -- Trevj (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inappropriate promotional article with no true significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only significant coverage is the article from Direct Selling News, which I'm not entirely sure should be considered either entirely independent or reliable, since it exists to promote the industry. In fact, it's possible the article for that magazine is a candidate for deletion itself, as it is also lacking in any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Success From Home source is iffy at best, since we don't know what "featured" means, and there's no reason to think another marketing magazine is a solid reliable source. All of the other sources are either not independent or trivial mentions. For example, the "WorldVentures CEO Mike Azcue Named a Director of BBBS International" source is a company press release, the two Manifest Foundation sources are not independent of the article's subject, and the NBA and BBBS links are trivial, the latter of which might only establish notability for Azcue, not the company. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—After checking each source individually, I have to agree with Torchiest. Most cited sources are not reliable. Those that are reliable are trivial mentions. The awards and recognitions granted (Inc. Top 1000, etc.) do not, individually, infer notability. They would support notability, if other, independent coverage existed, but on their own... not so much. I would expect that if the company was controversial (as hinted above) that there should be some reliable coverage of the controversy... if something like that is found and added I would change my position, but for now, not enough notability to satisfy the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment I strongly disagree with both Torchiest and Liveitup. The direct selling industry is $25+B, and Direct Selling News is the most well-known and respected publication covering it. So, despite your lack of familiarity, articles in there should not be deemed unreliable. Further, to be named one of the 100 largest direct sales companies worldwide, independent of the publication, should be considered notable. I'm also not sure how being listed as one of the Inc. 5000 isn't notable. However, I found another article from D Magazine that fleshes out the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year nomination for the Founders/Execs. Surely between Inc., D Magazine (a prominent Dallas area publication), and Direct Selling News this passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Additionally, I'm willing to revisit its history and re-instate content you deemed "white-washed out" if that will provide further grounds for keeping it. Virgil06 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Not sure who "you" is, but you can only !vote once in an AfD discussion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Torchiest, I'm definitely in the "novice" editor category and this is the first time I've really been engaged in a deletion debate like this. I thought it was more of a back-and-forth kind of discussion, not a pure vote. My apologies. I was trying to address several of the notes, the "you" referred to None but shining hours' whitewash comment. Looks like since we've been discussing, that Rhode Island Red has been making some edits. It's definitely a shorter stub now, and any of the weaker content that might have been considered WP:PROMO is gone. So given the cross-section of coverage (again: Inc., Direct Selling News, and D Magazine), it definitely should be considered WP:GNG.Virgil06 (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the reasons for deletion stated above by Torchiest and Liveitup. Coverage is fleeting and trivial; sources are questionable. DSN is a lobby organization for multi-level marketing companies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Test seat[edit]

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

Important, but does not qualify as notable. Merge with amusement park. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 18:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the mentioning of a test seat might be relevant in individual amusement ride articles but it certainly doesn't warrant its own article. Themeparkgc Talk 07:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I feel it doesn't deserve much mentioning. If a ride/roller coaster has one of then it can be included in the queue section or something but I agree it is not very notable for its own article.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a simply dictionary definition. Not necessary to have an encyclopedia article on this concept. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Kurbatov[edit]

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

Autobiography with no assertion of notabilty per WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACADEMIC. Article has been speedied three times at Russian Wikipedia: Курбатов. No significant coverage online in English from WP:Reliable sources, and references here in English and Russian are all from blogs or Youtube. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Scopecreep (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI've looked at the references in the article (in translation) and they are not reliable sources. I've also searched for sources and can't find anything that shows he passes our criteria for notability (in fact I can find very little). Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 21-year-old who has apparently been putting together dozens of movie trailers since age 14, all of which he has apparently linked to this WP page. It is not clear that any of these are professional efforts. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage from WP:RS sources. Also fails WP:NOTRESUME. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Sam Rizk and votes below. Materialscientist (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Rizk[edit]

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

Plastic surgeon who has published a couple of journal articles. I don't think he qualifies as notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. —Eustress ^talk 19:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wasn't this taken care of here? Otherwise Delete per nom. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh for gosh sakes, this was just deleted, still doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC/WP:PROF, this time should both be salted? There is nothing in our notability policy on academics that has anything to do with the notion that he meets notability because of a journal article; why was this not speedily deleted and salted ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Sam Rizk. Just one of about a thousand nose job salesman wanting to advertise on Wikipedia. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO. Scopecreep (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep. Wrong place to debate substantive articles. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of marine biologists[edit]

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

This list is entirely incomplete and such a list is better managed through use of existing categories such as Marine biologists on the relevant pages. All of the referenced persons have appropriate category tags. bondolo (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was it your intention to nominate the talk page for deletion? Technically, AfD doesn't have jurisdiction. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is clearly pretty strong consensus that the article should be deleted in its current state, and so it will be deleted. However, there is also a large minority who believe that an appropriate article on this subject could be written, and that this article currently has some good information. Therefore, I'm willing to userfy this article if anyone is interested. Please contact me on my talk page to request. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology in Maryland[edit]

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

Blatant advertising, heavy COI. Seems to wander off topic a lot, sources are questionable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom, should have been speedily deleted IMHO. ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but heavily edit I think the page warrants inclusion, there are a lot of valuable references, etc on the page. It's just a matter of converting it from a press release to a Wiki article. I don't see any reason to shoot the message just because we're upset with the messenger. (That idiom just doesn't have the same ring to it the way I just had to use it...)JoelWhy (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to do it, or are you just going to hope someone else does? And then they hope that someone else does until everyone on the whole project expects everyone else to do it, resulting in NOBODY doing it and the article still being a pile of crap 10 years from now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I volunteer to at least edit out to POV problems (and probably do more than that, as time permits.) However, I'll wait to see if we decide the keep the page or not.JoelWhy (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, why don't you start with Business in Maryland, which was created by the same author in 2009, and still reeks of peacock terms. Shadowjams (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It usually doesn't work that way Joel, it's cash up front in AFD-mart. If it got changed up enough, then people here, including the closing admin, could reconsider their !vote, but the AFD is about the article in its current state, and if the state doesn't change, neither does the discussion. AFDs are for 7 days, that should be enough time. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question do we have pages like Biotechnology in California or Biotechnology in Massachusetts or Biotechnology in New York?--New questions? 19:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the nominator's comments, biotechnology, as a field of science, has little to no relevant ties to particular states. If this article were examining a country, then perhaps its argument could be more cogent and comparative (e.g. what's truly unique or special about the way Maryland contributes to biotechnology in comparison to other states--and I don't think the article argues this point well, if at all). Though some of the information is good, it should be under many different articles about those prominent people it mentions, the technologies, or programs specific to Maryland in articles about their universities or government (and this isn't much of the article, most of it is information covered elsewhere in Wikipedia already or content mentioned by the nominator). Lord Arador (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing wrong with the topic, as shown by the referencing, but we've got quite a pile of junk content. I agree with Ukexpat that this should have been speedied. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional to the extreme, the subject of an ANI discussion, and possible COI. But aside from this particular article, the topic itself can easily be covered in the Maryland article, or Business in Maryland (which incidentally was created by the same author back in 2009), article. The explosion of "[insert industry] in [insert geographical location]" style articles is particularly prone to promotional editing. This just demonstrates that. Shadowjams (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we were going to do an industry-by-location article that would include this intersection, it would be Biotechnology in the United States (which isn't a terrible idea, frankly) rather than this by-state effort, and, more important, it wouldn't look anything like this promotional piece. There are bits and pieces here that would be salvageable for an upmerge if the parent article existed. But it doesn't. Blow it up and start over at the country level, without the salesmanship. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I opined that the article we saw initially at AFD needed to be blown up and started over, and that's pretty much what has happened to it. I'm still concerned about the lack of a parent article for Biotechnology in the United States, and would personally prefer this be merged and expanded to seed an article at that title, but that's an editorial decision, not a deletion decision, so at a minimum, I'm striking my delete !vote. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is so promotional that I was surprised that the speedy was declined. This is a collection of facts rearranged into an advertisement that seems designed to promote investment in Maryland. I really wish that the article's creator would enter into the discussion here, on their talk page, or at AN/I; they are obviously extremely familiar with wiki-markup and what it takes to get an article past new page patrol (notice the careful and thorough preparation of creating everything in a userspace sandbox and then moving the finished product into article namespace) but they seem to fundamentally misunderstand the tone expected for encyclopedia articles. Chillllls (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a possibility that the topic could be covered adequately, but would require complete rewrite from someone who didn't work at the Chamber of Commerce. Sounds like an advert. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC) see below Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib)[reply]
Delete Very, very promotional. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 08:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit. Apologies, everyone. I have only written a few wiki articles and this is my first time facing deletion. My first article, Business in Maryland, has been posted/maintained for three years and not received tags or controversy until now. It received a B-rating and was rated as high-importance on the WikiProject Maryland’s importance scale, so this comes as a surprise. When writing this biotech article, I consulted with subject matter experts, tried to be as neutral as possible and only used facts that could be supported by verifiable sources, listing 50+ citations (links coming today). Upon further review, I realize that there are places where it could be construed as promotional and where more third party sources are needed. Please know this was not my intention to go against community guidelines and I welcome any edits/restructuring, positive or negative. I have already made some edits to try to remove any promotional sounding language.
I think deletion sounds a little extreme with all the effort put into aggregating this data (full disclosure, I am a state of Maryland technical writer but also a journalist and lifelong Marylander). I realize now that my employee status creates a conflict of interest, but on the COI NoticeBoard it says: “Please note that the conflict of interest guideline does not absolutely prohibit subject-matter experts or other people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject.”
Also, just because there are not currently biotech wiki articles for other states doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist. Why shouldn't people be able to learn in-depth about a state/region's key/defining industries and the leaders and history behind those industries? Why aren’t wiki articles like California wine, Wisconsin cheese or Economy of metropolitan Detroit marked for deletion? If further revised, wouldn’t an article like this fit nicely into WikiProject Maryland, “a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia”? Finally, please know it was not my intention to try to circumvent any editing processes or new page patrol. I thought articles should be built into a user’s sandbox before making them live. Thanks for listening and for your insight. Mdbizauthor (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Mdbizauthor - I will assume you have nothing but good faith and intentions: WP:COI also says "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. " It is easy to assume the worst when a COI exists, simply because that makes you correct most of the time. Most COI editors are problematic and care only about their own promotion, not Wikipedia. If you were to continue to add articles here (and I hope you do and learn a little more the proper way to do so) it would benefit you to declare your COI on your user page, and on the talk page of any article you create (making minor edits doesn't need that). This way you invite others to help you convert any "market-speak" into "encyclopedia-speak", and eventually you learn. Otherwise you invite other to question your motives and articles end up in AFD. It isn't personal, we just have a flood of articles with COI issues that are only spam. As I stated above, this article has potential, but would require a complete rewrite. If it is deleted, you can ask for a copy to be userfied (moved to your own user space here and not an official part of the encyclopedia) where you could rework it and perhaps submit at WP:AFC. This is done somewhat regularly. You choice of user name is also borderline in violation of username policy for being promotional in nature, which raises eyebrows when users find an article like this, that looks promotional rather than encyclopedic. Add the two together, and this is why we are here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis. The information you provided is very helpful and I can see how my username is problematic. I will submit a username change request and also note my conflict of interest for others to see. With sections like history, key leaders, discoveries, etc my goal was to write an article that would be of interest to wiki readers, not attract investors to Maryland. I'm sorry if it doesn't appear that way. I am having trouble understanding why it would need a complete rewrite rather than a few tweaks here or there. For instance, the rankings I mention are made from third party independent sources like the Milken Institute and U.S. Department of Labor. I know this article is far from perfect, but there are so many articles out there that are just shells or press releases with no attempts to cite sources and yet they are not marked for deletion. I know my COI poses a red flag, but I wish everyone would take a moment to scroll down to the references section and see all the research that went into this article before dismissing it as a pure promotional piece or "pile of crap." Mdbizauthor (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once you stir up the hornet's nest, they don't settle down easily. Likely, the route I suggested is best, asking the closing admin to userfy, then clean up. Modeling it after other articles here is problematic as there are many here that are just as inappropriate. A better solution is taking that userfied version, go join Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland which will have more experienced editors who also share your interests, and ask them to help you fix it up. Since you have a particular interest in Maryland, this would benefit both you and the project. I belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina myself. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly promotional, not encyclopedic Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started editing out the more clearly-promotional language. There really is some excellent content in this article, and I think it's easier to edit and fix than to recreate from scratch. It clearly needs some more work (and I will continue to work on it.) The article is still clearly pro-Maryland -- I am starting to look for articles that may discuss some of the flaws in the industry, etc to provide some balance. But, the state's known for it's prominence in this industry, so it ultimately will pain MD in a positive light (and I don't plan on adding negative info just for the sake of it to create a false balance.) In any case, I hope that the other editors will review some of the changes and reevaluate their stances. (Please keep in mind that I am the editor who tagged this as POV, and I reported the editor for COI. I did recently move to Maryland, but I honestly have no bias one way or the other about the state or the biotech industry (which is fairly removed from my profession.) I just think the article has some merit.JoelWhy (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joel for taking a step back from the crowd to see that there is some merit to this article and that it's worth salvaging. The criticism has been a little hard to take and quite humbling, but I have learned much through this experience and know I will become a better wikipedian because of it. I appreciate the time you (and everyone) are taking to make this article stronger and look forward to seeing your changes. Mdbizauthor (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a few days in the AFD, ping me and I will look at it again before it closes. Others will if you ask them as well. We aren't here to try to delete everything, it is just that so many new articles are created that are spam and we have to deal with them. Once you have been here a while, you will see what we are talking about. You are communicating in a positive and helpful way, which honestly, makes it very easy to reconsider once the new version of the article is created. A good attitude and non-defensive nature goes a long way here. I still suggest you join the Maryland project, it would be a win/win for you and the project. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed by Mdbizauthor's willingness to come here and engage. I have concerns that we don't have a Biotechnology in the United States article before we start having state specific ones. Certainly the author should be given a chance to userfy the page and work on it. I think the best approach would be to integrate this material into Business in Maryland, while working to clean up some of the promotional tone in that article. Or, alternatively, create a Biotechnology in North America/United States (one of those). Shadowjams (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis and Shadowjams. Dennis, I see your point - I'm sure fighting the spam battle must get old. I will ping you before it closes and truly appreciate you offering to take another look. I have joined the wikiMaryland project, changed my username and declared my COI - thanks for the suggestions. Shadowjams, I also see your point but honestly, the thought of userfying and tearing it down, rebuilding and possibly going through this whole process again makes me weary of even trying. With JoelWhy working on it, I hope we can get a definitive yes or no. As for incorporating it into Business in Maryland, I think we would need to omit sections like history, and possibly discoveries and key leaders, which I think are some of the stronger parts of the piece. I understand your reluctance with this being the first biotechnology piece for a state, but it doesn't mean other states can't follow suit. Would love to learn more about California's or Massachusetts' biotech industry. Biotechnology in the US seems like it would be a massive undertaking. Ferddog (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last suggestion, in any discussion where you have both names showing, like here, you might want to add (I was Mdbizauthor, name change) or something less verbose, just to prevent confusion. After you sig is a good place, not too distracting. Only in discussions where you have already posted in. And no prob on looking again, that is why we all are here, to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and deal with spam the way it should be done, by carefully policing the article. Kt's rather easy, actually, to do this with articles where it might be attracted than when people add mention of their unimprtant company in unexpected places. It is a major part of the economy there; there are reasons; it is a notable center for the business. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Good point, DGG. Biotechnology is big in Maryland due to proximity to NIH and Hopkins, etc. But that shouldn't preclude an article being written about it.

Comment - Thanks to JoelWhy for editing to remove promo sound and making cleaner and tighter. I also made some edits to remove promotional language. New version sounds much better. Those who voted against, please consider re-reading new version and weighing in before tomorrow's close date. Thanks. Ferddog (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (I was Mdbizauthor, name change)[reply]
Keep The concerns I had above have been dealt with, with a fundamental rewrite. The article could still use fine tuning, but is overall a good article that covers the topic in a significantly more neutral manner. I would ask the closing admin to consider the changes in the article from the start to now when closing. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider the topic to be not suitable for Wikipedia. The fact that the content has been improved does not alter that fact. To justify existence they would have to establish that Biotechnology in that state is notable (more notable then in most other states / countries) 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's because biotech is more notable in Maryland than it is in most states. I believe it's ranked #3 in the nation.JoelWhy (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name (band)[edit]

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

Can't see where the group passes WP:NBAND. Article was previously deleted via PROD. The name of the group makes Google searches difficult, as does the name of one of their albums ("Portrait"). Tried searching their second album (which had an article that was speedy deleted). Google returned mostly blogs and sources that would be questionable as RS's. GNews archives got a total of 2 returns, one announcement of the release and something in German(?). Can't find anything on them charting anywhere on Billboard or Allmusic. The article appears to be little more than a venue to promote their MySpace page. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found some mentions of the band (by searching for "Internet Killed The Audio Star") on a couple of heavy metal blogs. Other than that, I found the CD being sold on Amazon, but big deal. So, unless some more notable references appear, I'd say delete.JoelWhy (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established by reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the lack of reliable third-party sources; association with Lifeforce Records doesn't seem enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC 5. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 09:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ClarkHuot[edit]

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

I don't think the sources indicate notability, and given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClarkHuot/Cocoon, it seems unlikely other sources can be found. Another AfD in the WP:AN#Expewikiwriter mess; which now has new users removing prods (such as on this article), just to make it extra annoying. Anyway, fails WP:CORP, and also has issues with WP:NOTADVERT, given it was created by a paid account. 86.** IP (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was initially not sure, but the only remotely decent sources are the first three, and looking at them more closely they are clearly all a hashed out remix of the same press release. Searches in gbooks and gnews turn up nothing. Considering that, there is no way the "multiple sources" requirement of WP:CORP is met (I'm treating all three as one) and therefore it should be deleted. As I imagine that CH may be watching this at some point, have a read/join CREWE. SmartSE (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable and as per previous AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Sales Cabarron[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines due to insufficient coverage. All sources listed are merely directory listings, nothing better found with a WP:BEFORE check. PROD removeed without explanation by article creator. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find enough reliable sources about this lawyer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow, man[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable comic character. A Google search on "Tomorrow, man" "Joe Francis" shows only 23 unique results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete None of these web hits even come close! --SubSeven (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnotable, and I can not find any reliable sources. The only information that comes up upon searching is the comic's own site. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as hoax by User:Malik Shabazz. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualton[edit]

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

Apparent hoax or completely non-notable game. I can find no mention of it in internet search, and it is completely unreferenced. PROD removed by IP. Pol430 talk to me 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fabricated nonsense. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CampingRoadTrip.com[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company and website. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, though I'm not wild about articles with ".com" titles. Perhaps this could be moved to "Camping road trip". The NYT and (WSJ) Smart Money articles are not trivial. The website didn't come up with the notable app, the company did. Wikipelli ^Talk 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep: coverage in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal counters the rationale in the nomination of "Non-notable company and website." The New York Times article is comprehensive, while the WSJ article has a passing mention. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes there's a NY times article but not much else. there needs to be signficant indepth coverage which is lacking. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE I would have PROD'd this for WP:SPEEDY if this discussion weren't already in place. 1. This appears to be an article written by an employee or paid, possible sockpuppet with no other contribs Raimi520. 2. WP:NOTPROMOTION this article is blatant advertising/self promotion. The company is not of the size or had the historical impact to be considered relevant encycolpedic information. Wikipedia should not be an advertising site for every company in existence. The company that created angry birds, yes, this site, NO. Also see my next point.3.WP:NOR/NPOV The bulk of the article is copied from the Editorial columns of the technology writers of the NYT/WSJ. The cited sources themselves are not NPOV, they are "Product Reviews"/Advertisements for different apps.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment, not for nothing, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities that an editor makes his FIRST edit an article worth keeping. I don't see # of edits (or whether or not they edit other articles) a factor. It's entirely possible that the editor was/is an employee. That doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be kept. It's discouraged because of wp:coi, but not prohibited. If there's the suspicion that the article is copied, please tag it as copyvio and let's sort it out. The articles are reviews and the app is described as the best reviewed, that doesn't make it an advert. It's citing a 3rd party that says it's good. I'm not going to stress over it too much but, if the article is deleted, let's do it for valid reasons. Wikipelli ^Talk 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

response Do I really need to reiterate the previous, and obvious issues with notability here? I don't agree with your comment, but I understand where you are coming from. I think it's a horrible idea to let pages like this stand. I like the social aspect and living breathing aspects of a user edited Wikipedia, but this article is contrary to all of the pillars do encyclopedias and Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is not an advertising or log for businesses. if a business is notable, then I would agree it should be included. Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is not written in unacceptably spammy prose. The coverage isn't as in-depth as might be fitting, but it is coverage in reliable secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment It doesn't need to be written in spammy prose, and the sources aren't the big issue, the company has done nothing that is notable. the coverage in those sources doesn't grant it notability. This isn't a company that has made a record selling multi platform app, that has revolutionized camping, or even made a big impact. They like millions of others wrote a smartphone app, that was mentioned in a weekly "hey look at these cool new apps I found" editorials section of reliable sources.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the huge amount of publicity material that this company has churned out makes me wonder if this article didn't originate from that source, and it's not up to us to help them in any way. In my view, two newspaper mentions don't count as "significant coverage" as required by WP:ORG, and after a quick search I can't find any other reliable sources. Being rated by two journos as among the "best of" a tiny niche doesn't count for much either. —SMALL JIM 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Jain[edit]

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

This is, simply put, not a notable person, a few hits and some achievements notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new information to the entry to make it more notable. Let me know your thoughts. jheditorials00:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like she meets the WP:GNG based on multiple independent sources. Given her age and achievements, this article seems like one that will only grow over time. LinkBender (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— LinkBender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's only one source that might be considered both independent and reliable, the Leaders Online article about her father, where there's a short paragraph on her. I say "might be considered" because the author is from a pr company. Looks like the source is a drummed-up pr piece. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and lack of independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyn Elek[edit]

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

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}}.

Non-notable musician. Other than his own website, only reference is an interview on his hometown's website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Up and coming musician. Needs to get beyond that state of "up and coming", however, in order to meet WP:GNG. Good luck, Aksyn. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Can't you simply correct the page, rather than delete it? The cited sources are genuine. Blackdrone (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)blackdrone — Blackdrone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion for musicians. Elek doesn't appear to meet these criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackdrone, I sought for resources that would meet our guidelines, and could find none. There is nothing to correct. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - bringing over a comment from the talk page for this AFD: --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not consider modifying the article (Aksyn_Elek), instead of deleting it? The guy might not be as famous as Trent Reznor, but what's stated on the article seems to be true and factual. Also, please check these articles: http://aksynelekpress.blogspot.it/?view=magazine . Thanks for your time. Kharmapolice (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)kharmapolice — Kharmapolice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Link here goes to an image of a news article in Italian. I think it is about him, and may be a review, but, well, only Italian I speak is at the local food joints. Anybody 'round here speak Italian? =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Based on the link provided by Kharmapolice (an SPA editor, by the way), the blogspot image is a capture of a page of a local newsletter originally posted here. What this says is that Elek might be a bit of a sensation around town, but our criteria run a little higher than that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, Dan. ~~Problem with WP:LOCAL~~. My !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wait, that's for places. My bad... =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete the article on Aksyn Elek is a great modern music and has created a new genre of music. I say no to the elimination of the page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granpistau (talk • contribs) 13:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Granpistau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please see WP:AADD and WP:GNG, as well as WP:MUSIC for your answer. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Addendum - please see WP:ILIKEIT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three redlink SPAs contributing to an AfD rings alarm bells, but even though local notability is still notability, the weak sources provided aren't enough, and on the face of it the subject fails WP:MUSIC at the present time. A definite candidate for a reconstructed article if/when he takes the next step towards notability, but not quite there yet. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 15:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Sorry, but you appear to be wrong. On the link provided by Kharmapolice there is more than 1 article. As you can see at: 1) http://aksynelekpress.blogspot.it/2012/04/article-about-aksyn-elek-by-patrizia.html 2) http://aksynelekpress.blogspot.it/2012/04/article-about-aksyn-elek-by-fabrizio.html 3) http://aksynelekpress.blogspot.it/2012/04/article-about-aksyn-elek-on-la-voce.html . Furthermore, the first 2 here, are important Italian newspapers. Just google La Riviera and Il Secolo XIX and you will see (the last one even shows up on wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_Secolo_XIX ). You also have the article/interview at Bordighera.net , a review by Matthew Forss, the record labels's pages. He produced 2 studio albums, both of which you can find regularly published on a lot of sites, with positive feedback. What I'm trying to say is that you could redefine the article's asset, but imho there's no need to delete this one. Avengingcheetah (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Avengingcheetah — Avengingcheetah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment And now it's four redlink SPAs... Everything you mention other than the newspaper coverage is irrelevant to WP:MUSIC, but the newspaper articles are the most convincing thing yet. Il Secolo XIX seems to be a local paper, and I can't find anything about the other two at all (Googling "La Riviera" as you suggested brings up lots of restaurants, as well as media in the Californian town of La Riviera, but even using modifiers like newspaper, Italia, Ventimiglia I still find nothing on the first six or seven pages of hits); they look like articles covering him because he's a young musician from the area, not because he's inherently notable. But then I don't speak Italian and I'm at the mercy of translation software. It is noticeable the biggest articles all date from the end of 2010, as though Aksyn had sent press releases to all the local papers at around that time to plug his album. Also, pieces where the musician talks about themselves are usually excluded from WP:MUSIC 1 - what do others think? ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 09:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can suspect whoever you want - I don't really care - but here are the sites for La Riviera Newspaper: http://www.riviera24.it and http://lariviera.netweek.it The fact that in the articles are sometimes cited the subject's words doesn't imply that it's all from his mouth. Avengingcheetah (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Avengingcheetah — Avengingcheetah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What is presented does not convey notability. Appearance of a name in a newspaper does not mean the subject is notable, nor does publication in a copy of a newsletter (as per the image found in the Blogspot article above). What we need are data from reliable sources that demonstrates that Mr. Elek meets our notability guidelines - and a general rule, in this context, is that a given article needs to have something more than details that he is appearing at an event, again as per that newsletter. Or, in a nutshell, something needs to have him as a primary subject - and not in an editorial section of a newspaper, either. Whether the newspapers you link to are reliable sources is left as an exercise at this point (at least, to me), but is there anything that shows the notability as per what we are looking for? If the answer is yes, then show us and put it in the article about Mr. Elek; if not, then this would be a case where it's simply too soon for him to be up here, and he has to go for now. (Conversely, on that note, if he makes it into that range, then yeah, we'd be happy to have him on here.) I would also like to note, at this time, that this is not a majority "vote", this is a discussion to lead to a consensus as to whether to keep the article, and the arguments given in all four votes do not demonstrate how he is notable. To distill it down, if he is notable, spend less time arguing why you think he should stay in spite of our concerns, and more time finding why he is notable (and accordingly showing us). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass MUSICBIO, no independent coverage, sadly Wikipedia is seen as another promotional platform alongside Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, MySpace and other user-generated ~~tat~~ websites. There is even a video clip on NME.com [34] which is just a YouTube feed! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the four SPAs have been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:BAND. Outside of personal sites, there's not really enough out there about this individual to establish signifigant notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make Me Famous (band)[edit]

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

Band who appears not to be notable. Lacks multiple releases on an important label. Sources are primary or are not reliable sources. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, I didn't find anything good. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band is signed to Sumerian Records, a popular record label with bands such as Asking Alexandria and I See Stars signed. They also have a full length album released on the label and they have 79,000 likes on facebook, showing that they are reasonably popular. I don't think this should be deleted. 20:36, 31 March 2012 (GMT)

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Sweetleaf Miller[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. None of the references gives substantial coverage, and only one gives more than a single passing mention. He appeared in a reality TV show, and in a film so obscure that neither the film, nor its director, nor any of the three other members of the cast has a Wikipedia article nor, so far as I can see, any evidence anywhere of notability. And that's it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being a reality show contestant is not in itself sufficient for notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Markazi Imambargah Shah e Najaf[edit]

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

No reliable sources, no relevant non-Wikipedia Google hits: Content is unverifiable, topic probably non-notable. Article was prodded for those concerns, but the only source added when the prod was removed was a primary source, probably not reliable, that cannot bestow notability. Huon (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved to Shah e Najaf which generates much more Google hits, but unfortunately still no reliable sources relevant to this Imambargah. If the article were to be kept, disambiguation would probably require a more specific title since "Shah e Najaf" seesm a common name for various religious centres. Huon (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have tried my best to address your concerns because I also believe in authenticity of an article for the viewers. I appreciate your concern that the name "Shah e Najaf" refers to various other religious centres, but I should be encouraged that, I brought up this Shah e Najaf on wikipedia along with its entire information of where it exists. No disambiguation will occur because this place is Central place whereas other articles, if published, will have to use specific titles in future. I have clearly mentioned its existence in the main city of Hyderabad, Sindh. I have mentioned Shah e Najaf as "Markazi Imambargah" which means central Imambargah in the city of Hyderabad, Sindh and as well as Pakistan. Therefore it is requested to remove the tag for deletion from this article. Thanks.--Shahenshahkillz (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Shah e Najaf, Hyderabad per Huon's concern. --SMS ^Talk 09:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. I am unable to find a reliable source for the subject article. --SMS ^Talk 09:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. This article has got some reliable sources.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of DC versus Marvel card sets[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find no reliable sources, prod removed as a potential merge candidate but i see nothing that is mergeable. Delete Secret ^account 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At a push you could merge with DC vs. Marvel but not sure what value this list brings. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sustainable design. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emotionally Durable Design[edit]

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

There is a question as to whether this neologism warrants an article; perhaps a merge to the academic's article is more appropriate? Ckatz^chat _spy 17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sustainable design. The article is a bit of a mess right now, but there does seem to be some coverage of the term in the literature that is independent of Dr. Chapman. It looks like emotionally durable design is a method of achieving sustainable design; I'm not sure there's enough out there to warrant a separate article. 98.245.42.127 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rehash the article. I think it is notable enough and there is sufficient material to justify its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its an important topic and already well written. Deleted or not, a subsection in Sustainable Design should be created for this topic, however I think its also deserving of its own article. Separate from the primary academic associated it with, there are several design practitioners working with these principles, albiet with some overlap to emotional design.+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with sustainable design. This looks to be almost entirely one person's pet theory, which might be worthwhile as a subsection of the greater concept, but reads like a promotional piece on its own. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested. if someone without COI wants to expand this is to a not promotional article, they can do so, if there are enough third part refs--which at the moment seems doubtful. Academics and businessmen and advertisers are always look for clever renames of common concepts, but that they are usually not separately notable, very few ever make substantial impact. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Sanders (DJ)[edit]

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

No reliable, third party sources, and no indication why a DJ on a non-notable internet radio is notable. Biglulu (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable 13 year old internet DJ. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSLA[edit]

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

There does not seem to be any such thing as a JSLA, no mention of it on Sports Leaders UK web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listmeister (talk • contribs) 27 March 2012

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some brief online references in minor publications; this is typical. Further search will probably turn up other similar stories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm forced to agree with starblind in this one. You would certainly think that this site would be notable and perhaps it is in a real world sense. I almost closed this "no consensus" but unfortunately, Colapeninsula's analysis of the sources used to attempt to demonstrate notability has pushed this to the "delete" side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informed Consent (website)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page does not obviously meet notability requirements; I think it fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Only two references are not self references. One is a mention in an article not about the article's subject and the other is used to reference information which does not indicate notability of the article's subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral it certainly appears notable, given the large member count and how decisive the previous AFD was. That said, the sourcing IS very poor, and I can't find much better either (there's this, but it isn't much) and may not pass WP:WEB. I'd probably be leaning toward delete if better sources can't be found by the end of AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haven't found any sources that help article pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB. How did all of those WP:ILIKEIT arguments in the previous AfD slip by and result in a keep? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secondary source coverage including those cited in prior AFD. — Cirt (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I request that you point to a source which establishes the notability of the subject? I am not seeing secondary source coverage in the previous RfD. I do see secondary sources listing this site among others, but those sources seem to not be about this article's subject. What are you seeing? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, as Cirt points out. Also, The Rough Guide to Sex describes the website as "The UK's leading online BDSM society". —Tom Morris (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same request as Bluerasberry above. Please point to the sources that establish said notability, as there is no visible secondary source coverage from the previous AfD.. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the earlier AfD do not establish notability. The Dubliner and Beckmann article both simply include the site's name and URI in a list of similar websites, and the Rough Guide to Sex lists it in a directory-style format with a one-sentence summary. Previous AfD keeps seemed to be mainly supported by fans of the website, but with an alexa.com ranking of 101,555 it's not exactly the most popular site on the web. It's a shame to delete this article on an helpful and inclusive sex-related site when there are 1000s of uninformative articles about porn stars that meet WP guidelines, but that's the way policy goes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems[edit]

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

This article reads like an advertisement. It contains very little verifiable information, and the only references and external links provided point to the topic organization's own webpage. RDavi404 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mrunal Jain[edit]

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

Article has been deleted and recreated several times. The last deletion was noted as having followed a deletion discussion, but I am unable to uncover that discussion (perhaps with a different spelling?). In any case, I've tried to find reliable source coverage and am unable to locate significant coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Am unaware of an earlier AFD, or how long ago it might have been... so for sake of discussion, let's pretend this is the first. He seems popular enough in India so that when he was seen buying jeans, he was "mobbed" by his fans.[35] And searches show he has recieved some coverage for his work in such reliable sources as MSN India, Times of India, Mumbai Mirror, Indya.com, Deccan Chronicle, and Daily News & Analysis.[36][37] and did star in such as Hitler Didi.[38] and several other notable projects, so it might be arguable that though weak on WP:GNG, he has verifiability showing he pushes at WP:ENT. Unfortunately, Indian news media quite often uses a short format for reporting of what is of note to their country, and while offering verifiability of his works, such short and to-the-point blurbs are not seen as being substantial coverage. I know that notability is not dependent upon brief mentions, but even if in reliable sources and short and to the point, do we then automatically dismiss them as "trivial" simply because of that format being the India media's preferred way of reporting? A thought-provoking question? Perhaps. I am reminded that the spirit and the letter of the notability guidelines are concerned with having sources offering enough content for us write articles from a neutral point of view. So even if short, do the available sources provide us with enough information to do just that... confirm his work and write a neutral article? Worth a ponder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless women in the United States[edit]

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

Reason BobSutan (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking citations throughout the article.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 2. Snotbot t • c » 17:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of references isn't a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, there ARE references, and many more to be found. They are not currently in the article as inline citations, but the criteria for deletions is that there is not reasonable expectation that citations CAN BE FOUND.

These references:

Arangua, Lisa; et al. (2005). "The Health Circumstances of Homeless Women in the United States". Volume 34, Issue 2. International Journal of Mental Health. pp. 62–92. Retrieved April 2, 2012.
Richards, Rickelle; et al. (May 5, 2011). "Health Behaviors and Infant Health Outcomes in Homeless Pregnant Women in The United States". Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved April 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Butler, Sandra S., 1957. Middle-aged, female and homeless.
Bulman, Philip Michael. Caught in the mix.
Arrighi, Barbara A. America's shame.

...are already in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Homelessness in the United States 64.42.240.5 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Distinct topic with unique, separate issues despite overlap. Numerous government studies [39], [40], (same study) [41], [42]] with different, sometimes separate resources. Dru of Id (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding [43] . Dru of Id (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Homelessness in the United States, perhaps as its own major subsection, following extensive source clean-up and style clean-up (citation needed tags seem to have been placed). Disagree with Dru of Id, as this topic is indeed distinct but carries too many overlaps with general homelessness in the US, and would benefit from that page's context as a framing for women's issues re: homelessness in the US. In other words, keeping the current page necessitates redundant content. Devmage (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I note that there are 36 sentences in the article, and 30 tags for citations etc. Someone has gone to considerable trouble to add citation tags, and gone to no trouble at all to find citations. I do not think this is an editing style that benefits Wikipedia. Anarchangel (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of that was my doing, but many of the tags were already there when I got here. For personal reasons, I don't at the moment have the time to clean up the article myself, otherwise I'd have done more with it than just mark it up for citations. Devmage (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for saying so. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation. This is a sourcing catastrophe and the piece is going to have to be rewritten from scratch to get it sourced out to current standards. This IS, however, an encyclopedic topic. Right now, though, this is almost a parody of Wikipedia at its worst — a collectively written, rambling, unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make more neutral. Right now the article seems to say that it is lack of government programs that cause the problem. Divorce, drug problems, and zoning laws are not mentioned as causes. Clearly a notable topic from coverage in sources. On the other hand it could be merged to a general article on homelessness in the US. Borock (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Distinct topic from its parent article (Homelessness in the United States), which is certainly long enough to warrant this sort of spinout. That said, great googly moogly this needs cleaned up... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. This is a topic that deserves its own article...though the article needs serious cleanup, AFD is not the way to go.Smallman12q (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Viz (comic). ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 20:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fru T. Bunn[edit]

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

Not notable, redirect undone for no reason. only sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viz (comic) - I can find no reliable sources about this character; he is not notable beyond the comic book he is from. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC's University Challenge expects the nation's finest minds to know this stuff. We can't have our young readership being sneered at by Jeremy Paxman for their ignorance. Warden (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete hardly anything comes up in gnews. Only one decent source of BBC. But no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a lot of poorly/uncited articles on Viz strips.--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of poorly referenced articles for any comic. The Viz ones are at least better written. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jeremy Paxman Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jeremy Paxman. That's what notability has come down to? A trivia question on a TV show mentioned briefly in a seven question quiz of popular comic culture by BBC? I'm searching and seeing nothing significant. I certainly am not finding anything which could be arguably construed as meeting IRS. Perhaps offline sources can be found. BusterD (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi military plane crash[edit]

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

Sad but not notable Military accident. Doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria ...William 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -...William 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -...William 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -...William 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tragic incident but ultimately, alas, not notable per WP:GNG(WP:PERSISTENCE)/WP:AIRCRASH. Military aircraft crash regrettably often, and most incidents are not notable. No persistant coverage, no Wikinotable people involved, no significant changes to procedures confirmed. Would suggest merging to the regiment's page but that's a redlink, so... (It should be noted the crash is already mentioned in the Thanh Tri District article, which is appropriate coverage for the event.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - one sentence mention can be added to Vietnam People's Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable military accident, no reason it cant be listed at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) but doesnt need a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the other delete !vote comments; I can see no reason to mention this accident in the People's Air Force article so no need for a Redirect. YSSYguy (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; also, I've added a mention to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) as recommended above. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 12:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Spirit Flight 321[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This should be a speedy delete. A 2009 AFD debate ended in a delete result. Since then an editor created the article again. Not notable incident per WP:AIRCRASH ...William 15:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -...William 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -...William 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy deletion under G4 SvenWills (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As a recreation of an article that was previously deleted at WP:AFD this need not go though AFD again. I have nominated it for speedy deletion under G4. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ford (soccer)[edit]

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

PROD contested by User:Smartyllama with the explanation "Ford has been covered in several notable sources regarding his play with the Sounders. He was also a conference champion in college." However, the five references currently present in the article appear to be routine sports coverage and are not sufficient to make the article pass WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage is routine and has not made his pro debut yet. Giant Snowman 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a multiple-time All-American athlete in college and plays for a top-level team. First-team All American qualifies for notability under Wikipedia:NSPORT#College_athletes. Smartyllama (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. SvenWills (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | talk _ 14:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until he makes his MLS debut, then repost - per guidelines at WP:FOOTY. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bollygraph[edit]

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

Unnotable site. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Secret of success 13:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant third party coverage. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB SvenWills (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable website. The site itself also seems newbie, hasnt even covered all films of 2011. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not so notable. No significant coverage about the article could be found. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk that talk tour[edit]

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

Tour won't even start for another year (WP:TOOSOON). ... discospinster _talk 12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Future event with no significant information available, nothing beyond routine coverage (if that), and any announcements would be subject to change. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as well. This will probably be notable in 2013 (or, subject to changes, whenever the tour begins), but I can find no evidence that it is notable at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SRI THENKALAI SRINIVASA PERUMAL KOIL[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be especially notable. JoelWhy (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arguably speedy delete A1 (no context). I'm pretty sure it's a temple in southern India, but the content we have here sure doesn't tell me that. There's not really enough here to even start trying to assert notability, and the spelling problems don't help. I cannot find anything for "Sri Thenkalai Srinivasa Perumal Koil", but since the article misspells Muthialpet as "Muthailpet" (and I'm dubious about "Alarmelmangai Thaiyar" too), I can't even guarantee that I'm searching for the right thing here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything of note could be just added to the already existing mention at Muthialpet, Pondicherry. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava Open[edit]

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

Not clear what sport it is, no context, no sources, hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some digging on Google seems to indicate that this is a World Table Hockey tournament.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 12:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User seems to be heavily promoting table hockey in numerous articles, but it's not a mainstream sport with significant media coverage. Might just be a few guys in a bar. Probably not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So obscure even its creator doesn't know who most of the competitors were. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major tournament for a sport, just needs formatting cleanup. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Championships_%28Table_Hockey%29 for my other arguement.GuzzyG (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT in every respect. I'm glad people are having a good time and getting satisfaction out of this, but the standards here are GNG and EVENT. This subject meets neither. BusterD (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Cup[edit]

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

Not clear what sport it is, no context, no sources, hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another table hockey entry from TH guru. No media coverage. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very poor entry Oxy20 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major tournament for a sport, just needs formatting cleanup. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Championships_%28Table_Hockey%29 for my other arguement.GuzzyG (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs far more than just a cleanup. It needs a rationale to keep. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. BusterD (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tallinn Cup[edit]

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

Not clear what sport it is, no context, no sources, hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another table hockey entry from TH guru. No media coverage. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major tournament for a sport, just needs formatting cleanup. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Championships_%28Table_Hockey%29 for my other arguement.GuzzyG (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources mostly seem to refer to other types of events (curling, skating) by this title. Fails GNG and EVENT. Page creator seems to be promoting the sport using Wikipedia. I see no way of keeping. BusterD (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic event. Not clear what sport it is. No evidence the sporting event was notable. 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Professional Hockey League[edit]

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

League that has yet to even have a single team confirmed. It was supposed to start this season and did not and now they are saying next season. Not notable at this time and it would be WP:CRYSTAL at this point to have an article. It has been proded a couple of times and really should have been deleted by prod again this time but since an admin objected its at Afd. DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Synopsis: a guy is going around telling local new stations he's thinking about putting a team in their empty arena. He also has a nice website. Recreate if and when this league drops the puck. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, didn't happen yet WP:CRYSTAL SvenWills (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TP says it all, and we're here to report the facts, not to serve as an advertising vehicle. Ravenswing 19:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 01:37, 17 April 2012 Ponyo (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Darko Dimitrovski (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): borderline G10: wholly negative unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Dimitrovski[edit]

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

No sourced claims to WP:notability. Only references appear to be a CV and a company website. Neither mention TV, Poker. noq (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this a hoax/joke? "the inspiration behind the Macedonian version of The Beverly Hillbillies on K15 TV" sounds very implausible, but maybe I'm wrong. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking very like a hoax now - editor has just changed it to remove TV and Chocolate factory clain and replaced it with being a "football hope". noq (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the contributor (who is by the way, the subject of the article) can decide if he is a "football hope" or a "television personality and chocolate factory executive", or something else entirely. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the dog's mouth[edit]

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

Self-published book (presumably not really by the dog...) with no references, and not on release until April 21st. Enough there to avoid CSD for content or context, in my opinion, but no notability or significance shown. Peridon (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the 'publisher' is Fastpencil Wavecrest. There is another Wavecrest in publishing, which appears to be Dr. Gerald Aronoff's personal imprint, marketing only his books on pain relief. Fastpencil are in the same line as Lulu and AuthorHouse. Peridon (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteInsufficient coverage to make the book notable for now.JoelWhy (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:Notability (books). That guideline states specifically that "Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged", but even when published it is unlikely that this will meet WP:BK#Criteria any time soon. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant content on page. Not notable per above comments. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just nothing to show that this is notable in the here and now. It's possible that it might eventually gain notability when it is published, but we can't keep something around because it might eventually become notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even a claim of importance. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theatres in Latur[edit]

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

List on non-notable movie theatres and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a good use of Wikipedia: we can't have a list of every business in every town in the world (if this information really has to be here, it could go in the article on Latur). I'm also slightly confused by the claim that the first cinema opened in 1959 and the first film was shown in 1961. It must have been a long, boring queue. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely purposeless and unsourced as well as a violation of WP:DIRECTORY and an orphan. Secret of success 06:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTDIR. The topic isn't particularly notable as a stand-alone article. Some of the verifiable information could be included in the Latur, India article's Media and communication section, though. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Ealing. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 20:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church C of E Primary School[edit]

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

Looks like a private school without much notability unto itself. It's unclear as to whether there is an article on the church. If there isn't, it can be created if it meets criteria, and if there is, it warrants a redirect. Barring these, the best bet, I think, is deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable elementary school. If existence can be confirmed and a target identified, redirection would be better, per our standard practice for such things. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Ealing - non-notable primary. Fmph (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close, article was put under G11 before I twinkle'd the AFD. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Squash TM[edit]

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

Software project. No notability here. Article seems somewhat promotional. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Peto[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Which of the criteria of the entire notability guideline page WP:PROF does this individual supposedly "fail?" See also WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:NOREASON and WP:Not notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Full professor at one of the world's leading universities, University of Oxford, seems to meet WP:PROF. However there is almost no information about him online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a specialist in infectious diseases at an important university, was cited by many reliable and notable sources: [44]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep Meets WP:PROF -- anyone in this position is an expert in their field, and the citation record proves this. Though the article is incomplete, AfD is not necessary for improving it. The citations in Google Scholar [45] meet WP:PROF. Citation counts f highest cited articles : 441, 413, 303, 281, 277, 253, 157, 127, 153, 148, 137, 129, 112, 105, 101 .... in Nature, BMJ, NE J Medicine -- the highest quality possible journals. h=44. The many articles shown above in google probably meet the the GNG as well. Expert not just in AIDS vaccine research but in malaria treatment and thalassemia. The nom. actually listed this for speedy A7! (I consider that speedy in particular as reckless to the point of being disruptive, since even if one completely rejects WP:PROF and completely rejects the very idea of WP:BEFORE, the article indicates at least some importance) This a particularly absurd nomination, done without the merest semblance of due care, and without any reasonable judgement. That an established editor at Wikipedia should nominate for deletion someone of his stature is to our discredit, and is the sort of thing that makes us look absurd in our indifference to serious subjects in the world. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument of the extremely-fired-up-about-this DGG. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets our notability guidelines. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are an encyclopaedia for goodness sake, not a Who's Who of the academic community! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unsure why it was thought to fail WP:PROF, although it would be useful to add some content to demonstrate his notability. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike DGG, I don't automatically assume that a professor at Cambridge is automatically notable, but all the same, I'd be baffled if it weren't so. WoS is down at the moment, but even taking the usual overcounting by GS into account, the citation data on Peto are impressive. I'm surprised by the reaction of the nom: first it is claimed that Peto fails WP:PROF, then when the opposite is shown, we get a complaint about not being Who's Who. Actually, we are a who's who of the whole friggin world: anybody notable should have an article here, that's what an encyclopedia (and a real Who's Who, not the vanity things out there) should be about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a bit of an odd case, because although he clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 it seems very difficult to source any of his professional history. However, I think there's enough about his research in the popular press (i.e. newspapers) to pass WP:GNG as well. I've added some of those sources to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Per User:DGG's impressive rationale. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this article will be removed from Wikipedia, because the individual is notable, particularly per WP:PROF, criteria #1, and to a lesser degree, #5. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J&P Cycles[edit]

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

Delete. Wikipedia is not a business directory! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable company, it is possible to write a decent and well sourced article about them. [46]. The article has potential. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was pretty skeptical about it at first, as we usually dodelete small businesses like this, but I think it is actually a notable company per the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a business directory! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alan - The Wikipedia Articles for deletion page^[1] suggests under the section "How to Contribute...The following practices should be avoided..." - "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." Please help me in understanding what specifically about the article does not meet GNG? HDUltra89 (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further the same article/guidelines^[2] goes on to say "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." - which you have done here. This isn't meant as a personal attack but rather prompt to help me understand what is not acceptable. Repeating that WP is not a business directory is not a valid argument. There are many businesses on WP and that shouldn't be the basis for whether this article is kept or deleted but rather the article meets WP guidelines. HDUltra89 (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same argument for Motorcycle Superstore to delete was put forth and it was kept. This one has similar merits --Bil Simser (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the ties to the Harley Davidson community, as well as motorcycle culture in general, in conjunction with the involvement with the National Motorcycle Museum are sufficient to justify the article's existence. --Caljerm (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*~~Keep~~ Snow keep. Notable company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- what is "snow keep" (I've lurked on WP for some time but have to admit this is the first time I have seen this term)? HDUltra89 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check out Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janna Cachola[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOT, not notable in New Zealand or Phillipines. Does not meet WP:RS and probably self promotion as editor creating the article and removing the WP:PROD are not registered and have only been involved with this article. NealeFamily (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems promotional and may have been created by people close to her, and there's a wordpress site as reference? Already runs afoul of EL. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 07:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability apparent from references or New Zealand context. I don't have the skills to search for Philippine context or non-English references, ping my talk page if they're added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant to Philippine readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki9871434 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wiki9871434 you and your friends need to declare your interest in creating the article WP:COIN and provide any information to support Cachola's notability. Calling something relevant without supporting evidence does not make Cachola notable. So far the only claim to notability is based on association with notable people and that doesn't count. Cachola looks like she is at the early stage of her career and may possibly become notable. Until she crosses the notable threshhold, she is outside the range for Wiki. Take a look at WP:NOT and WP:Notability (people) as it might prove helpful. NealeFamily (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also looking at the recent sources added - you need to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as well. Only two out of all those listed and recently added would be considered reliable. NealeFamily (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to vote, but contrary to what was said here, she is not relevant to Philippine readers (if "Philippine readers" refers to readers residing in the Philippines). Not by a long shot. –H T D 19:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - note that the 2010-2011 round of productions of Miss Saigon was by local non-professional music theatre societies (who syndicate major items like set and costumes between them) and in no way would confer notability. dramatic (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abbai Gari Pelli[edit]

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

notability issue - WP:SIGCOV - There is no significant coverage of this movie anywhere. No significant reviews. Most Google search results turned up online videos. Does not meet any parameter listed for WP:MOVIE. --Wikishagnik (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. Secret of success 06:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 06:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any evidence this film exists. Looked at the IMDB page of the supposed star, Suman, and there's nothing that comes close to this title. --Oakshade (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No, and I am in agreement that the article adds nothing to Wikipedia. But hey. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smt MMK College of Commerce & Economics[edit]

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

Delete. A bad article about a small private college with a typo in the article name. Yet another article sullying the reputation of Wikipedia. This article is in fact single-handedly dragging Wikipedia down to the level of being a free-for-all - and indeed a free advertising service for all and sundry. What next? An article on some tin pot university such as Harvard? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not necessary for improving articles. All universities with a real existence have always been considered notable. The list of notable people was a little absurd, , and has been removed, and I've fixed up the spelling error in the title. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following the page move by DGG, RHaworth speedied the redirect (from the "Commerse" spelling) R3. I've corrected the links from this AFD to the page in question so that it no longer appears this article was speedied. The AFD itself is still at the "Commerse" spelling, and the AFD notice on the page still links to that correctly! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, we all agree that AfDs are not for improving articles, and my comments about the quality of the articles is in itself not the reason for listing the article here. That said, AfDs can and should be used to shape the content of WP. IMO articles about private colleges is not needed in an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia should impart knowledge. The article in question is information. To further clarify these loosely used words: Education in India is knowledge, List of colleges in India would impart information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is not a stand-alone university, but an "affiliated college" of the University of Mumbai. There are ... a lot of these. According to the university website, 354 of them, in fact. This one can be found on the list of Banking Insurance and Account & Finance colleges, where it (under its full name Smt. Mithibai Motiram Kundnani College of Commerce & Economics) is #60. The controlling guideline suggests that these are not innately notable, although a list of them in the aggregate is warranted. That list should probably be at Colleges of the University of Mumbai (note that the existing List of colleges in Mumbai does not distinguish these from independent colleges in Mumbai and so represents something different ... and needs cleanup, badly). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you quoted is for "faculties, constituent academic colleges, or academic departments". This is an affiliated college, not a constituent college, so it does not apply. The one which is relevant is this one: "In general, all colleges and universities are notable". --Muhandes (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a college, the existence of which is well established. While I personally do not like it a single bit, all colleges with established existence are considered notable. I corrected the title and added just a bit and it now does not look much worse than the other 1,010 other stub articles we have in Category:India university stubs. If you want to go against the practice to consider every college notable, you'll have my support, but not by AfDing them one by one. --Muhandes (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an affiliated college to, but independent from, the University of Mumbai since experience shows that degree awarding institutions have, with sufficient research, enough sources to meet WP:ORG. As with most such Indian bodies to avoid WP:BIAS time should be given to find and research local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuity (short film)[edit]

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

Student film for which I cannot find any significant discussion in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. I can't find any coverage. Almost nobody cares about short films, which may be sad, but unfortunately means there's very little info on even the best of them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like most student films, non-notable. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this short film recieves a notable award, or receives significant coverage in reliable sources, we might consider its return. I might have suggested a return to its author, but as the film's director is Michael Matzur and the article was created by User:Mmatzur, I have a concern with the distinct appearance of WP:COI... and toward THAT, I have left the author a caution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, I'd say delete it. (Mmatzur (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Minor league baseball player with a clear consensus that he fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Pichardo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Former minor league baseball player; his highest level played was Class AA. The subject doesn't appear to meet WP:BASE/N. The previous afd resulted in a decision to redirect and merge, but now that he's no longer active, there doesn't appear to be any obvious redirect target. BRMo (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. BRMo (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to how trivial we consider these sources to be.[47][48][49][50]. I say delete; it's not enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Alex (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with deleting this, but I wish someone could explain how this guy is non-notable after YEARS of minor league baseball while Matt Barnes, Jason Krizan, and Cody Martin (three pending AfDs) are considered notable, despite little or no professional experience. If anyone really believes Pichardo has received less coverage than these other three, they haven't looked very hard. — NY-13021 (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Professional experience isn't a factor, though length of career could mean a greater chance of meeting GNG. Pichardo's career apperas pretty nondescript, receiving coverage only for a minor trade and a drug suspension. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not convinced by this rationale at all. Pichardo has received coverage in Reuters, MLB.com, USA Today, etc. Meanwhile, the coverage of Barnes, Krizan and Martin is almost exclusively local or regional. I know you created those three pages and want them kept, but this is a substantial change of standards here. There's no way Pichardo is less notable than those other three (and I'm in favor of deleting Pichardo). — NY-13021 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources appear to be on the trivial side, meaning that they don't discuss him at length, and only in the context of a suspension and a trade, which was focused around an established MLB player. The coverage Krizan, Barnes, etc. have gotten focuses on them in some level of depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly. The USA Today articles about Pichardo are basically transaction reports that say little about Pichardo. Barnes on the other hand has several articles discussing him specifically and in depth. And Krizan is an NCAA record holder, which gives him presumed notability even in the absence of demonstrated sources. Rlendog (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BASE/N and the only significant coverage I could find was about him testing positive for performance enhancing drugs (and then being suspended for that). IMO, that is not enough, especially when you take into consideration that this is a BLP. Jenks24 (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Secret ^account 19:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudos to the various editors who greatly improved the article during this discussion. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jane Bashara[edit]

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

does not meet WP:VICTIM, WP:EVENT or WP:PERSISTENCE. all these guidelines trump WP:GNG. yes there was a spike of coverage with the discovery of body and her husband named as person of interest but this is a run of the mill murder. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Death of non-notable person, WP:BIO1E. WWGB (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the article is about the death/murder (not about the victim), the relevant guideline is WP:Criminal Acts, not WP:VICTIM. Here, a search for "Jane Bashara" shows that this criminal act remains the subject of widespread media coverage, and not just locally. Coverage even in the UK (Daily Mail) and ABC and CBS News, for example. The article does need updating to reflect later developments, including the arrest and release of the handyman and other more recent developments. Cbl62 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Jane Bashara" actually comes up with 131,000 google results. While truly remarkable, of course, the number doesn't by itself show the event's notability without delving into the nature of the coverage. After looking, it's clear the case has received deep and persistent coverage in multiple, reliable mainstream media sources, not just locally, but also regionally, nationally (including the national news networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox), and internationally (including International Business Times and the Daily Mail). A tiny smattering of examples of the coverage include: (1) "Now police search home of mistress in probe into murdered marketing executive Jane Bashara, Daily Mail (UK); (2) Grosse Pointe Murder: Joseph Gentz Arrested in Death of Jane Bashara, ABC News; (3) Handyman indicted in murder of Detroit woman Jane Bashara, husband a person of interest, CBS News; (4) Police reportedly eyeing husband in Detroit executive’s murder, MSNBC (Today Show); (5) Jane Bashara Update: Plot Thickens In Murder Case, Huffington Post; (6) Who is Jane Bashara? 5 Things About the Michigan Mother Found Strangled to Death, International Business Times; (7) Handyman charged in strangling death of Detroit marketing executive Jane Bashara, Fox News; (8) Latest developments in Jane Bashara murder investigation, Morning Sun; (9) Grosse Pointe murder: New twist in Bashara case, The Detroit News; (10) [51], The Detroit News; (11) Grosse Pointe Murder: Mistress's House Searched, ABC News; (12) Griem says new person of interest in Jane Bashara's slaying, The Macomb Daily; (13) Suspected accomplice in Jane Bashara's death promised $8k, Cadillac, The Oakland Press; (14) Was Jane Bashara's death a conspiracy? Charge against handyman suggests others involved, Detroit Free Press; (15) Bob Bashara may be charged in wife's slaying, Daily Tribune; (16) Jane Bashara murder: Joe Gentz arrested for death of Grosse Pointe Park mother, Associated Press; (17) After arrest, Jane Bashara murder probe expands, Detroit Free Press; (18) Bob Bashara Hires His Own Investigation Team To Probe Jane Bashara's Murder In Detroit, Huffington Post; (19) Jane Bashara's clothing missing, never turned over to Michigan State Police Forensic Lab, WXYZ TV; (20) Friends honor slain Park woman, Grosse Pointe News; (21) Reactions to the Jane Bashara case go viral, giving ignorance and fear a voice, Grosse Pointe Today; (22) Jane Bashara Found Dead in Her SUV, ABC News; (23) New allegations surface in Bashara murder, Nancy Grace (Headline News); (24) Jane Bashara Murder Mystery Deepens, ABC News; (25) 'A significant roadblock in search for truth and justice': Clothes Jane Bashara was wearing when she was murdered are missing after funeral home 'threw them out', Daily Mail (UK); (26) 'I did not kill my wife': Husband of Jane Bashara faces allegations in new interview, days after prime suspect is released by police, Daily Mail (UK); (27) Man denies murder-for-hire in wife death, CNN; (28) Blood found in Bashara garage, CNN; (29) New allegations surface in murder case, CNN; (30) Investigators question Jane Bashara's children in her murder investigation, MSNBC; (31) Strange twists in case of murdered Detroit executive, MSNBC (Today Show). Cbl62 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:Criminal Acts. And user Cbl63 research finding so many reliable sources which shows it has been receiving continued coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It always makes me sad when more work goes into a notability defense than into the original crappy article itself. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. why don't people bother to improve articles? LibStar (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs improving rather than deleting. If you want to split the work 50/50 on this one, I'd be happy to participate. What do you say? Cbl62 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar -- WWGB and I have begun work on improving the article. Your help would be welcome. Cbl62 (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The murder was mentioned in national news media of 2 countries.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"national news media of 2 countries" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article about a crime and its investigation, and not a bio article, so some of the deletion reasons given by the nominator or others are inapplicable, such as it failing WP:VICTIM, or WP:BIO1E. It satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (events), the applicable notability guideline, with the multitude of instances of extended coverage noted above by Cbl16, starting Jan 26 and continuing through this week, including extended coverage in US national news media as well as British news media. Given this persistent coverage, it is surprising that the nominator says it fails [[[WP:PERSISTENCE]]. The national and international coverage is not just because of the method of murder or the special qualities of the victim. The case has numerous factors which have kept it in the news, such as a reported confession by one person, reported conspiracy charges involving other persons, and the reported existence of a person of interest having a mistress and an "open marriage," reports of a whips and chain SM dungeon, and the police reportedly sending the bloody clothing of the victim to a funeral home along with the victim's body, (where the clothes were destroyed) rather than analyzing the clothing as evidence. Edison (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely reported. Reported not due to the nature of crime but also investigative failures making it potentiallu useful reference material. Possibly rename to Murder 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.729 Hellcat[edit]

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

I found zero sources for this shotgun shell. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Personally, I'm not sure this exists at all. Taking the one-sentence description at face value, it appears to be a .729 slug fitted into a 12 gauge shotgun shell, which isn't exactly possible. The problem is that 12 gauge is .729 caliber. Slugs for use in a 12 gauge shotgun are smaller, between .500 and .629, depending on the size of the jacket and sabot (if a saboted slug). Regardless, I see no evidence of any shotgun ammunition marketed as "Hellcat" nor any ammunition manufacturer by that name. At the least, call it unverifiable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Moseley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James W. Moseley

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

seriously non-notable, like so many other ufologists relies only on references from other related individuals of dubious notability, I should add that some Ufologists are clearly notable e.g Stanton Freidman, however many have simply had no coverage outside a small circle of "researchers" Rationalthinker1 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a biography of him on The Encyclopedia of UFOs by Ronald Story. I found him in the index of Watch the Skies by Curtis Peebles, (which also covers his "Straith letter"), Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story by Kal Korff, UFO Sightings: The Evidence, by Robert Sheaffer, The Roswell UFO Crash, by Kal Korff, and Roswell: Inconvenient Fact and the Will to Believe, by Karl T. Pflock. Those are just books where I found him in the index in just a few minutes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Nominator appears not to understand our notability guidelines and has nominated several articles on notable UFO people in a manner which does not appear to be in good faith. Yworo (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here is a snippet of the encyclopedia biography. There is also Ufo's Are Here. Riddle of Hangar Eighteen has a biography of him which states that he started Saucer News which is among the first UFO publications in the United States. This book shows over 4 pages of a case that he worked on. SL93 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's been involved with the UFO scene for decades; here are a couple of newspaper articles from the 1960s: [52], [53] Zagalejo^^^ 23:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no valid reason given here to delete, there is a fairly signifigant amount of coverage given to back his notablility, I do not feel WP:GNG has been violated here. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice per WP:TNT (has that ever been quoted in a closing rationale?) If this is a real province then we can have an article on it but that article will need to be written by somebody other then User:Kafue Province Advocate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kafue Province[edit]

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

1. notability (topic only in 1 of the 4 refs) 2. non-existing Province (crystal ball) 3. promotional/advocacy 4. userdraft first 5. serious uncited allegations Widefox (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: any way to get this closed, or accelerate, as I'm uncomfortable with aspects of the article (allegation possibly involving living persons) - I don't want to blank/part blank myself as the proposer. (CSD G11 was declined, despite IMHO being covered as advocacy). Widefox (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Where is Uncle G when you need him :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Lebanon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GARBAGE. I don't know how anyone could ever nominate an article like this for deletion under the usual notability guidelines, but this article has been around for 4 years (I know, time doesn't matter), and it's gotten little attention. Isn't anyone embarrassed by the quality of some of the articles here? Anyway, should be an interesting discussion with me as the target. Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced OR, wanders from the topic, incoherent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Keep per addition of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No sources to indicate notability. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Keep, there are sources now. Tone still needs some fixing, but that's more of a reason to rewrite than to delete. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very notable topic easily capable of being improved, as can be seen by Women in Jordan, Women in Israel, and many more. There is no shortage of material on the status of women in Lebanon: Human Rights Watch article OECD article Human Rights Watch report Story on violence against women Amnesty International report and more Lebanon Daily Star article and another Women's Rights Monitor UPI story Arab News story Middle East Report article Social Politics journal article... In what kind of world is this a non-notable topic? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, with no discernible rationale. Sourcing concerns addressed by Colapeninsula. As the other arguments are based on assertions alone, I have no recourse but to assert to the contrary, but I will base mine on facts. Counter-assertions: 1. the article is not OR, 2. does not stray from the topic, and 3. is not incoherent. 1. The article's content matches that of found sources, therefore it is not OR. 2. It does not stray from the topic; it at times delineates women's position relative to that of men by stating the men's position. This could be rewritten if it were necessary. 3. "Incoherent" means absolutely nothing, being utterly subjective, and is unaddressable as an argument. Anarchangel (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are available. If the nominator doesn't like the poor state of the article, there's always Wikipedia:So fix it. As it stands now, there's no reason regular editing can't turn this article around. I've made a couple minor changes to add some of the references found above into the article.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 12:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially now that it has been fixed up. Further work needed though. Shame it needed an AfD to get the work done. Bbb23, I would fully support deletion of an article based solely on a reason poor quality but probably not in this case since it is an article is needed and it was salvageable. And yes, I am embarrassed about the quality - and type - of articles around here. It is a shmae that AfDs are not used to clean out the junk. It seems that virtually all !votes are mode on policy alone. A shame really. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is too much western influenced biased political opinion presented as fact in this article. it assumes things such as the role of women in society and the tolerance of single parenthood in a society as taken from a liberal western point of view to be indisputable facts rather than the opinions of the writer. this article belongs in an opinion piece not in an encyclopedia.

Please look at the "marginalization of women" section for example, not a single citation just the author's opinion taken as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.77.24.246 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Clark[edit]

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

Reason Rationalthinker1 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC) The subject of this articles fails to meat any real notability guidelines, his Encyclopaedia is self-published and any references are not from independent sources rather associated individuals[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he is sufficiently notable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is clearly notable. Yworo (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Individual's article has reliable sources that ultimately corroborate notability. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are all smoke and mirrors, not really reputable or credible awards or references on close inspection, this is promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisellout (talk • contribs) 05:15, April 10, 2012 — Wikisellout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - A most interesting edit history. My sense is that this is a recognized expert in a specific field of study — whether we think it to be bunkum or not. Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flimsy deletion rationale. His books have been published by Touchstone, ABC-CLIO, Visible Ink Press, etc, and are available in many bookstores and libraries. A number of independent references are already cited in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the focus of the article right? It seems his book The UFO Encyclopedia might have more claims to notability than he does. Much of the cited content refers to that. His biography section is unreferenced. Much of the current references in the article are of a poor nature. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many reviews do seem to exist for his other books, but I can only see the abstracts for most of them. Some basic details of his life can be sourced to his Contemporary Authors profile. Zagalejo^^^ 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to leave the reviews you found on the article talk page, perhaps others can get access to have a look. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are dozens of them, but I'll list some of them. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may be notable, but the shameless puffery in the lead cited to such marginal sources as "Saucer Smear" and "Magonia" needs to be toned down quite a bit. And later paragraphs employing moonstruck phrases such as, "Perhaps Clark's greatest accomplishment..." etc. indicate an article in need of some serious copyediting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Webre[edit]

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}}.

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

Reason Rationalthinker1 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)— Rationalthinker1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. All references in this article are from totally non-independant sources that the subject is associated with or non-credible related individuals[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 01:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deletion reason does not appear to be accurate. There appear to be enough reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG.� Yworo (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of this subjects references are actually independant other than a few articles on what are basically blogs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisellout (talk • contribs) 10:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Wikisellout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't find any need for Alfred Webre's page to be deleted . On the contrary , i find it very informative and helpful especially considering all the wonderful work he has done . PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE ALFRED WEBRE WIKI PAGE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.42.116 (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — 87.126.42.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This page is full of relevant information about a public figure. Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.74.31 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — 174.7.74.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Alfred Lambremont Webre does meet the Wikipedia criteria of "notability" The information given is correct.(Should not be deleted from Wikipedia).[reply]

Alfred is in the public light and henceforth: any issues rooted from the movement wishing to dis-credit or question the nobility worth should be expressed in the language of this article, to achieve a neutrality on uncertainty and facts based on verifiable primary sources, and not constitute the removal of this article. Egapdotme (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Jason Page — Egapdotme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

--- From Miss m fox . Alfred Lambremont Webre is a valuable asset to these/our evolving times. Please note his years of service to mankind. "The following international news articles feature international lawyer and Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre and constitute independent sources of "notability".

1. Satanic priests in the Catholic Church? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139422.html

2. US accused of crimes against humanity http://www.presstv.ir/detail/145339.html

3. Lawyer likens Vatican to Roman Empire http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/138328.html

4. KL tribunal convicts two former leaders with ‘crimes against peace’ http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F11%2F23%2Fcourts%2F9959222&sec=courts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.82.218 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

From: Lee Dahle....Las Vegas....Nevada Alfred Lambremont Webre is a valuable asset to these/our evolving times. Please note his years of service to mankind. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139422.html http://www.presstv.ir/detail/145339.html http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/138328.html http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F11%2F23%2Fcourts%2F9959222&sec=courts Alfred does many blogs and is a great person with much to teach the world.

Lee Dahle

From: Sharon King... Missouri,... Alfred Lambremont Webre is a valuable asset to these/our evolving times. Please note his years of service to mankind.

"The following international news articles feature international lawyer and Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre and constitute independent sources of "notability".

1. Satanic priests in the Catholic Church?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139422.html

2. US accused of crimes against humanity

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/145339.html

3. Lawyer likens Vatican to Roman Empire

http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/138328.html

4. KL tribunal convicts two former leaders with ‘crimes against peace’

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F11%2F23%2Fcourts%2F9959222&sec=courts

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermellon123 (talk • contribs) — Watermellon123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---

I believe that Alfred Webre earns a Wiki page simply by virtue of sitting on the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which found George Bush guilty of war crimes. The page has much relevant information about a man who has become a well known public figure by virtue of a lifetime of work, study and research. His other work is certainly substantiated on many levels. His accomplishments speak for themselves. I found his page to be informative and interesting. The deletion criteria does not apply to Mr. Webre's Wiki page.Monahawk (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Monahawk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. An average nonnotable lawyer plus a bunch of kookery. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Is there a wrapper template to hide the chat of ufologists flocked here after canvassing? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have looked at the linked sources above. Press TV is a news network owned by the state-owned media corporation: Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). Iran, to remind you all, is where gay people are executed by hanging in the street. Iran's state-owned media is hardly a reliable/unbiased source of information to support an article about Alfred Webre. I would like to see an article on the Washington Post or any other credible source. John Hyams (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alfred Webre is a published author, since 1974. Has worked to provide insight into subjects, which are only now becoming of interest to a world-wide audience. He is notable for his books, radio interviews & public lectures on the subject of Exopolitics. Growing international interest in Exopolitics should be evidence enough to Keep this article. Wiki's own policies and guidlines are fullfilled in the area of Notability, with regard to Alfred Webre. Also, Wikipedia deletion of such a public figure would marginalise Wikipedias' claim to being non-biased. Alfreds Life and history are varifiable, and censorship of this article would only serve to bolster the opinion that Wikipedia neutral stand is compromised. Colourful insults and vague associations are not arguement enough to warrant deletion. Keep Alfred Webre. TrexSwampy (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — TrexSwampy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No useful evidence of notability in the WP:GNG sense, no substantive coverage in reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be sufficent sourcing here, the only real problem is the way the sources have been listed, its creator seems to have not used the reference template properly, that is an easy fix I will begin now, the article is at a B-class in quality and legnth, I feel a revival of sourcing will be sufficient to salvage the article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NoteUser:Rationalthinker1 does not appear to have provided a valid reason, he himself appears to be a SPA and most of, but not all of the unsigned comments above appear to be strawmen accounts of the new user whom proposed the deletion as they very from strong opposition to cult like support but there is no in between for the unsigned accounts, I have launched an SPI and am awaiting results. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I jumped to the wrong conclusion, a checkuser has proven that all of the above new editors have no relation to each other and come from different parts of the globe, my misunderstanding has wasted alot of everyone's time. Note to the closing administrator the above new editors are not socks and did not come to canvass there comments deserve to be heard and weighted properly. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible Keep sufficient sourcing for notability. The argument that publication from countries one dislikes doesn't show notability is of course erroneous, as is the apparent corollary , that we source only from major US newspapers. It doesn't matter how far out someone's views are, if they get sufficient attention--even attention for being weird. But the article is disproportionately long, and seems designed to publicize as much as inform, and will need some editing. And though we usually accept claims for routine things like education in personal sources, I'd be surprised if Yale offers a BS in Industrial Administration. He is, though, a member of the DC bar. {http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/results.cfm] I am not sure, therefore, how much of the article can be documented, for Id be reluctant to accept anything he says about his own career. The article will therefore be rather short. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt isn't a major I considered while I was there, but Yale does or did offer such a degree, eg [54]. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've ported the page to RationalWiki under CC-by-sa - Mr Webre's official comment on this deletion discussion ("My view is that Wikipedia's action continues to be part of the CIA time travel controlled US Presidency's retaliation against me for having exposed Soetoro/Obama's participation in a 1980-83 secret CIA jumproom project") makes him entirely on-topic for that wiki, so the article text won't be lost - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The use of PressTV sources are potentially problematic, not for the reason stated by Hyams above, but because they are a source of questionable reliability since they not infrequently report uncritically on conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs if those beliefs portray the US or the West in a negative light. So we need to be very careful with the sources and their reliability is less than the norm. However, there are other sources as well, and so overall I think there's enough to justify keeping the article. I agree with DGG that we will need to be very careful with what statements we take from Webre about his own accomplishments. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't believe I didn't notice this before, but the main contributor of the article, User:Exopolitica, should not have been allowed to edit under that name or in that fashion, given that Webre's website is www.expolitics.com. I've blocked him for the promotional username per standard policy; to return xe'll have to change usernames and agree to stop the promotional editing. As an additional note, I strongly agree with DGG above that if the article is kept, it needs a solid scrubbing; I've reverted a few of Exopolitica's edits so far, but am waiting for this discussion to finish before removing more (as it's not worth the time if the whole thing's going to be deleted, a point on which I myself am too on the fence to comment, though like JoshuaZ above, I'm inclined to lean just a tad towards keep). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere is undeniable off-Wiki canvassing.[55]. "Webre continued, "If you think I do meet the Wikipedia criteria of "notability", please feel free to intervene in the wikipedia discussion. You can go directly to this link and enter your reasons why my entry should NOT be deleted." And that's been widely circulated.[56]. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No reasonable Keep rationales provided by SPAs Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navigating the Product Mindset[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy as promotional--perhaps not promotional in the usual sense, but it does not actually describe the study, or present the results, just gives buzzwords about it. Perhaps an article could be written, but this isn't encyclopedic. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear notable to me unless there is some evidence that the concept has truly been "popularized" as the article asserts. Not much as far as content, it merely feels like it is intended to drive readers to the firm's website. West Eddy (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Underwriters Laboratories, I agree with DGG, but it seems like a plausible search term.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I agree with kelapstick. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other studies have been included with similar purposes, including 'Country Brand Index,' and others. This content provides insights and findings into how consumers view products today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcleanmblm (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Smcleanmblm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I agree with Smcleanmblm. This concept has clearly been popularized as demonstrated by the articles from varied members of the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhaouatis (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Yhaouatis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - this is nothing but advertising, IMHO, created and maintained by a series of WP:COI editors. No real indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought this looked familiar - it was speedy deleted last month as a copyvio. From the look of the article, that may still apply. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of acceptance of this idea or notability. Looks like advertising. 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Cannibalism in slavery, famine and prison[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia articles, but an essay, with three disconnected examples. Possibly the contents can be split, but Ithink it would be better to consider starting over. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cannibalism. It seems like the main article has a section for examples of cannibalism throughout history (see Cannibalism#Accounts). These examples can be integrated into that section. We can also split that section and create an article like List of events involving cannibalism, or something along that line. -- Luke (Talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of merge/reorganisation is called for, but I don't think AfD is the correct forum for this. This article obviously overlaps with content in the main cannibalism article. You could merge this in there, or merge the content from that article into this one, maybe renaming this to "Examples of Cannibalism". Certainly don't delete referenced/notable content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This current essay could be merged, but there is no guarantee that someone will merge it even if people say merge. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of events involving cannibalism and split off content from the main cannibalism article per Luke's comment. Anyway, I see no reason to delete this. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article title, for sure. There is a disconnect between the sections' content and the article's title; for example, there is no slavery in the entire article. The Chinese section contains only one assertion of cannibalism, which lacks a citation. The whole concept of imprisonment being related to cannibalism is suspect, and it being related to famine is a tautology. I like De728631's idea, except that moving would mean keeping the old, unnecessary name. Delete and start over. Anarchangel (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There might be a topic here, but if it's different than Cannibalism I don't see it. Looks like a candidate for WP:TNT. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Vuolo[edit]

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

PROD contested by Elop76 (talk · contribs). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify the nomination. Elop76 (talk · contribs) posted the following to the article's talk page to contest the deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why was Jeremy Vuolo's page deleted he has played pro soccer in Finland was the starting keeper foR AC Oulo.???? Elop76 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. The two leages in which Mr. Vuolo has played, Ykkönen and the USPDL, are both not fully-pro, and he has not received significant coverage. As such, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AC Oulu reached Finlands top league Veikkausliiga in 2007. Vuolo is a pro player who has played for a pro club and he has just signed with a pro club in Major League Soccer. There is no question he is a professional soccer player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.191.147 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter if he's a professional player or not. What matters is whether he's played at least one match in a fully professional league. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Finland's second division is a fully professional league. Who indicated it wasnt? User:Elop76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.191.147 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:FPL doesn't list it as a fully professional league. Doesn't necessarily mean it isn't, but a source will be needed that explicitly states it is a fully pro league. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we have to have a source that Spain's First Division is a fully professional league, so as to not delete Leonel Messi's page. User:Elop76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.191.147 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you'd have cared to look at WP:FPL then you'd have seen there is. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - This article [57] from the New York Red Bulls official site declaring the signing of Vuolo explicitly states "The Downingtown, PA native began his professional career in 2011 with then Finnish First Division (Ykkönen) side, AC Oulu." The site is run by MLSsoccer.com, the utmost official source. I'm no Wiki expert, so decide for yourselves. Acmilan10italia (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for bringing that to the table, although it makes no mention of the league being fully pro, only that the subject and his club were. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – when Vuolo appeared for Oulou, the team played in the Ykkönen, which is not a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 08:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject have not played for a team in a FPL, but rather for a professional team in a semi-professional league, and fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jessie J. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jessie J concert tours[edit]

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

No notability and is not comprehensive at all. No sources or references. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Starting a list when there are only two entries that can be added is premature to say the least. One of the articles listed being borderline deletable doesn't help. This can all easily be summarised in the Jessie J article until there are a greater number of tours to be listed. If/when the list gets too big for the Jessie J article, that would be the time to split it out into a separate article. --Michig (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge to Jessie J. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jessie J - doesn't need a separate article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Black Kite (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Tourism, Hospitality and Transportation Management[edit]

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

Previous Prod on grounds "No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles." Prod was supported by another editor on grounds "Individual departments rarely have their own articles." However Prod was removed by original article creator, so bringing to AfD on the same rationale as the previous Prod. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The college is not notable by itself, but the university is. Merge whatever information there is to the parent university's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per User:Narutolovehinata5 above. Individual college has no notability separate from main university. Also could not find any reliable references that were not from the college itself. Might need to look into all of the articles of colleges of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines as there are many. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Same thoughts as with my comments here. Xeltran (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note in the navbox at the bottom of the page that 14 other colleges at this university have separate articles. It would seem rather strange to delete or merge this article and let the others stand. We should either keep this article or if merged, then merge all of the other 14 colleges. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They should all be merged as none are independently notable. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines for now until notability is established.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. TerriersFan (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines - on its own not notable 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy based arguments have been presented for inclusion. v/r - T P 22:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carneiro[edit]

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

Physician of Chelsea FC without anything remarkable in het career. Notability is not inherited, so her (former) employer(s) don't make her notable. Fails WP:GNG, Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you look for any other means by which she could be notable rather than just focusing on 'inheritance'? There's already a substantial article cited in the article and Google News also has these: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. --Michig (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me, what have those articles to offer. Article 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 just tells me that she is female and has a job at a soccer club, nothing more. Nothing what would make here notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting is also that this article was Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD., but that the nomination was deleted by an IP.([63]). A notability and BLP-sources tag was also removed without explanation ([64]). Something fishy here... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What they tell you isn't really the issue, but rather whether these are significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you show a list of articles that add nothing to her notability. She is still just a lady with a job at a soccerclub. Would you write an article about her when she was the team doctor of the MK Dons, Charlton Athletic F.C., Nottingham Forest F.C., Wigan Athletic F.C. or Liverpool F.C.? Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said of very many footballers with Wiki articles; "They are just a guy with a job at a football club" or even musicians "just a guy with a job for a rock band". The article should be kept as it is of interest to football fans, chelsea fans and people from Gibraltar.

And for what it is worth: the articles about ms. Carneiro on the Dutch and Spanish Wikipedia are also nominated for removal. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG the existence of those articles tells us about her notability, we don't require coverage to also demonstrate additional notability. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the quality of sources that tells about the notability of the subject. Not the quantity of sources. And it is not the case that sources have to demonstrate additional notability, the souces have to demonstratie that she is notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." If the coverage in significant and the sources are reliable, GNG says that the existence of those sources is demonstration of notability. --Michig (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

significant coverage. Not trivial coverage claiming that the team doctor is sexy, as four of your five sources do. (And the fifth is in fact a photo caption.) Enough now with this WP:FANCRUFT. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She has received a significant amount of popularity among fans.(Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Popularity is not the same as notability. And secondly, Chelsea-fans are only a minority among footbalfans (what goes far beyond England and the UK). Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't being popular make her notable as well? What notable has a player like Alex Smithies done to get a wikipedia page on himself? And sorry but I don't think someone can call chelsea fans a minority among football fans. They are an internationally followed team with a lot of support in Asia, America and Africa.(Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no evidence of notability other than the fact that she is a female with a job in a male-dominated sport. Giant Snowman 21:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you are questioning the importance of a doctor's job. (Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Come on, stop with your fancruft and come up with real evidence of her notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence has already been given above, which I see you are conveniently refusing to accept.(Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, mate. The links you gave earlier do not prove her notability! You can ignore that if you wish. But as long as you don't proof that ms. Carneiro is notable, it is more then likely that the closing administrator will remove this article. Did she win any prizes for being a team doctor? Any scientific prizes? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There appear to be two things being confused here. Coverage can verify that a subject meets one or more of our accepted notability criteria by demonstrating awards, achievements, etc.. The GNG also states that the fact that a subject has received significant coverage means that they are (generally) considered notable - that coverage doesn't need to also tell us that the subject is notable via some additional criteria. The argument that the coverage doesn't demonstrate notability beyond the fact that the coverage exists is therefore fallacious. While much of the coverage is of the 'sexy Chelsea physio' variety, more than one example goes into considerably more depth including details of her career prior to Chelsea (there is much more coverage around than those examples listed above). Plenty of people are notable solely because of their looks and receive coverage because of that, the difference here perhaps is that this is not Carneiro's career choice. Whether or not consensus is that there should be an article here, arguments that coverage has been received because she works for Chelsea and should therefore be discounted on the basis of WP:INHERIT simply don't hold water. --Michig (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short: forget het job at Chelsea and forget her looks, what is left then what makes her notable? If you think you have enough information to make her notable without those two, feel free to add it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my previous comment. --Michig (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She has worked with the Female British Olympic squad so how can one say that the article exists only because of her job at Chelsea? Whether she is a sexy physio doesn't obviously make her notable. What matters is that she is a renowned physio.(Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Because nobody found her notable while working with the Olympic team. And she is still just a woman with a job. Quite visible, but still a job. She is a doctor, so for notability you should expect her to be outstanding or special as a doctor. Running around in a stadium in front of a bunch of soccer fans, does not prove her abilities as doctor. No prizes or awards. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then footballer Alex Smithies, what makes him notable? She is a doctor, which in itself is an important job and her prominent appointments make her notable. It is as simple as that. You're asking me to forget her job at chelsea and take out her looks, but the fact is, she has got a job at chelsea and whether you like it or not, she is famous among not only chelsea fans but fans all around because of her looks.[65](Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is searched more than 40,000 times on google every month.(Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

As I have said earlier: popularity is not the same as notability. And with a click generator it is not so difficult to get 40k hits, so it says nothing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is female and works in football. nuff said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.59.39 (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but says nothing about her notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just like the coach of a famous athletic club is notable , so is the cief team physician. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. v/r - T P 22:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Nutrition and Food Science[edit]

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

Previous Prod on grounds "No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles." Prod was removed by original article creator, so bringing to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The college is not notable by itself, but the university is. Merge whatever information there is to the parent university's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The article in question is not extensive enough to warrant its own article. Notability, as per WP:NOTABILITY, must be first established by populating the article with links that will make it such, so for now, I'm tagging this one, as well as the other Polytechnic University of the Philippines colleges with maintenance tags, until a consensus has been reached regarding the article in question. Xeltran (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as none of the individual colleges are independently notable of the university. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Max Keiser. v/r - T P 22:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debtflation[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not urbandictionary. bobrayner (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Max Keiser. Not notable on its own. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Max Keiser. Smallman12q (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 22:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of directory listings from Discogs and Amazon, plus a link to a website of dubious reliability. Album does not seem to be notable per WP:NALBUMS. It never charted and wasn't reviewed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate that this album is a little unusual to say the least however it is an album which DOES exist albeit quite rare and the links provided support this. It is the soundtrack album of a programme which is very much memorable and as such, the album should be notable too. It may not have charted nor been popular but this does not change the fact that it does exist. Cexycy (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no doubt this MP3 download existed and no doubt WWTBAM is a notable TV programme, but neither of these facts make the download notable in any way. Without some sort of evidence of a reliable, independent review, or a chart position, the article should go. The WWTBAM article mentions the recording and that should be sufficient. Sionk (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting an article merge then? Cexycy (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't charted and I can't find any decent refs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - notability ain't inherited, and while this does not appear to be notable on its own, it also seems both short enough and sourced enough that adding it to the main article on the show would probably remain relevant enough. — Isarra ༆ 20:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable in itself, could be mentioned in main article on show (not sure we need to keep the track listing, though). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge would be okay if we KEEP the track listing. It's all good information. Same for the single too. Cexycy (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be against keeping the tracklist. In the bigger picture of the show the tracklist of a minor download album is trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the track listing itself seems irrelevant to the show. — Isarra ༆ 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As already stated, while the show itself is notable, that notability is not inherited, and this soundtrack really has nothing to show that it has any sort of independent notability of its own. The few references that are provided do nothing except show that this album exists, and that really doesn't count towards having the multiple reliable third party sources needed to show any sort of signifigance. I would suggest merging, but there really isn't that much information here actually worth saving that would be especially relevant to the gameshow's main article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 22:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JagMohan Institute of Management and Technology[edit]

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

Unreferenced, not notable article Breawycker (talk to me!) 21:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a postgraduate college in India, such articles are kept. needs to be expanded though, reference issue may be due to wp:BIAS in the region. -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 07:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. gnews comes up with nothing. this is a small private institute. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have consistently included all institutions of higher education that grant degrees, small or large, public or private. I 'd hardly expect G News to have articles on topics like this--a proper search in print sources would be needed before conclusding there were not third party refs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vision of Love[edit]

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

Not notable. Only sources amount to announcement of its release. Didn't chart, wasn't reviewed by anyone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Thank You Camellia, the parent album, as per WP:NSONGS, which states that songs not rising to notability "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist". Gongshow ^Talk 18:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Upon further review, between the announcements for the song, video, and upcoming performance on American Idol, I believe enough coverage exists to support an independent article: [66][67][68][69][70][71] It appears at least a couple of these sources are already in the article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to establish notability both in the article and in Gongshow's !vote. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". Wikipedia.
^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". Wikipedia.

[1] "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". Wikipedia.

[2] "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". Wikipedia.

[1]

[2]