Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 April	19 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 delete. Based on my research, this individual does not meet WP:GNG yet. DGG's arguments hold significant sway. WP:AUTOBIO is also quite important to note. This article *may* need to be created way off in the future should they actually meet notability requirements then (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay McCormick[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)

Fixing red-linked nomination - the nominator was an IP, who didn't create a discussion page. I have no opinion either way on deletion, and have utterly no objection to an early closure on speedy keep grounds. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She not exactly an A-list celebrity, but seems notable enough for the page to remain.JoelWhy (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The IP that placed the AfD tag left a comment along the lines of WP:N and WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO on the article talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ah, didn't check there. Full quote from IP nominator is "I'm nominating this page for deletion. The creator of this page is the person, herself, a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is also a violation of notability guidelines - (not "independent of the subject") and no significant coverage or awards." Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links seem to show she's notable, with multiple articles and interviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can tell she created her own page, based on the user name that created the page. Looks like her entire bio is brief appearances, guest work, and the magazine article was based on a rumor she slept w/ a football player. She's early in her career, with no regular work. Definitely not notable yet. 16:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.117.94 (talk)
'KEEP - THIS CHICK JUST HOSTED CBS BROADCAST FOR THE NFL DRAFT AND SHE FREAKING ROCKED IT! SHE'S GOING TO BE A HUGE SUPERSTAR IN A VERY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME! Also saw 8 different articles about her today. Wiki is a freaking joke if they don't acknowledge her. 6:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.117.94 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.151.130 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Most of the references are sketchy, but one is clearly a RS, and a couple others claim to have editorial teams, so, passes GNG, if barely... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—If Fox News acknowledges the girl as an analyst she is somewhat credible. Plus, I follow her on twitter and just saw she's doing the CBS National coverage for the NFL Draft. CBS Sports Tweeted it. I would say that makes her credible as well. Maybe not an A-list, but either are half of the people on here. My guess is the publicist got on and added more articles to the page. She's popular enough to keep the page. Plus, she was on Grimm the tv show. 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.117.94 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.44.34 (talk)
Delete-Yea, I nominated this page. It's all self-promotion from her - she has no full-time position. It seems all the keeps here, still confess it's weak. She has no full-time position, all her online stuff is just appearances, and the FOX News author she just knows personally. CBS doesn't even DO draft coverage. One guy from CBS Sports Network sent a tweet he was working w/ her. If we allow pages like this, we open up Wikipedia to all sorts of F-level public figures. What about the fact that she created and maintains the page too - a clear violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO? The girl is just out of college and wants to show off - which isn't what Wikipedia is for. 04:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.52.140 (talk)
""Keep"" http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft Yes, they do cover the draft. Check out the countdown on this website to their draft show. Bruce Feldman is their lead analyst. Used to work for ESPN. The fact that we are discussing her THIS much, proves she deserves one. If no one cared, then there wouldn't be this many posts. This is the type of stuff that turns a chick into a Kim Kardashian. Next, she'll have her own reality show...so keep talking about her and keep caring because she's my friend, an amazing person and actually knows the ins and outs of the game! You go girl! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.44.34 (talk • contribs)
Keep- The "genius" 2 posts up clearly needs the Wiki page on McCormick, because his info is COMPLETELY OFF! The Wiki page is used for when articles reference her as an analyst probably created by her publicist who just used her name to keep all of her clients straight. McCormick was under contract in a full time exclusive position with CSN last season. They exempted her to cover NFL for Esquire while under contract. CBS DOES do draft coverage. The poster above proved that. McCormick is the host of their show. She is NOT just out of college. She completed her coursework at Auburn early and began working with ESPN at age 20. She chose to come back and finally walk when Bo Jackson gave out the diplomas in 2009. According to Wiki, she has been in the industry for almost 5 years, but accomplished a lot. If the page is deleted, someone else will create a new one after she ends up hosting more stuff. 04:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.52.140 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.73.172 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether she meets the WP:GNG depends upon the degree the articles about her are mere public relations. (personally I find the ESPN hotties series somewhat disgusting, but that's not a reason for deletion) The correct Esquire link is [1],& I reading through it, I class that as PR, despite the apparent respectableness of the publication. But that does not compel us to have an article if the intent and purpose is promotional entirely, as I think this is. The nature of the keep arguments above seem to prove it. I rarely say that as a deletion argument except for what I consider the more outrageous cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 26 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) 01:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Jane Moore[edit]

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

I cannot find a single piece of evidence that proves any of the information in the article is true. It lack critical information that usually belongs in a biography including citations, date and location of birth and death, family, photos, and significance to history. While some of the works she supposedly done can be found online, I was unable any proof that they were popular or notable enough to merit an article for the author. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a search on Bing and only found unrelated hits and Wikipedia mirrors. While a lack of search engine hits doesn't always mean a lack of notability (or even existence) it's usually a pretty good indicator. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The subject seems to have been a very prolific children's writer, and the British Library catalogue contains a number of titles not listed here, whilst they do not have several of those in the article. For Nicholson's to have published her stories so prolifically, they must have sold. The problem is to determine notability, and the absence of coverage on the internet is hardly conclusive - children's writers tend not to be covered in literary biographies and the like precisely because their books are rarely of interest to the literary establishment and it is not Ms Moore's notability now that matters, it is her notability then. Having said that, the absence of evidence that she made any real impact at the time other than as a writer of ephemeral stories points to deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried a search on ProQuest, which has lots of 19th C content, as well as on Google Books, but got nothing relevant (aside from her own books on Google Books). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—If source-hunters come up empty, then WP:V is violated and we're done here... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. We have verified that she wrote lots of books, because they do emerge in searches on the British Library catalogue, in Google Books and other search locations. None has a comprehensive list, and it is clear that few copies survive in libraries, but that just shows that the article could be expanded with further research. It is information about the author that is missing, and it could even be that the name is a pseudonym, but that is no bar to an entry because it is as writer of these books, not her private life, that matters here. The question must be whether her books make her notable enough for an article. --AJHingston (talk) 08:29, 20 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 (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Weickert[edit]

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

The article contains large sections of text identical to the person's bio at http://www.mia.uni-saarland.de/weickert/index.shtml . It was tagged by the Madman bot, and the article creator then removed the tag rather than correcting the copyvio by re-writing the information. It was PROD'd as a biography of a living person which lacked references, but the prod was removed(the only ref was the subject's bio page). The subject of the article is a professor who won a major research prize, and has published many scholarly works, so he is likely notable by WP:PROF, but I did not find biographical details about him at Google Books. There ought to be some bio info somewhere, perhaps related to the Leibniz Prize he won. There are some newspaper articles in German: [2] which someone skilled in the language should check out and perhaps add to the article. If the copyvios are removed, there is not much left in the stub. This is one of a series of articles created by the same editor by copying from the bio pages of the subjects, and then removing or ignoring tags/prods for lack of refs or for copyvios. Edison (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't see much evidence of copyvio, but I rewrote it with better sources just to be safe. His citation record in Google scholar (with citation counts 1484, 773, 620, 454, 404, ... is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, far above the minimal threshold usually seen here, and the Leibniz prize also passes #2 as a highly prestigious national-level award. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You "didn't see much evidence of copyvio?" Then you refused to look. See the talk page of the article. Edison (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw a bare-bones listing of degrees and job postings, worded somewhat differently than the similar and somewhat less bare-bones listing on his home page. I agree after reading the talk page that it was too closely paraphrased, but with this little material original prose is difficult to attain. In any case, I seem to recall that Wikipedia's policies for copyvio (e.g. WP:CSD#G12) are to delete it *only if* the article has no salvageable content that could be fixed by rewriting, not true in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eppstein pipped me by 10 seconds. GS h-index of 50+ is a clear pass of WP:Prof#1 at least. Copy-vio may be an issue. Nominator is advised to read WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am very aware of WP:BEFORE, and did exhaustive research before proceeding with the AFD. It is amazing that you would make such a post. The article creator made at least three articles for winners of the award, sourced only by copy-pasting from the websites of the subjects or to a different Wikipedia, in a clear violation of the Wikipedia policies WP:COPYVIO and WP:V. Copyvio is a major issue, since this article is mostly copy-paste from the website identified. I SAID that the person was "likely notable per WP:PROF." But the article could not remain on Wikipedia as it existed at the time of the nomination without violating WP:COPYVIO. Notability of the subject of an article is not a license to copy and paste his biography from a copyrighted website. The undesirable outcome of AFD (from my perspective) would be deletion. The preferable outcome would be that someone fluent in German would add references to reliable sources, from the references I provided on the article's talk page or from wherever. Do that and I will gladly withdraw the nomination. But also see the related articles Herbert Gleiter. which is only referenced to the German Wikipedia (not a reliable source) and Hans-Peter Seidel, which is mostly a copy and paste copyvio, Please, please, similarly improve them so they do not also have to go to AFD because of the violations of WP:COPYVIO.Do not just harrumph about how the subjects of the articles are "notable." That does not license plagiarism to remain in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The nom itself states that this person is likely notable (and David and Xxanthippe show he clearly is). AfD is not for cleaning up copyvio. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The questionable parts of the article may have to be rewritten, but it surely should not be deleted. Is there a reason why nobody suggests the obvious and ask the professor whether the few lines from his website can be used on wikipedia (which I doubt he'd have a problem with)? ylloh (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the edits by Edison, David Eppstein, and myself, I don't think the original argument of the nom still applies.ylloh (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No copyright violation left. Surely it would have been easier for Edison to rewrite a couple of sentences rather than AfD this and then post that diatribe above? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the copyright problems were sufficient for nomination to AfD. A few minutes of cleaning up the text is all that was needed. In any case, there's clearly no copyright issues with the article now. (And the subject easily passes WP:PROF with a GS h-index of 50+ and by being a 2010 winner of the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize.) Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I withdraw the request for deletion, in light of the corrections of the copyvios. Some general responses to statements above: Plagiarism and copyright violations cannot be ignored just because the subject of an article is notable. The policy WP:COPYVIO calls for blanking the copyvio, and deleting the article if the result is unreadable. It is unreasonable to demand that an editor doing new page patrol who finds such a stub must find references and translate them from German, and rewrite each such article, and even more unreasonable to demand that the new page patroller write to the copyright holder and obtain CC licensing. This one was not "new." It had remained in an unacceptable state for 5 days, with the creator removing any tags placed on it for copyvio and for BLP violations)Such a demand shows a lack of awareness of how fast a plagiarist can create new copy/paste stubs, and how many such editors are busy in any given week. If there were 60 hours in a day, perhaps I could rewrite all the new articles such as this which are copyvio stubs. AFD is indeed not the best venue for dealing with similar problems. WP:COPYVIO mentions alternatives, such as blanking the copyvio and posting it on the noticeboard for copyright violations. Thanks to those who edited the article. Edison (talk) 00:18, 20 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) 01:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grabs, Snatches & Takes[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this album. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—One could reasonably expect that an album, even one of unreleased material, by an artist this notable, would itself be notable. But you'd be wrong. There's no coverage of it anywhere, even in paid research databases. Even normally chatty allmusic only has a track listing. No notability! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet any part of WP:GNG, in addition to the above statements.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Junk Fude[edit]

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

I found no notability for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any evidence that these guys meet the notability criteria set out at WP:BAND. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—My searches turned up as empty as sparlkism's did... No WP:BAND and no GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 22 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 Luke Laird#Publishing. Consensus is that the article is not notable yet in itself, and is promotional. Merging positive information into host ariticle, and will create redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Nation[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to Deletion

I am objecting to the proposed deletion of this page (Creative Nation) for being a "non-notable" company, as I have provided evidence that this company is a PARTNER of Universal Music Publishing Group, a division of NBC/Universal (i.e. a Fortune 500 Company). I have referenced press releases regarding this partnership, and will continue to reference more major media coverage, as future announcements about it's partnerships come about this year. Please advise if there is anything else I need to do in order to provide evidence of Creative Nation being a notable company, thank you kindly

'Keep or Merge since it's owned by an apparently notable songwriter, and I am seeing two third party references covering it. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to Merge or delete due to only slight notability and since Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising, and it appears that the company in question seems to think that's what we are, based on comments made below by IP editor. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 13:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited and two sources hardly constitutes a significant coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Luke Laird, as notable co-owner. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge—Two sources has always been my threshold (multiple meaning "more than one" in my personal dictionary), so this should barely meet WP:N guidelines. At the same time, I wouldn't object to a merge since the notability is borderline and a suitable target has been identified. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made 9 in-line citations to the Creative Nation wiki page, to improve it accordingly. There will be numerous press releases regarding this company's partnerships in the next 6 months, and I ask that it not be merged to Luke Laird who is one of Nashville's most successful songwriters, and will have plenty of his own news for his wiki page. (24.43.24.205 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Laird. Sources provided mostly do not mention Creative Nation and ones that do only mention it, no significant coverage. Most sources do not verify claims made. (I removed the shop links). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to speak (through email or on phone) to whomever makes the final decision about this. I have a responsibility to make sure this page remains as a company page, not a merged or redirected page. Please email me at the address attached to my account or provide an email address for me to contact (24.43.24.205 (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Let's change that to Speedy Delete, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to

I apologize for mis-stating or mis-representing the intentions of this wiki entry. The creation of the Creative Nation wiki page is in no way an attempt to advertise or promote the company. Creative Nation is not a company that is selling a product, nor is it a company promoting a service. Rather, it is a private, US music publishing company, that represents a group of distinguished songwriters and musicians, and does not accept unsolicited requests. With the recent announcement of a partnership with Universal Music Publishing Group a separate wiki entry seems necessary. I ask that any proposal to delete this entry be re-considered, and I'm happy to improve the page further, if that would make a difference. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this statement (Jpoindex (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I have made further improvements to the Creative Nation page to eliminate any notion that it is a promotion or advertisement (Jpoindex (talk) 22:33, 24 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) 01:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbir shah hafizabadi[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources on the web. All the G-hits I found were from youtube, facebook, and others. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unreferenced bio for a non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, unreferenced biography. Chutznik (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Without references, the claims can't be verified, and without the claims, he's non-notable. So the only recourse is to delete. He turns up in a lot of social media - there was a lot of public chatter about his death on message boards and such, but sadly none of those point toward an obituary published in a reliable source. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or make very thorough rewrite with proper refs citations etc Khani100 (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100[reply]

Whenever a user is working just on one article and the sources are scanty, I suspect a WP:NPOV issues. This meets that "criteria." Unless references can be added to verify the claims and notability, I'm going to say Delete The Determinator p t c 10:06, 24 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MC Hammer#Additional business ventures. Consensus is to merge - Deleting and Redirecting to existing info in host article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WireDoo[edit]

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

A famous person announcing their intention to do something does not establish notability. We generally don't write about things that are in the planning stages but don't exist yet, because many never materialize. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge per Alphius - I agree that it is weak, in alpha stage, not open to the public, and may never come to fruition, but when CNN and the LA Times cover it and do so in a significant way, it seems to be notable. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the news. This is just routine coverage of an announcement of an upcoming product. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MC Hammer. This has 2 reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is speculative, and there's no significant claim to notability. The CNN coverage is minimal. The LA Times blog is mostly quoting Hammer, so it is not a source that is independent of WireDoo. Where the blog exercises its own judgment, it is skeptical that WireDoo will succeed, so it is not suggesting notability. Celebrity endorsements do not make companies notable. Glrx (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With two reliable sources, even if we felt it wasn't notable enough for a stand alone article, wouldn't we normally merge the content somewhere rather than delete? Even with the quoting of Hammer, the LA Times still felt it was important enough to dedicate some space for the article, as did CNN. As I stated, it is weak, but I can't see an outright deletion as the best solution. At least with merge and redirect, if someone looked for the term, they would find something in the MC Hammer article. That seems like a reasonable compromise, and the article can be recreated when and if it clearly passes WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib)

This article, which is only three sentences, isn't hard to recreate and should be deleted. The issue is not a reliable publisher but rather independent, reliable, secondary sources; there are none. Although it could be redirected/merged into MC Hammer, I voted for a straight delete because it's too early for WP to worry about WireDoo. As mentioned by Alphius, the MC Hammer article already mentions WireDoo. If somebody wants to copy a missing source to MC Hammer, that would be fine, but I wouldn't mention WireDoo even at MC Hammer. (It's there, and I won't disturb it.) My sense is that WireDoo doesn't have enough weight. I don't consider Hammer a prominent voice in search engines; even if he were, he would only be one prominent proponent. I want critical notice of WireDoo -- not star-struck notice of its investor or promoter. The web has other sources such as CBS News, but none of them claim to have tried a search on WireDoo. Who are the actual developers? Hammer's vague co-founders? Management team? Financing? Serious business reporting would ask. At this point, WireDoo is just what its marketing has fed us. What is "deep search" and "relationship search"? Are we sure that Google/Bing/Yahoo cannot trivially add it? Or that users even want the features? WP should wait for sources that actually kick the tires or provide some significant insight instead of simply replaying Hammer's sound track. Glrx (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MC Hammer. There is already a sentence about it on the article about him, using one of the sources here. The part about WireDoo in his article could just be slightly expanded and the other source could be added. This page could be redirected to MC Hammer#Additional business ventures until there is more information. Alphius (talk) 15:17, 20 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 speedily deleted per A7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MacDas[edit]

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

Non-notable university club. No independent refs in page and the only things approaching a WP:RS I could find in google/google news is [3] which is good, but not nearly enough. Procedural de-PROD. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete No content, no sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely non-notable, fails WP:CLUB. How did the article survive this long? WWGB (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all that is holy. Seriously, no rationale necessary. tedder (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, No indication of importance of organization. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 19 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 Nominator withdrawn [4], [5]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Non-admin close[reply]

The Perth Group[edit]

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

Reliable sources are lacking to establish the notability of this pseudoscience group, which has only one or two members with possible but marginal notability: Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, a hospital technician, and Valendar Turner, an emergency physician. These may be the only members of the group for all one can gather from reliable sources. Because Papadopulos-Eleopulos' article provides more information anyway, this article should be deleted or redirected to Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos. SpectraValor (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Article initially made as a redirect to AIDS Denialism. Should be restored as a redirect. People might legitimately want to look them up, and the main AIDS Denialism article covers them nicely --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SpectraValor (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator stripped article of information about other key participants prior to nomination.[6]. All names are sourced to website cited in article.[7] The attempt to use their evidence in the Andre Chad Parenzee case was widely covered in news [8] and books.[9] 291 books mention Perth Group in relation to AIDS. [10] Group is widely cited as influential in positions held by South African President Thabo Mbeki.[11][12] About 2 dozen Perth Group publications listed in PubMed. [13] The Perth Group is considered a driving force in a movement that has led to an estimated half million people dead or infected in South Africa alone. That seems notable. We cover Flat Earth Society and its key figures, and they are far less influential than this group and its key figures. Jokestress (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse Google searches with reliable sources. I stripped the article of potential [WP:BLP|BLP] violations in which individuals were named in association with this group because there were no reliable sources to establish the existence or the notability of these connections. SpectraValor (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources for other involved people added. Plenty more reliable sources (in the Wikipedia sense) where those came from. Their influence in South African policy is well-documented. Jokestress (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surmising from the authorship list of a paper published in 1995 that the authors are or even were part of the Perth Group is original research. SpectraValor (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their own website is an acceptable source in an article about themselves. Per WP:SPS: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities." Your ongoing removal of citations and information during a deletion discussion you initiated is problematic. Jokestress (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My overriding concern is BLP. A marginal pseudoscience group with few or no notable members and that few reliable sources even recognize as a group has a website that is cited by few if any reliable sources. On this website, they (whoever "they" are) state that various individuals are associated with them. Without confirmation of this association by reliable, independent sources, it is perilous to make this association on Wikipedia. In short, when someone claims that viruses do not exist, it might be wise to hesitate before granting credence to everything they say on an unknown website. SpectraValor (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Perth Group has never claimed that "viruses do not exist". It's reasonably clear from their published material that they think that some viruses do indeed exist. They haven't even claimed that HIV definitively does not exist, only that, to date, it has not been properly isolated. Luwat (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find enough coverage from Reliable Sources to establish this group as notable. Their participation in a trial in Australia got them an article in the Sydney Morning Herald and a passing mention at the Skeptical Enquirer; not enough to qualify as Substantial Coverage. I was going to agree with a redirect to Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, who appears to be one of the two founders of the group, but after looking at her article I don't think she is notable either, and I would support a nomination to delete that article as well. I could also support a redirect/merge of this article to AIDS denialism as suggested by Harizotoh9, but someone would need to keep an eye on the page to make sure it isn't promptly recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jokestress is right - this is an article on an important and notable subject. It should not be deleted. Luwat (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the question before us: how is it "important and notable?" Based on what sources and which Wikipedia guidelines? SpectraValor (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress made it perfectly clear how it's important: the Perth Group has been covered in the media, influenced government policy in South Africa, and been involved in legal cases. The sources Jokestress provided show that the Perth Group, whatever one thinks of their views, are notable, under WP:NOTE. Luwat (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability policy states that "significant coverage," meaning "more than a trivial mention," is needed for notability. There are probably several book- or article-length reliable sources that mention the Eleni/Valendar team, but they do so in a sentence or less, and they usually place "Perth group" in quotes, as I have just done. This is not a strong endorsement of notability. SpectraValor (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That these sources don't provide "more than a trivial mention" seems to be just your assertion. Luwat (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single sentence in book or an article is a trivial mention by any definition. SpectraValor (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would depend entirely on what the sentence actually says. If, for instance, it says something like, "This thing or event is the most earth-shatteringly important thing in the entire history of the human race", then that would be a non-trivial mention. Anyway, what's your evidence that the sources given by Jokestress do provide only single-sentence mentions? Luwat (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources. SpectraValor (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jokestress, 291 books mention the Perth Group in connection to AIDS. Did you check each one to see that it provides only a single-sentence mention, or are you making this up as you go along? Luwat (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I check each one? To the extent that I could, yes. There are not, in fact, 291 books that mention the Perth Group in connection to AIDS or in connection to anything, there are 291 Google returns for the search "Perth Group" and "AIDS". There are 1400 returns in Google Books for "Perth Group;" most mentions are not about this "Perth Group." When you examine the returns for "Perth Group" and "AIDS" or "HIV," you find that there are only a handful of real books that mention the Perth Group. Much of what the Google search returns are magazines, newsletters, and self-published books by individual AIDS denialists, but mostly books that do not appear to mention the Perth Group at all. I don't know why the Google search returns these things, but this example shows why it's not very useful to use Google searches in discussions like this. Of the about 15 legitimately published, actual books that I could find that verifiably mention the Perth Group under discussion, including several denialist books, about half use quotes around Perth Group or the phrase "so-called". Two thirds mention Perth only once in the body of the text if at all. In some, "Perth Group" appears only in the references or in a footnote or endnote. Some only mention the putative group as an example of AIDS denialists without any further description. The most comprehensive treatment of the Perth Group in any book is in "Denying AIDS" by Seth Kalichman, where there are 14 pages, including the appendices and references, that contain some reference to the Perth Group, and the book "AIDS, South Africa, and the Politics of Knowledge," which devotes one paragraph out of 153 pages to describing the group. SpectraValor (talk) 19:30, 18 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 | yak _ 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:N quite easily; note extensive discussion in Seth Kalichman's Denying AIDS, probably one of the best books on AIDS denialism; there are two multi-page discussions of the PG and their beliefs [14], [15], and there are more discussions in google books alone [16], [17], [18], then we've got google news [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and my fancy-shmancy HighBeam account turns up more [24], and google scholar has some more [25]. It's obvious nonsense, but it's notable nonsense that needs to be expanded and debunked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page has been substantially rewritten today [26]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm convinced by WLU's reasons and the rewrite, and I withdraw my request for deletion. (Is that possible, Wikipedians?!) SpectraValor (talk) 19:59, 19 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) 01:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historically Bahrani towns and villages[edit]

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

Completely unverifiable list seemingly based on original research only. The relevance of this list for Wikipedia is unclear. Possibly also promoting a Bahraini irredentist POV. RJFF (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contains no reliable references. This list seems to be all original research. I agree completely with RJFF. Wheres T ristan 20:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, original research. Chutznik (talk) 15:49, 19 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 by User:Boing! said Zebedee under criteria G3; blatant hoax. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio Timor Soúl[edit]

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

Possible hoax. There are no sources to verify the claims made in the article, and an IP has explained why s/he believes it is a hoax on the talk page. Another IP indicated on the talk page that a stadium may be under construction in East Timor and provided a source, but the source provided (Google Translate) only makes vague reference to a stadium, with no additional details.

I for one cannot fathom why or how "one of the weakest [football/soccer] teams in the world and the weakest team in the ASEAN region" (according to their article) would be getting a US$125 million stadium with a capacity of 75,000 when its current stadium only holds 5,000. I'm not very knowledgeable on association football stadiums, but judging from what I know about baseball and American football, I would think that only an elite team or a major international competition would get a stadium of this capacity. For comparison, this alleged stadium would cost 17.6% of the country's nominal GDP and hold 14% of the country's population (based on the figures in the country's Wikipedia article).

I should note that the article creator received a final warning regarding creating hoaxes in October 2011 and was temporarily blocked for socking in December 2011. If consensus holds that this is a hoax I believe he should be indef'd. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piling on: The article creator has claimed that his main "source" for this article is a Facebook page ([27]), which an anon called BS on: [28]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G3, obvious hoax per the nom's overwhelming evidence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as blatant hoax, and creator blocked for continuing to create hoaxes after final warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 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. I'm sorry Forestgreen13 but none of the links you posted are of other people talking about you, such as journalists, and that's what we need. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Forest Green[edit]

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

One 404 link is all that is provided to establish notability. I looked around and couldn't come up with anything else. Daniel 17:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established by reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a few brief mentions such as this and this short article about her. Not enough to support an article unless anyone finds more to add to these. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this article, but not much else other than a short mention here and there [29][30]. Gongshow ^Talk 11:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability beyond "frequently fills events" (unsourced and always a bit shaky when it comes to a DJ), and the references unearthed by Michig and Gongshow are either trivial coverage, a lightly reworked press release, or mentions in articles about the Sister SF collective she's part of (not sure whether the collective itself might merit an article? Forest Green herself certainly doesn't seem to.) ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 16:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is DJ Forest Green - A featured DJ in the 2000 movie Groove, and a professional DJ, (with no breaks ever taken) for the past 15 years of my life (1996 to 2012). What can I do to help bring this article to where it needs to be? my website is http://www.forestgreen.org - some of my music is up on my myspace page - http://www.myspace.com/forestgreen - my artist page on facebook is http://www.facebook.com/forestgreen.cutefang - my youtube page is http://www.youtube.com/djforestgreen - my twitter is http://www.twitter.com/djforestgreen. Please do let me know what needs to be done to fix this article to bring it to where it needs to be. What should stay? What needs to go? What needs to be added and deleted? Thank you so much, Forest Green - e mails [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestgreen13 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete due to lack of notability. Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 18 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)} 18:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we include every DJ in the US? Ovr'apint (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. We can not list every "DJ" on Wikipedia. Only extremely notable DJ's should be listed on Wikipedia. I am a DJ myself and haven't created myself an article. Wheres T ristan 20:27, 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. Userfication seems no longer necessary, if it is feel free to contact me. Sandstein 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of writers in Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing[edit]

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

No indication of notability, just a laundry list Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Noting User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists and the recent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Core_Collection_albums_in_The_Penguin_Guide_to_Jazz, this list derived entirely from one editor's work is presumably in a similar position? AllyD (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all redlinks. The fact of being in a reliable Who's Who estabilishes notability; being women in a formerly male-dominated field establishes encyclopedic interest, but the article should not be a haven for redlinks. Should be limited to WP articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Reading Wikipedia:Red link hardly justifies delinking in this case. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:23, 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) 00:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrespective of whether Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing is a "reliable Who's Who" with its own notability (it doesn't have an article), or whether the women so listed are notable, or whether the women are redlinks, this is still problematic for copyright reasons. A creative selection process was used by Jane Eldridge Miller, editor of the book. That means this list is not a simple list of facts like a telephone directory, and so is subject to copyright. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Setting aside the copyright issue, I also think this needs to go purely on notability grounds. I don't see any of the third-party coverage that would be necessary to make the book itself notable; indeed, we do not have an article for Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing. If the book is not notable, surely its selected list of authors is not independently notable either, letting us sidestep the list/copyright concerns for now? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any source that will allow us to determine if this is a copyright infringement? Without clear guidance, I don't see this discussion getting anywhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a subjective list that is of questionable encyclopedic value (Unlike lists like award winners for which inclusion criteria are clear). Also no evidence of notability of the actual list. 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:54, 18 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)} 18:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment - No consensus yet on whether the list is notable. However, if the copyright issue proposed is valid, it may have to be deleted. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. Lacks notability, the only place this info is found is in the book, there has been no coverage independent of the book so it is not notable. Also from Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "articles on works of non-fiction, .... should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents" This is just a summary of the works' contents. Maybe also for copyright issues. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since I put the page up, I may have some bias. The copyright issue - if valid - would be conclusive - though the core jazz discussion doesn't make it sound like an open-and-shut case to me. Perhaps people at the libraries or bibliographies wikiprojects would know more about the law as it's been interpreted in this area. If there is consensus that the page needs to be deleted, presumably (as with the core jazz) I could keep the redlinks on a user page. I also wonder if a list a bit like this one would allow the relevant information (which specialised reference works have written about which women writers) to be kept in a non-problematic way. (A case against this list would that it would be very long - slightly relatedly, there's a problem with references needing a silly number of backlinks if done in the usual way.) Dsp13 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order (a) Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles without a redirect (this removal of the page form article space removes the pages from google and friends, reducing the impact of any possible copyright issues) (b) add each blue-linked item on the list to any appropriate women's writing categories and has this reference work as a reference and then remove it from the list (this requires someone familiar with the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which has some wrinkles) (c) write articles for the red-linked items (yes, hard work) (d) delete the page once everything is written. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck in favour of improved suggestion below, in which I not the closing admin bear the brunt of the work. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really don't think there is any real copyright concern here. The Who's Who book here is not itself just a list of names; it's a selection of brief biographies. A list of biographies appearing in that book therefore doesn't copy it in any substantial way, but is instead just an alphabetized table of contents. Why we would want a list of biographies featured in that work is another question. It might be a good to-do list for identifying missing articles, but unless the book itself is particularly notable, or being included in it is considered some kind of honor in the literary world, I don't see a reason for maintaining this list in article space. So I think following Stuartyeates' suggestions is the best way to go. postdlf (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redlinking issue is a red herring. There are many kinds of selection criteria for lists, and redlinks can always be replaced by ordinary text. Given the title of this article, the appropriate inclusion criterion would be all the names in the Who's Who. However, the book has over 1000 entries, so that would be unwieldy. Perhaps the Who's Who should be used as a reference for a list like List of 20th century women writers. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We also have Category:20th-century women writers and Category:21st-century women writers to help generate such a list. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is already covered by List of women writers. "Who's Who" book list is non-notable and adds no value as a qualified list. Red links can be added to the talk page of the List of women writers as guide for biography development. Dkriegls (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (the following is not legal advice or opinion: the author is not a lawyer) List of facts are only protected by intellectual property (IP) law in the US as a copy-edited image (the book was published in the UK). The facts themselves can be moved into a new list that looks different and not violate the IP. The prose description may fall under IP protection depending on how different the use is or how close it is to original text. Directly lifting of prose should be demonstrated to make any accusations of copy right violation for deletion. But then, only the prose would violate the IP, not the list. I already voted for delete, but not on IP grounds. (the preceading is not legal advice or opinion: the author is not a lawyer) Dkriegls (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A list which requires a bit of creativeness or editorial judgment to compile is still copyrightable. That was shown when, for example, the editor included Ratna Sarumpaet and Nh. Dini but not Siti Rukiah (I came across this list when writing Ratna Sarumpaet's article, so my examples are Indonesian). Look at Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time for an example of a copyrighted list. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not what this is. There is no arrangement to this work other than alphabetical, and the selection was for whose biography to include. A bare list of the names of those biographies is not the work itself, just a list of its contents. The Rolling Stone list is itself the work, a creative selection of song titles in a creative arrangement, such that copying the list is copying the work. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from article space as not claiming notability for the work "Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing" or the honour of being included. No WP:RS are included. Further, I ask the closing admin to Userfy the article to my userspace and I'll ensure that all red links are added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the red links to my to-do list and will work to create the biographies as well. Dkriegls (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list of all the red linked authors.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior-1 MMA[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA organization. They've had only 7 events in 3+ years, only one in the last 18 months. Most of their divisions don't have a champion and the only sources given are their home page and the rules from the Nevada state commission. Astudent0 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Astudent0 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Organization fails WP:MMANOT. I found nothing to show this organization is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Mt king ^(edits) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG as most of the sources I can find are simply fight results and little significant coverage of the promotion by reliable sources. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:36, 23 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. Consensus is to delete, as a fork of an existing article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thiyyar[edit]

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

There have been several variants of this article created and/or recreated over the last 12 months, and probably prior to that also. The caste goes under numerous names, and therefore the scope for creating alternate articles is wide. It has been determined, time and again, that this group should be treated as a part of the Ezhava caste and discussions to that effect appear at Talk:Ezhava. Having failed to change Ezhava, the latest creation is in fact a POV fork and should be deleted as such. Sitush (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thiyyar are distinct and different from ezhava in every way that you could define a caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.13.61 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why user:sitush said thiyyar is a pov fork of ezhava.Thiyyar is not a synonym for the word ezhava.i agree that both are castes included under OBC category by government authorities but both are two seperate castes with different cultural inheritence.I here pointing out some important difference between these two. 1.Thiyyars following theyyam ,thira ,kavu system of worship and rituals.You can see many theyyam,a dancing gods in kavu(worship centres like temples),during january to april of every year in kaliyattams in kavu of thiyyar people. Sree muthappan is the main deity and you can see somany muthappan kavu in thiyyar's areas of north malabar such as sree muthappan temple at parassini kadavu.Thiyyars also have snake worship in their sarpa(snake)kavu.But you cant find theyyam or muthappan kavu in ezhava areas. 2.Thiyyars generally followed matrilineal system in the past untill the modern laws in effect.where as ezhavas followed patrilineal system. 3.Thiyyars are included and divided under 'eight illams ' such as varakka illam, thenkudy illam, nellika illam etc.The members of an illam are considered as brothers and sisters so there were no marriage between members of same illam.this is one of the important criteria during marriages.Where as ezhavas dont have this eight illam system. 4.Another important difference is that thiyyars not following 'sthree danam' ie.DOWRY system.where as ezhavas brides family giving huge wealth to the groom during marriage.This is an important difference as almost all population in kerala and india follows this system.This should be high lited while considering Thiyyars as an ethnic population of India. One can easily point out so many difference as i mentioned above. The misunderstanding that you(user : sitush )creating by saying thiyyar as pov fork of ezhava will surely degrade the RELIABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA.Just consider the above 4 group of points about ethnic tribe Thiyyars.As you all know ALL ETHNIC TRIBES STRICTLY FOLLOWED THEIR SOCIAL CUSTOMS AND RITUALS, THIYYARS ARE ALSO NOT AN EXCEPTION IN THIS.CONSIDER IF BOTH EZHAVA AND THIYYAR ARE THE SAME ONE CANNOT POINT OUT THESE MUCH DIFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO ,ALSO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT KERALA IS A SMALL GEOGRAPHICL AREA.SO THESE MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO CASTES OF A SMALL AREA CLEARLY SUPPORT THE FACT THAT BOTH ARE DIFERENT .SO THIS IS NOT POV FORK ISSUE.THIYYAR IS A ETHNIC POPULATION KERALA TOTALLY DIFEERENT FROM EZHAVA.SO I REQUEST THE ADMINISTRATORS TO STOP THE DELETION PROCESS Of THIYYAR TO ENSURE THE RELIABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA.THANK U ALL -- Thiyyan (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had commented on Talk:Ezhavadated 18-04-2012 and didnt get any proper reply, we had tried to resolve the issue with sitush but was unable to get a proper response , also the article follows a neutral point of view and cannot be considered as POV fork--Rahulkris999 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thiyyar community have their own customs and rituals as described above and it has been documented in numerous works by scholars like Thurston, Logan , F. Fawcett if Ezhava and Thiyyar's are one and same then why these scholars used the word Thiyyar not Ezhava to describe about the people--Rahulkris999 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above has ever been substantiated in accordance with our policies, and it is our policies that count in deletion discussions. For example, see the discussions at Talk:Ezhava/Archive_5#THIYYAS_IN_NORTH_KERALA and Talk:Ezhava#Backward_class. This is the crux of the problem: numerous sources treat the two names as being synonymous (or, if you wish, the two communities as being the same). There have been numerous attempts to establish a separate article in the past, all of which were either deleted or redirected. I cannot see the deleted content in order to prove that point, but I'll find some of the redirects asap.

It seems likely from present activity on this and other articles that there is currently another burst of communal sentiment off-wiki that has as its aim a concerted pushing of the Thiyyar POV. This group includes some very active and completely incorrect anons, of whom 14.139.160.4 is but one example. Those anon edits are being reverted mostly by people other than myself but who also have a considerable experience here on Wikipedia and, in particular, in the sphere of caste-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources Talk:Ezhava/Archive_5#THIYYAS_IN_NORTH_KERALA already given Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society , Volume 38 page:289 it compares cultural similarity with tribes in Southern canary, as for Talk:Ezhava#Backward_class the author cites opinion based on common held view possibly based on 20th century sources , new research is needed and new details will be mentioned soon--Rahulkris999 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not got a clue what you mean in that comment, but the "real soon now" argument is not valid. Please read WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The JAIAS article does not appear to be mentioned in the first archive thread that you mention above. Worse, the Society lists volumes 37 and 39 as being published, but no volume 38. A Google search suggests that 37 may have incorporated vol. 38 but the page numbering is uncertain. So, you would need to cite this properly: journal, volume, issue, date, page(s), article title, author etc. Without that, the source should be deleted because it would appear possibly to be a copied citation rather than something that has been read in context. This poor citation is another example of why the article has no place here and, again, it is something that I have previously challenged but which was reverted. No need to provide the info here - just get it into the article quick-ish, please. The entire article is a house of cards, based on a fringe premise. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One example is a redirect that was protected as long ago as 2007 due to the pov pushing. Like I say, this is not a new thing. If there are indeed some cultural differences and they can be verified using reliable sources, then the obvious starting point is to include those differences in the Ezhava article and then, should consensus determine them to be valid etc, open a fork discussion at Talk:Ezhava. Assaulting the project with numerous alterations to redirects/creations of new redirects/pov changes to links etc in order to drive traffic to a new and very poor article is not a great idea. It is, of course, exactly what has been going on.

For now, Thiyyar should be a redirect to Ezhava, as should all the other redirects linking to it. If there is any useful content in Thiyyar then it should be merged into the Ezhava article and expanded per policy.- Sitush (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why Nambiar (Nair subcaste) page is not included in pov or is this pov meant only to suppress facts about thiyyar community?--Rahulkris999 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for redirecting which all sections do you consider as Useful information and which all you dont please elucidate?--Rahulkris999 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not much of note right now, but the article changes frequently and massively. My point is that Thiyyar is a valid alternate name and therefore a redirect is an appropriate reaction, rather than a delete. If there is any useful content at the point when this discussion is closed, then that should be merged. In between times, find some decent books etc, preferably published in the last decade or two. Also, adjust the present content to reflect the neutrally-stated reality which, as I outline below in my noting of a couple of the sources used, is that the common view is synonymity but there are a few who think otherwise. That might be suitable for merging if well-sourced. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that this source, which has been introduced by those supporting the notion of a separate article, clearly states that the commonly held view is that Ezhava and Thiyyar are the same thing. The book referred to in that source, written by a journalist etc called Damo, is scarcely worthy of being called reliable and is most likely problematic under the WP:FRINGE provisions. It is typical of pov pushers not to mention that the origins are generally considered to be something other than that which the pushers wish to portray - an aspect that in caste articles generally surfaces with the varna issue. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if Damo work is found unworthy for reference will be removed from citation regards--Rahulkris999 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsuitable, it has been removed ... and then you or one of your friends reinstated it. And the reinstatement still ignores the commonly held view that is detailed in the very source which is quoted. Furthermore, you should not really use a book review in this way - I can live with it, but many would not.

Please note that I have opened a sockpuppet investigation also: there is something very odd going on and I am unsure whether it is socking or meatpuppeting or just simple off-wiki collaboration. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that another of the reinstated sources is also somewhat pointless. The Times of India describes the situation as being

On a mission very much different from his area of expertise, cardiologist Dr Shyamalan is tracing the origin of his genes and this has triggered an excitement among several members of the community in North Kerala. Talking to TOI, Dr Shyamalan said that there is an identity crisis among the Thiyyas of Malabar who are being categorized with the Ezhava community in Kerala. He says that his DNA testing revealed that it matches with the Indo-Aryan race that came all the way from South Africa through Kyrgyzstan.

Yet again, this source appears to confirm the more usual belief that the two communities are identical, while acknowledging that those who call themselves Thiyyar do not like it. Shyalaman's DNA test proves nothing of relevance to our situation. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above Times quote from Sitush does lead me to believe we've got a case of WP:TIGERS here. That is, rather than a dispassionate layout of "the belief by the Thiyyar that they are a separate community", we're seeing people press in to champion said belief and exclude any contrary information in order to "re-write the narrative" on the topic. Agree with Delete, and the issue can be addressed at Ezhava, as apparently has been done often in the past when this has arisen. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only arguments that carry weight in deletion discussions and indeed anything related to consensus are those arguments which are based on policies and guidelines. The appeal above, like so many others earlier, simply does not meet the basic Wikipedia tests and, yet again, it rather confirms that the article should not exist. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as of now, every single contributor to this discussion who has expressed a desire to see the article remain in more or less its current form is a SPA. I think that is an unusual pattern. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i just want MatthewVanitas to go through the following link before going to take a final decision.what really happening in talk:ezhava just go throgh this link http://victoriavedpages.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=111936&p=3&topicID=12280015 .as iam a part of this ethnic community in malabar region in kerala i know very well the difference between the ezhava and thiyya communities.but we cannot cite much more reference as there is a little studies done on this topic.i know wikipedia needs reference,but consider a tribe with out much studies about them ,is it their fault?.i agree the fact that there is some similarities with the two communities 1.both followed saint sree narayana gurus visions 2.both are categorised under other back ward communities category under government of india 3.major share of coconut climbers and toddy tappers are from these two comunities etc.But according to my views when considering two tribes we should give more weigtage for the "cultural differnce '.YOu can see many points put forward bythiyyan.take a single point about dowry system,you are not going to get girl from a thiyya family if u ask for dowry,this a unique plus point of thiyyas from all other groups in kerala.you can see theyyams (,worshipdone by thiyyas in local shrines known as kavu)only in thiyya areas not in ezhava areas of south kerala,and so much dissimilatities .yes we cannot give you much evidence as reference that is not the fault of this tribe.i think mr.matthewsVanittas unaware of this caste system in india,we are not a subcaste of ezhavas and not want to be addressed ourselves as ezhavas.I think from the above link mr .atthews can understand the fact that we ,thiyyas not going to get justice from ezhavas in their talk page.mr .matthews you cannot find much more about this caste in books or in internet but just come to kannur,thalassery,vadakara ares of malabar he hom land of thiyyas to see our cultural heritage customs and rituals .i request you to consider the facts that i put infront of you before goig to take a decision on deletion of thiyyar page from wikipedia,you are representing an organisation dealing with the knowledge in this world,please once again think about this,this is humble request consider this before deciding a deletion.thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.132.225 (talk) 18:07, 25 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. Sandstein 17:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cairns (clergyman)[edit]

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

No activity as a Bible teacher or pastor seems to meet the notability threshold spelled out in WP:BIO, and the subject's works as an author (per WP:AUTHOR) are not notable either. References for the article are also deficient. —Eustress ^talk 20:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cairns is founder of a seminary and effectively the Free Presbyterian Church of North America because the majority of its clergy are his former students.--John Foxe (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to have some reliable sources in the article stating he founded the seminary and to have that noteworthy event in the lead. If these two issues were resolved, I'd support a keep, but without them, Cairns is just a non-notable evangelist. —Eustress ^talk 00:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about an unreliable source, the seminary website? It says of Cairns, "It was under his direction that the training of preachers for the North American ministry of the FPC commenced in 1982. Geneva Reformed Seminary exists because of his vision and tireless labors." With recent history, we're often limited in what we can reasonably expect to be available.--John Foxe (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Eustress - an independent third party RS is needed. Found some references to him newspaper article were he is hosting a controversial pastor from the uk, accusations that senators pressured state department to revoke visa for that same controversial pastor, Mention of service as a pastor for 30 years in a local UK newspaper. Unfortunately, I don't think any provide information to meet the notability threshold per WP:BIO. I recommend delete to the closer unless these concerns are sufficiently addressed. Symes (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep " principal instructor at Geneva Reformed Seminary," and author of the numerous books, is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose being a full professor at the Geneva Reformed Seminary[31] doesn't pass WP:SCHOLAR? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His notability is based on his role as founder of the seminary and (by extension) the North American denomination.--John Foxe (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history page for Geneva Reformed Seminary (see here) does not say Cairns was the founder, but that he was the professor who assumed "the lion’s share of the instruction" after its inception. —Eustress ^talk 16:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster is a highly conservative evangelical denomination, which was founded and until recently led by Ian Paisley. The subject's notability seems to be that he founded a sister denomination in US and became ist main lecturer. This seems to me to make him notable. ONe difficulty is that this is all concerned with a splinter from a small denomination. "Theological Hall" may be the Reformed Theological College of Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, about which WP has no article, but see [32]. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable evidence of notability from reputable sources presented139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:20, 18 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 | yak _ 17:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am certainly open to changing my vote, but I can't find anything in reliable sources which indicate his notability. Peter, you're probably correct that the difficulty in finding reliable sources is that this is a splinter from a small denomination. However, this is also precisely why it does not appear to be notable (presumably, if the group became sufficiently large and notable, it would begin to generate coverage from mainstream sources.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He cannot inherit notability by being associated with a famous politician/minister. His role in a small bible college, lacking accreditation as a degree granting college, the role of which is to train ministers for a splinter of a small denomination, certainly does not provide any inherent notability. No evidence has been provided as references to the article, or here in the deletion discussion, to demonstrate that multiple reliable and independent sources have significant coverage of him or his work. Edison (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If everyone who did the same things that this guy has was to become "Notable", then "Notable" would have no meaning. Everyone would have a page.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:59, 24 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 as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JDHTML[edit]

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

Spam for non-notable software. damiens.rf 17:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be written from a NPOV. Wheres T ristan 20:32, 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. Sandstein 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parvarrish – Kuchh Khattee Kuchh Meethi characters[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable character list, if anything it should be included in the main article. No need for this fork. No sources, and appears to be merely the editor's/editors' commentary on the characters. Aaron Booth (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. Also no sources establishing notability. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of characters from nationally-aired TV show of 110 episodes' duration. As with any other fictional character list, V is met by the primary sources, and notability is derived from the TV show. Per WP:ATD there is no policy-based reason to delete such a list, which could easily be merged to the article. I also question if this nomination is part of a systemic bias problem, since we don't have any issue keeping articles like this on American TV shows. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

110 episodes is not a reason to keep. The show will most probably have 300+ episodes. That doesnt make characters notable. Frankly speaking even the show's article doesnt establish any notability except that its aired on national television. There is no reason to merge as these characters are already descriped on the main article Parvarrish – Kuchh Khattee Kuchh Meethi. Also just noting that my vote has nothing to do with systemic bias. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, please go through WP:OSE. Criticizing something in Wikipedia without a reason tends to get you nowhere. Secret of success 06:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being unnotable without any sources to add and purposeless. Secret of success 06:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources.Torreslfchero (talk) 08:37, 20 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Terror (band)[edit]

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

Although this article has existed here for a number of years, I actually can't see how it meets any of the notability requirements as listed at WP:BAND. I can find no reliable third party sources, since the only places that seem to mention this band are blogs. The only source provided in the article itself is not even about the band, it is an article about the murder of one of the members. And while tragic, that unfortunately does not automatically confer any sort of notability to the band itself, especially since the death was completely unrelated to his membership in the group. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've never heard of this band, but I've managed to find a few half-decent sources (here and here.) I'll keep looking, but I'm betting with a little digging, we could get it sufficiently referenced to keep.JoelWhy (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left out the LastFm reference, but added another reference from Newsreview.com. They actually seem like a pretty big deal, as far as small, underground bands go. Supposedly were big influences on Kurt Cobain. May be something worth mentioning in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Midtown Monthly article seems pretty good. Even though it is a local paper, I think local papers for major cities like Sacramento are generally considered to count as reliable sources, if I'm not mistaken. The mention in the Newsreview article seems like a pretty trivial mention of the band to me, though, but we can wait to see what other editors think about it. Good job finding these so far, but I'll still wait to see if any other reliable sources can be found before withdrawing the nomination, since it still doesn't quite meet the criteria of having multiple, non-trivial sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see an editor has been pretty busy adding references to the article, and while I'm glad to see this kind of effort, I'm not sure how many of them, if any, can help the article's cause. The added references seem to either come from unreliable sources (one is an angelfire site), not about the band themselves (about how a member of the band was part of several other minor bands with no mention of Tales of Terror at all), or very trivial mentions (someone mentioning having seen them once). While all of these trivial mentions together seem to show that the band truely was on the verge of becoming something notable before tragedy struck, its still questionable if they really had any lasting notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think the book I added which documents the local punk scene is relatively significant. Last.Fm has a biography of them here. Granted, there's no Radiohead-level coverage here or anything, but the fact that they were big influences on Nirvana and Mud Honey makes me feel that the page deserves to stay.JoelWhy (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They didn't only have influence on Mudhoney but also Green River that is considered to be the first Grunge band. Besides, if Guns N' Roses decided to practically rip off one of their songs and took a few ideas for songs from them then they really had a lasting notability. I have seen numbers of (other) shorter articles about bands or just stuff with way less references and/or significative relevance that are not deleted. DustyCoffin (talk) 17:08, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ang[edit]

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

Unsourced blp, apparently links to a blogspot page and an encyclopedia are enough to decline a blpprod Jac16888 ^Talk 16:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this super dubber. ANN has encyclopedic entires (which are not considered, by consensus, reliable), but no articles that mention Ryan. There are other references to Ryan Ang (but not *this* Ryan Ang) that I was able to find at Highbeam, but nothing about this artist. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find enough reliable sources to establish notability. ANN's encyclopedia is user-edited so it's not considered a reliable source. Search reveals many false positives, such as a student who committed suicide. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 23 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Francia[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, no longer in affiliated baseball Spanneraol (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Career minor/independent league baseball player, thereby failing WP:BASE/N. I found no significant coverage of him to demonstrate that he satisfies WP:BIO. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He had a long professional career, which is more than we can say for most, but he didn't do anything in it to make himself notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of course, if someone comes up with evidence of significant coverage I am willing to change my view, but given just 38 games at the AAA level, I think such coverage is unlikely. Rlendog (talk) 17:44, 20 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. Sandstein 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE "NEXT" MGS[edit]

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

Contested prod. Although this article feels pretty long and meaty, most of it is idle speculation and info of unknown relatedness (e.g. no one has said "Project Ogre" = this game). There is no name yet or official announcement, despite the misleading section headings. Delete, per WP:HAMMER. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I came across this the other day, but had hoped the PROD would just work. It strikes me as WP:TOOSOON, considering almost all of the article is speculation and vague teasers for a future game in the series. If kept, it should probably be moved to "Untitled Metal Gear Solid Game" or something, as it's current title is just a vague allusion to a future game, not even really a code-name or anything. But ultimately I think it should be deleted per WP:HAMMER/WP:CRYSTAL. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No question that this should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Besides wp:crystal, the title appears to be fanmade, or is just an advertisement.Tintor2 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful/sourced into [[Metal Gear], delete this (I don't even think keeping it as a redirect makes sense.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma, Tintor2. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, or at least merge - We have official sources backing the claims, not to mention that recently, PSM3 magazine did an article on the subject, and confirmed most of the stuff in question. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing to merge, just guess work. --Soetermans. T / C 18:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I find it hard to believe that the game will be called THE "NEXT" MGS. So if we were to keep it in the end, Metal Gear Solid 5 would be more appropriate. --Soetermans. T / C 18:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:26, 23 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Africa One Antonov An-26 crash[edit]

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

Not notable incident for independent article per WP:AIRCRASH ...William 15:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions....William 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Firstly notability stems from the fact that other people wrote about the incident (GNG). Secondly there was a change in operating procedure from the DRC government, and this crash was responsible for this occurring. That also gives notability to this incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:AIRCRASH as the aircraft was written off, and there were changes introduced at the airport as a direct result of the accident. The article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A badly written article that still requires its own page nonetheless. A quick Google will find more references than the ones listed if that is the concern. --Sebread (talk) 17:36, 19 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. Sandstein 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Empire ( Samuel's Empire )[edit]

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

A highly POV-ish, unreferenced version of the late First Bulgarian Empire under tsar Samuil, seen solely from the perspective of modern Slavo-Macedonian nationalism. The subject is already more than adequately covered in the relevant articles. Constantine ✍ 14:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nomination says, this is someone trying to claim the First Bulgarian Empire was Macedonian. Macedonian debates on WP can be vicious, with more than one entry in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Delete as POV fork/duplication of existing article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Constantine. — Toдor Boжinov — 17:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Not worth a redirect as this is an artificial, non-obvious search term. Not worth the time of a merge as there is little worth transferring that won't need rewritten anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a blatant POV fork. Kostja (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is certainly a bad article, and probably written by some one whose first language is not English. It certainly raises POV issues, but the subject is covered in much greater detail than in First Bulgarian Empire, to which this could potentially be a more detailed "main" article. The "Samuel", who is frequently referred to (but without a link to an article on him) is clearly Samuel of Bulgaria. My query is therefore whether this article adds anything that is not already in the biographical article on him. I suspect the answer is that it does not, except to apply a Macedonian POV to it. I therefore side with delete, but am insufficiently familar with the subject to feel able to vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 24 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Izzo[edit]

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

No professional games, only played for Australia U-17 Fredde (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY and doesn't have significant coverage in independent sources (only passing mentions) so doesn't meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when he makes his debut for Adelaide United. Jenks24 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage or senior professional appearances, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:15, 19 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. Sandstein 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Castillejo[edit]

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

PROD contested by Etzo (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage or senior appearances, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as already stated above, he has not received significant coverage or appeared in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you have against this article? Fine, delete them all. Etzo (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd have bothered reading the above comments then you'd know what they have against the article. That being that it fails the relevant guidelines. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Says user who insists that being national team's coach hasn't peen relevant in Hyypiä's career... Etzo (talk) 21 April 2012
- And that is relevant to this discussion, how exactly? Seems like the tactic of someone who knows he's lost his side of the debate. Please just accept the burgeoning consensus that this player isn't notable by WP standards. Pretty simple stuff. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:13, 21 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 criterion 1 (nominator withdraw). Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can Ergenekan[edit]

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

He's an Olympic swimmer, but he's never won any medals at the Olympics. Granted, just making it to the Olympics is a great accomplishment, but not sure it makes him sufficiently notable for a Wiki page. JoelWhy (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even a brief search reveals references. Sports-reference.com lists him. He also appears to be a Turkish record holder in his discipline. There's another mention here (Hürriyet Daily News). — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYes, I am not disputing he's a swimmer. Just saying he doesn't appear to be notable. The article you referenced is discussing a different athlete, and mentions Ergenekan in the context of one of "two swimmers...who failed to go beyond their preliminary heats." It appears that including this swimmer would mean our standard is to allow a page for every athlete who has ever competed in the Olympics. That seems like an awfully low threshold.JoelWhy (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, including athletes that qualified for this planet's most prestigious sports competition doesn't strike me as very lax. I'm not saying that we should ignore WP:N, but Ergenekan is mentioned several times in media (although I admit I didn't find any substantial coverage in my brief search). — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree that just making it to the Olympics is a phenomenal accomplishment. But, keep in mind that we're talking about thousands of athletes. Over 2,500 competed in 2010 winter Olympics, and more than 11,000 in 2008 Summer Olympics. So, just the latest Olympbics (probably not much crossover between competitors in summer games and winter games) gives us 13,000+ Wiki entries. If that's the standard set, I'm fine with that, but it seems like we would be overrun with such entries if that's the case. However, if we limit entries to the more elite competitors (or, more precisely, the even more elite athletes among a group entirely composed of elite athletes) I don't think Can makes the cut.JoelWhy (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A specific AfD is not a good place to discuss inclusion criteria for athletes. Actually, notability guideline for sportspeople states explicitly that "participa[nts] in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" are presumed notable. You should open a discussion there if you disagree. However, in my opinion, 13.000 entries don't even begin to "overflow" a project with 4 million entries. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!JoelWhy (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As has been pointed out, we generally accept that any sportsperson good enough to appear at the Olympics is presumed notable enough for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPORTS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIs there a formal way for me to withdraw my nomination of this article for deletion?JoelWhy (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By voting 'Keep' on your own nomination ;) ...or maybe just state clearly 'nomination withdrawn'? Sionk (talk) 18:24, 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 per A3 - no substantive content SmartSE (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan P. Kozikowski[edit]

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

Seems like a competent professor and researcher, but nothing that makes him particularly notable. JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 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. Sandstein 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zip's Drive-in[edit]

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

Notability hasn't been established in over four years that this article has existed (and 8 months since {{Notability}} was put on top). Quick internet search produced no relevant references. There was a prod two years ago, removed with explanation that "many people contributed, so it must be notable", which is an invalid argument. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than one lone review by Spokesman.com back in 2007, there just aren't any sources out there that show that this chain is notable. It doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That review is actually a blog post, not considered a reliable reference by itself. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFor reasons stated above.JoelWhy (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 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. Nomination withdrawn by the nom [33], no delete !votes, notability established. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gunther (soldier)[edit]

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

Is this man really notable? I tagged the article with {{notability}} some time ago, but the person who wrote the article quickly removed this without specifying any reason. I suspect that de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/13. August 2008#Henry Günther (gelöscht) might be a discussion about the same person, resulting in deletion on German Wikipedia for notability reasons. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the last British and French soldiers who died in WWI can have an article about them, why can't the last American soldier? Especially since this man was the VERY last soldier to be killed in the war.Thetalkingheads (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)edit : that German article is talking about a German Boxer, not relevant to this Henry Gunther Thetalkingheads (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think notability is weak to borderline, but what tips me to keep is the fact that we have sources that specifically discuss this individual. For a biography (not a BLP, obviously, which would be a higher standard), that's sufficient. A deletion on another project doesn't serve as precedent here, as the articles (and policies) are usually different. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems of borderline notability, but it's a piece of trivia that people may want to know, and it doesn't obviously merge into any article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A book and a film about him plus news articles = notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant firsts and lasts are generally considered to be notable, both within and without Wikipedia. He may not have been a particularly notable person for anything he actually did in life, but the time of his death made him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Assuming he is kept, something will have to be done about the redirect Henry Gunther. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I see that the article has been changed a lot since the nomination and I think that it now assesses the notability criterion sufficiently to be kept. Since Henry Gunther apparently just redirects to a page on WWII, I'd favour renaming this article to a plain Henry Gunther without any "soldier" in the title. I found articles about the guy on the French and Hungarian Wikipedias, which also suggests that the person is notable, although other projects may have different definitions of notability. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Moved Henry Gunther (soldier) to Henry Gunther Thetalkingheads (talk) 23:46, 19 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 Role-playing game terms. (non-admin closure) Salvidrim! 20:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch (games)[edit]

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

I am not certain that this concept is verifiable (WP:V), let alone independently notable (WP:N). The editor who removed the PROD added a forum link as a reference, but forums are not reliable sources (WP:RS). Should this AfD turn up sufficient sources to make this verifiable but not notable, it should be merged to some appropriate glossary of gaming terms; otherwise it should be deleted. Sandstein 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Role-playing game terms. A search for crunch rpg brings up numerous sites, mainly forums and blogs. But there is at least one magazine reference Dragon.--Salix (talk): 11:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can do that, although even the Dragon article does not explain what "Crunch" is. Sandstein 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge common term of art, but doesn't need (or have the sources to support) its own article. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would vote merge, as I feel this is pretty widely used vernacular in many RPG discussions. However, I'm not aware of any suitable merge target. It sounds like a sourced list of such terms could be created by referring to the RPG treatises such as those by Gygax and Laws, but right now it doesn't seem like an article fills this niche. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - role-playing game terms is as good a merge target as any, though that article needs work. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. Not a popular term covered by multiple reliable sources to satisfy GNG. Even with the little coverage it has, it's better suited in a parent article. Not sure what that would be, but role-playing game terms sounds OK. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:21, 23 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. Peridon (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azithro[edit]

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

Autobiography about possibly non-notable person. Also needs to be completely rewritten to become an encyclopedia article.jfd34 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete NN autobio. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:04, 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 merge to Football in Turkey. Sandstein 05:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity of Turkish teams[edit]

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

Just a list of polls with no real context. Contravenes WP:NOTSTATS. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agree that this article in its current form doesn't fit acceptable parameters, the basic data here is informative and could find a home (sans charts) somewhere in Football in Turkey or a related article about football rivalries in Turkey, a subject of considerable interest, for example see Elif Batuman's March 7, 2011 piece in The New Yorker, "The View from the Stands: Life among Istanbul’s soccer fanatics." --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a very brief overview to Football in Turkey -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 10:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Chris, sensible suggestion. Giant Snowman 19:14, 19 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. As a "list of", it may be more maintainable - as long as criteria are set. There is a mild consensus to keep. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Female adventurers[edit]

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

Don't think that this should have an article and fails WP:GNG Yash t 101 09:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG: The blessings of a good thick skirt; Women travelers; Victorian lady travellers; Maiden Voyages; Unsuitable for Ladies; Spinsters Abroad; How to Climb Mt. Blanc in a Skirt; Ladies on the Loose; Women of Adventure; Wayward Women; &c. Warden (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Another list with impossibly vague inclusion criteria. For instnce Freya Stark and Sally Ride have very little in comon other than being women. If it is kept, it should be renamed, since 'adventurer' is a word with multiple meanings.TheLongTone (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Freya Stark and Sally Ride DO have something else in common; they are adventurers. I take it that you are emphasizing the differences between them. But to claim that adventurers in space and in the desert are not, then, adventurers? Anarchangel (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs to be in alpha order with a summary of each.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is cleaned up and expanded as Dr. Blofeld suggests, it might end up as a useful page. But the inclusion criteria is a problem - what the hell is an adventurer? Who decides? Not sure about this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of adventurer intended here is obviously that defined by the OED as "A person who engages in hazardous enterprises; one who seeks or enjoys adventures.". Other possible words for the title might be discoverer, explorer or traveler but they are all debatable. What's clear is that, whatever you call them, such women are regularly put together in sources such as Women of the Four Winds. Warden (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the inclusion criteria need to be clarified in such a way as to keep this list from getting indiscriminate, but the subject itself is encyclopedic if that happens. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The criteria clearly needs to be clarified in the article if it is to stand any chance of being kept. The current wording would allow any woman who engaged in promiscuous anonymous sex to be added to the list, any woman who has shared dirty heroin needles, etc. These are 'hazardous enterprises' engaged in for pleasure. . . the very definition of adventure. Due to the lax (non-existant?) inclusion criteria, the current list includes sailors, mountain climbers, journalists, dog sledders, swimmers, astronauts, pilots, and missionaries. These women have nothing in common. Most in this list were not explorers and did not discover anything, they traveled to locations that were documented/explored long before. Tighter inclusion criteria will likely end up shortening this list further, but are needed if the list is to remain.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At the very least, this article needs a rename. A serial killer meets the dictionary definition of an adventurer. Should we include Typhoid Mary, Irma Grese, and Beverley Allitt in this same list? The criteria for inclusion on this list is way too broad.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 13:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; I believe these examples are skimming the surface, and there are more important distinctions within them. Serial killers are not motivated by the danger of being caught. Needle sharers do not seek out this danger; they are negligent. The criteria need not be more defined or stringent than the combination of the two phrases in the sentence, "A person who engages in hazardous enterprises; one who seeks or enjoys adventures.". I.e., inclusion is not based on hazardous enterprises OR enjoying adventures, but both. And as it happens, the word 'engages' implies this distinction; a person who engages in an activity is seeking it out, and choosing to engage in it.Anarchangel (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your proof that the motivations of all female serial killers in history were not related to compulsive risk taking. Next, few of the women even in the current list meet your criteria . . . some of them did what they did for fame, money, research, recognition, etc. Where are the references that show that they 'enjoyed adventures'? Next . . . where the heck do we draw the line for inclusion criteria? Does any female black belt in a martial art qualify? They commonly are involved in risky actions (fighting) often due to risk loving personalities. Is any woman scientist in the early 1900s an adventurer for going against societal norms and doing scientific research? What about a women's rights activist? Is Rosa Parks an adventurer for her protesting against segregation? Currently the list seems to indicate that adventurers should only include any women who has performed some sort of physical feat or travel. Nobody has yet narrowed the inclusion criteria for this list.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 12:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Warden and Blofeld and my replies above. Anarchangel (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note – The article has been renamed to List of female adventurers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as impracticably broad and a non-notable intersection of criteria: women are half of humanity, and what definition of "adventurer" do we adopt? Sandstein 05:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden, Blofeld, and Anarchangel. Also, this is a useful list for our core readership - students. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 26 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. Has been substantially edited, if still deemed problematic a new nomination would be required. Sandstein 05:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firma (supporter group)[edit]

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

Much of the content in this article isn't actually about the group "firma", what there is, is promotional in tone and suggests no notability, and the article is entirely unsourced Jac16888 ^Talk 09:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; if sources can be found then rredirect to FK Vojvodina. Giant Snowman 12:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll edit and improve the page. In addition, the club was one of the best clubs of the former Yugoslavia and on of the best known supporter groups. I see many reasons and also notability. Every bigger supporter group has his own article on wikipedia. The club is also today one of the best clubs on the Balkan and the Firma on of the best known supporter groups. Also they support many other sport sections. The article is not finished and its not true that the content is only about the club. Again, the article is not ready. In few days there will be ready. There's very much relevant and importent things to write. There are also many other supporter goups who also have articles on wikipedia . There are a lot of other articles wiht less relevance than this here. I see no problem. A little patience please.--Nado158 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all cites are either to the football club's website, which only mention "Firma" in passing, if at all, or to the fansite primary source. (Although I admit I'm scanning, not reading Serbian). The entire article is promotional fluff, and with a lack of genuine cites it's difficult to see anything worth rescuing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article is not ready. In few days there will be ready. There's very much relevant and importent things to write. The entire article is NO promotional fluff. A little patience please.--Nado158 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage by reliable independent sources. – Kosm1 fent 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article should pass WP:GNG now. – Kosm1 fent 11:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The references are from different homepages of the club and the group. Read it again.--Nado158 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the article and the article has significant and independent sources. I will more iprove the article in the course of the days.--Nado158 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources apart from Firma's and the club's websites, I see are a Transfermarkt one which does not support the sentence in question, a Youtube video which does not report why the game's atmosphere was notable and why "such a exciting atmosphere was not seen for a long time in Novi Sad" and a fan blog which is not an appropriate source per WP:BLOGS. You need to provide more sources, preferably from reliable Serbian newspapers offering non-trivial coverage on Firma if you want the article to stand a chance in surviving. – Kosm1 fent 04:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want absolutely that this page be deleted? There are so many sites with no reference or and much smaller fan groups. This Article has much references: From the official website of the club and from the official hompega of the group(should i take some private website from different fans?) and the transfermarket report, so you see that it was a final with 16.000 spectators. Do I need to finde a reference for each word? This does not have one article here on wikipedia. The Youtube video is from the TV RTS (the main tv in Serbia)a proof for the atmosphere and the choreography. Also the reporter sad that is a highly anticipated a exciting game was not seen for a long time in Novi Sad and other things. Of course, this was European cup final and it was the first major international game since the war. What's there not to understand? In addition, it is not a fan blog , it is an independent newspaper of the fans, that's a difference. Should I get some information from rivals supporter with wrong informations? This newspaper page has only the authority to be a fan site, they are protected from the club. The whole newspaper(almost all international and national) of whom you speak get the information from the officila websites from the club and the group, from where else? Certainly not from copied and fake homepages. Also i added references of the fkvojvodina.come hompage, an another legitimate, acceptable and relevant homepage of the club. That's a lot more referencec than many other sites have it. I will more iprove the article in the course of the days.--Nado158 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This club and its fans have an almost 100 year old history. They were among the best and most famous in the former Yugoslavia, and there are this also in Serbia today. They are also is very well known in the fan scene in South East Europe, alsoo in Weste and eastern Europe. Not only in football, also in basketball, handball, volleyball and water polo. There is no reason to delete this page.--Nado158 (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The majority of the sources you used are from Firma's and Vojvodina's websites, so they are not considered independent; no matter how hard you try to convince us to the contrary, seaweed cannot pass for silk ribbons (as they say in my country). The rest sources do nothing towards establishing reliability for this fan club, being unreliable and/or vague. – Kosm1 fent 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to their theory 80% of all pages of wikipedia must be deleted delate.Why you want to convince us that the article must be? What bothers you here?I dont understand. Again, the source are reliable sources. Of course, most sources are of the club and of the group. Where the other? So it is the same with all other clubs and groups. I also gave other sources. In your opinion the rest sources do nothing towards establishing reliability for this fan club, being unreliable and/or vague but its not true. I understand Englisch, German, Serbian and other languages. You dont understan Serbian. How can you say that it's not true? There is evidence enough, i gave more references than many other clubs and groups here.--Nado158 (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further links. In German, English ect.--Nado158 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "theory", it is a Wikipedia policy. If 80% of the pages fail Wikipedia's policies, then nominate them for deletion. Such arguments by the way won't help in keeping the article; I've already told you what kind of sources you need to in order for the article to pass WP:GNG. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 13:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no harm. I am just wondering, because this page is well done and i have gave many sources. But i have given the best and safest sources. I have added further links about the pitch invasion ect. I will find more sources and improve the article.--Nado158 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wait a sec. Recently we had passed the Crveni Ðavoli, which is a similar article, as it is about the main supporting group of another Serbian club. Now, the thing is that this one, Firma, is even bigger, and it is considered to be the third largest in the country, so it ends up having no logic by keeping the Crveni Ðavoli and delting this one. We already have the two largest supporting firms from Serbia: Grobari (Partizan) and Delije (Red Star), now Firma is the third (Vojvodina), while Crveni Ðavoli is possibly the fourth (Radnicki 1923)... Personally, I can say that the ultra movement in Serbia has been quite strong and it has been quite known outside Serbia. By saying this I also mean that many editors have been adding much stuff related to this firms into the club articles, and personally, I would prefer to have the bigger ones having a separate article, instead of occupiying large sections of club articles, and beside Grobari and Delije, these two are actually the following bigger ones. FkpCascais (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...the ultra movement in Serbia has been quite strong and it has been quite known outside Serbia" If so, there would certainly be reliable sources to warrant notability to Firma. The Crveni Djavoli article was saved by the four articles from Blic, which made it pass GNG. This article does not feature any source of that quality so far, but I trust Nado158 can find some. – Kosm1 fent 07:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only having in mind the Serbian Cup final incidents from 2011, all major media couvered the events and made reference to them, but searching news reports from media is not at all easy because of several reasons. The first one is that Serbian language uses declinations, meaning, when refered to them, the media will say, exemple Firmaši, and not Firma, and it may depend on the context about what declination is used. The another difficulty is that Google and similar search engines don´t include the results which are in Cyrillic, which are the majority of Serbian media, so all this makes the searches not as near as easy as the normal English language ones. Give me a few days to see if I have time to digg in the news reports and bring the relevant articles. FkpCascais (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you search in Cyrillic you will get results in Cyrillic: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The Google News search results in many false positives, as you would expect from a search for a common word and a province, but the first result looks like a good source from Radio Television of Serbia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind input. I completelly forgot Google search can be donne in Cyrillic as well, and the RTS source you brought is indeed very good as it refers directly to the group, which is excellent! FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added another 3 sources: an English link, information from Blic and a report from Novosti. Both are well-known newspapers in Serbia. I will find more sources and improve more the article.Thanks:)--Nado158 (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Novosti source was good enough to warrant notability (with the Blic source being about the volleyball team without a mention to Firma – sorry if I made a mistake, blame Google Translate), but it will do. Good job. – Kosm1 fent 11:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With Blic you're partially right. I wanted to confirm that several thousand fans of Vojvodina went also to the volleyball games(especially in the 90s). The English source is from (in the fans scene well-know) Ultras Spirit. I am sure, i will find in the next days more notability sources like Novosti. Thank you very much:)--Nado158 (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added informations from Sportski žurnal. A well-known sport newspapers in Serbia. :) --Nado158 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been significantly improved & now has been shown to meet WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In future Nado when an article which you care about & you feel is notable, go & improve the article & then leave a comment asking users to re-evaluate their votes following improvements to the article. Rather then badgering users with comments the article isn't ready yet & comments about other articles which aren't relevant to this discussion & certainly don't attempt to vote multiple times again. Anyway good job on improving the article & may I suggest that you create an article in your user space then add it to the mainspace when the article is ready TO avoid situations like this. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,thank you and thanks for the suggestion :)--Nado158 (talk) 17:15, 24 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kavya Kusum 32[edit]

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

The publication house is not much notable nor is the subject Yash t 101 09:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete ~~per WP:A7~~. The only Google mentions of either Kavya Kusum 32 or Artworks Publications are... this page; thus even if notability were claimed, there's no verifiable info out there to support it. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not eligible for speedy deletion under A7, as it does not apply to books or other creative works. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're absolutely right. My brain was obviously visiting the bathroom when I wrote that. Amended. *self-trout* Yunshui 雲‍水 12:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously not notable, not even close (unless someone can prove me wrong). Chutznik (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:32, 21 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. Page was moved to Mikhail Ilyich Surkov during the discussion by a participant. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mihail Ilyich Surkov[edit]

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

Another editor created this page, but while making redirects, I discovered that it has previously been deleted under the name Mikhail_Surkov. I think it's notable, but given the previous "delete" consensus, I'm re-listing to confirm notability. Slashme (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mikhail_Surkov
Keep: This guy was claimed by the Soviets to be the top-scoring sniper of WWII. That alone is a sign of notability. There are multiple sources repeating this claim. --Slashme (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would agree that a claim that he was World War II's top sniper, even if that claim is unsubstantiated, makes him notable. The existence of the claim (if not the man) appears to be referenced in reliable enough sources. The previous deletion seems to have been rather a poor decision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, even if the claims are exaggerated.--Dmol (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. However, if kept it should be moved to Mikhail Ilyich Surkov, as that is the usual transliteration of the Cyrillic Михаил. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! --Slashme (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Published claims of being the top-killing sniper of WWII make this a slam dunk keep. Sources are showing. I have done some rudimentary cleanup of the piece for POV and form and have boldly moved the piece to Mikhail Ilyich Surkov, since cyrillic "X" is latin "KH" in both the Library of Congress and English transliteration systems. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! --Slashme (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmmmm, I just paid a visit to Russian WP and there is no listing for him. This sets off a warning buzzer in my head... For the record, the caption below the picture of Surkov says: "Sniper Mikhail Surkov, who exterminated 702 fascists." So if this is a hoax, it is a clever one. I also note that two of the footnotes were attributed to a publisher called Zenith, but from different cities. This is possible for a small publisher, of course, but also a red flag — pardon the pun. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay, not a hoax. I found him redlinked at Russian Wikipedia HERE and there seems to be plenty of stuff on the net — although there is a dead link in the piece under discussion that needs to be culled out. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't quite understand what I did there - I'd found a book source, but it was snippet view, so I tried to build a search that should have given me the quotation from the book, but it now just seems to be getting a web result, with no book results. No matter, the other source gives the same basic info (see talk page) --Slashme (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm writing this here to discuss it first, as it might be a major change to the article if "corrected"(its not only the highest score in the European conflict, but also in other parts of the war like North Africa and the Pacific) "total which would make him the most effective sniper of the European conflict." ? But was it really needed to change the whole article? Schutzephilip (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the Pacific theater was counted; not immediately evident from the lists I glanced at on the fly and I unilaterally downgraded the claim. I find the phrasing "score" to be extremely offensive and got rid of that also. If the Japanese and American-Pacific totals are known and considered here and I've undercut the claim, feel free to change it back. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Score" may be offensive to some, but it is the actual term used, for both snipers and fighter pilots, and Wikipedia is not censored. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 19 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 A7. Peridon (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zieryeb Meickal[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete "not notable" Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no credible assertion of importance, also very promotional. CSD reactivated (why was it nowikied?) B music ian 12:32, 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 RESULT withdrawn. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nitrome Limited games[edit]

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

Can't see that this meets the criteria at WP:NOTESAL. A few reviews aren't enough, and the parent article although possibly notable doesn't have any links that show it is. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, forgot to look at talk page, withdrawing this. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 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 Deleted per WP:CSD#A3 Pedro : Chat 08:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Www.globetradecontrol.com[edit]

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

Srikar Kashyap (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A7 Yash t 101 07:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symptomat[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find any notable references to this. The homepage (www.symptomat.com) registers as an attack page (i.e. taken over by malware). But the main thing is, I can't find any evidence of notability. KarlB (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified, not even sure it exists. No sources provided except the above mentioned "malware" site which I chose not to look at. Google News and Google Scholar find nothing, only sentences containing the two words "...symptom at..." Article basically unimproved since 2006, when it was created by an WP:SPA whose sole post in 6 years was to create this article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I did go to the malwave site (which I don't recommend), and there is some piece of software there, but I didn't play with it much, and am not clear on its utility. --KarlB (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (2x ec) The program did apparently exist, though the only proof would seem to be through this interview [34] with it's creator. There is no notability as I cannot find anything about it anywhere except self published articles and the two dodgy websites. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC) (Note: I moved this comment so it would be in chronological order. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 19 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) 01:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Polo[edit]

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

I don't see any indication that this 'sport' is notable at all. I can't find any real information about it as a sport at all. West Eddy (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is that speedy category for made-up stuff? Drmies (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made up. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding coverage in reliable sources for this topic. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 20 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 French Armed Forces. And delete. Sandstein 05:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groupement de soutien de la base de défense de Calvi[edit]

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

This is a unit of the French Army. A search turned up no sources that show that this unit is notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to French Armed Forces. Redirects are cheap and this is the official name of the unit. Interestingly, it matches the article name at FR.Wiki, which (coupled with the machine translation) makes me think this is simply a copy of that article translated. Even the format matches, generally. It might be notable, it might not, but a redirect would leave the history for whoever wanted to take a crack at an article (in English!) down the line. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While commanded by a lieutenant-colonel, this appears to be a company-sized unit (106 personnel). We do have plenty of articles on company-sized units, but I'm tending to think this one really isn't notable enough. It's just a base administration unit for the units based in a particular département. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a small support unit in Corsica, not exactly a hotbed of fighting. Unless it has some wonderful connection to Napoleon, I'm stumped as to how it could ever be notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't think this particular unit is notable either, I will just point out that, contrary to the beliefs of some misguided souls, there is no reason whatsoever why non-frontline support units should not be notable if a decent case can be made for their notability. The generalisation that combat units are notable and non-combat units are not notable is one usually put forward by arrogant combat veterans or, even worse, by wannabes with no real military experience. I'm not accusing you of being either one of them, incidentally, but I would like to make this clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 20 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, WP:SNOW. I guess I was wrong; withdrawn. =^_^= Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ketzal's Corridors[edit]

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

Video game that appears to have no notability. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets notability requirements. Reviewed on IGN[35], UK Official Nintendo Magazine[36], Edge[37] (note, as the article says, the game is called SpeedThru: Potzol's Puzzle in Europe). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Notability is thin, granted, but I think the coverage I'm seeing is sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Been seeing a lot of coverage on this game. I can provide more, but I'm pretty sure Colapeninsula's are plenty. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article seem enough to meet GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 19 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. Sandstein 05:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sabhan[edit]

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

The article has no references, I found no non-Wikipedia sources via Google. The content is not verifiable; it may be original research or even a hoax. The topic seems non-notable at best. Huon (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most promising-looking reference, to the Huffington Post, doesn't mention any Sabhan. Searching Google Book suggests there were various people called Sabhan but no dynasty. The person who wrote this article needs to explain where they got their information from (sadly the creator has not been seen since 2008). It may be a non-standard transliteration, but in the absence of further information this has to be deleted as not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:V. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 19 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 convert to disambiguation page. Sandstein 05:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performance testing[edit]

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

Tagged for no sources since 2007; it's not at all clear that there's a notable topic here. Perhaps a disambig page though... Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh - the article is crap, but there is an actual notable subject there that's more than just software performance testing. Not sure if that merits deletion or not. Argyriou (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write The article is poorly written, but it's not crap. It needs references but it's an extremely notable subject in software testing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a Software performance testing, also tagged for no refs, with a lot of real content. That's why I said maybe a disambig. Books show all sorts of performance testing, but it's not clear which, if any, fit the topic as described in this stub; some articles like engineering performance testing, sports performance testing, human performance testing, motor oil performance testing, etc. are all possibilities. But what do we do for now? Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be essentially a disambiguation page from which most of the entries should be removed, but still a reasonable search term for at least 2 or 3 of the linked articles. --Michig (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination does not seem to be proposing deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambig The page has no real content and would be better used as a disambig page pointing to more specific pages such as Software performance testing .--ben_b (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 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. Although the article appears to barely meet requirements, sourcing is weak, and needs a lot of cleanup to prevent it from being WP:PROMO. there is currently no consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VEGAS.com[edit]

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

Chatty, gossipy article about a website meant to draw tourism to Las Vegas. Page history shows it to be created and edited by several SPAs. Indeed, it basically devolves into unsourced describing of adverts for Las Vegas at the end, and the rest of it is at the level of a company newsletter. I don't think this really meets any level of WP:NOTABILITY. 86.** IP (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the previous AfD it was kept as meeting WP:WEB. The article has numerous sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD was in 2007; after 5 years, I think it's time for a reevaluation. Do you seriously think any of the sources in the article establishes notability? If so, which? 86.** IP (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National and local press[38][39][40][41] Also several references in Travel Weekly, a long-running trade publication.[42][43][44][45] Notability is not temporary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure most of those are press releases. remember that notability requires independent coverage; only the first of those looks to be much more than a recycled press release, and said first link is so rambly and stream-of-consciousness that it doesn't have substantial content, the other requirementThere's also WP:MILL - every city has a website now, the minor coverage doesn't show vegas.com to be at all notable compared to the thousands, if not millions, of others. 86.** IP (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a puff piece, little in the way of a subjective analysis. The article serves to promote the site and enumerate the services offered, without any critique raising concerns over NPOV. This is a long-standing article so there has been plenty of time to solve these issues: that this has not been done does not bode well for a number of editors becoming involved and carrying the article forward. Given those concerns and the low probability of it being brought into line in the foreseeable future the "total rewrite required" deletion criteria seems to apply strongly here. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG, including the following, which are NOT press release reprints; they're written by staff reporters:

Las Vegas Review-Journal – Vegas.com partners with Mexico.com
Las Vegas Sun – Travel site upgrades trip packaging
Ad Week – Vegas.com Takes Pole Position
The New York Times – Staying Close to the Heart and Spectacle of Las Vegas

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still say WP:MILL applies. 86.** IP (talk) 17:59, 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) 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining- But Alexa ranking compared to the municipality might be of interest. Dru of Id (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. Definitely meets WP:GNG. Should be cleaned up - it is a bit advert-ish - but that's not what AfD is for. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:09, 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) 01:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goldscholars Model School[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Primary school failing WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 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) 02:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI don't see anything which indicates notability.JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newly established private elementary school. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negligence (disambiguation)[edit]

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

One clear main topic and one legitimate other entry that can be hatnoted. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough confusingly similar terms that it seems useful (many of which are referred to as "negligence" in common parlance). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see Negligence (band). That alone justifies a disambiguation. There are multiple legal concepts also. Chutznik (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple subjects, therefore valid disam page ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Angkhana will be informed of this[edit]

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

Describes a half-a-week-old semi-viral video in Thailand. Fails the notability criteria per the GNG, WP:WEB and WP:NEVENT. It is extremely unlikely that the video in question, the Twitter frenzy, or even the general concern over the issues will remain of public interest even next week. Paul_012 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the same article is under the AfD discussion on Thai Wikipedia. While some users endorsed the similar position which includes the notability concern, the main contributors of both language of article suggested to have a deletion pending to see whether the general concern will be on the move for the next two weeks. This period, however, might be shortened on English Wikipedia. Personally, I endorsed the position to Keep the article for a week (which has already been the general period of AfD) to see the mainstream reaction --G(x) (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article in question, I don't oppose to the request. That's all. P.S. It's not me who asked the deletion of the corresponding article in Thai Wikipedia to be suspended for two weeks as mentioned, but the requestor himself. --Aristitleism (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:09, 12 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) 02:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flash in the pan web video. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, lacks references RadioFan (talk) 01:01, 20 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) 01:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Knife System[edit]

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

Article by an SPA about a non-notable system with no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated. The assertion that the subject "has caused nothing but controversy, worldwide" has yet to be supported by any references. I looked through the Stellenbosch University reference (http://stbweb02.stb.sun.ac.za/urdr/downloads/Elsiesrivier.pdf) and it is a general reference on the location; I do not see the subject or its founder mentioned anywhere in that source. Janggeom (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There's no indication of notability and no independent sources. Actually, the only source listed under references is the paper mentioned by Janggeom and I found no mention of this system in that paper. There is nothing in the article that appears to have independent verification. Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this topic. Therefore, the topic appears to fail WP:GNG. This source in the article does not cover the topic: ElsiesRiver Transformation Research Project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 20 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. Sandstein 16:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstruck (2012 film)[edit]

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

High-school student production, won some local awards, but no evidence of notability per WP:NFILM. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for a short while. Sure, it's a low budget student short film... but it had limited DVD release two weeks ago and is already receiving some positive attention. We can be patient for a short while to see if it gets more with wider viewing and media analysis. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student movie. The DVD "release" is the teenage filmmaker selling copies from his website. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:28, 18 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) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I debated about whether or not this would really do well as far as incubation goes, but unfortunately I just don't think that this film will ever really get enough attention to pass WP:NFILM. Even the coverage it's already gotten has been minimal. The very, very few non-blog entries and self-published sources that I've found do not mention Hosseini as separate from anyone else that won a specific competition. It's pretty much your run of the mill student film that's gotten some local notice, but nothing that would be considered notable in the here and now. A search doesn't bring up anything that would show otherwise, and to be honest... I can see where Hosseini has been marketing this pretty hard. It's a pretty obvious advertising attempt, although I know that this doesn't always mean that something isn't notable. It went on to the Georgia Media Festival (a non-notable student festival, I might add), but it should be noted that this isn't really an accomplishment since any student can add their film to this competition. I did see a blog-ish type entry that said "entries that got such and such a score progressed...", but the actual film festival website pretty much states that any student with a film and an adult sponsoring them can enter.[46] From what I can see, it looks like all of the film competitions it's been put in have been like this, and appear to be about the equivalent of submitting a prize pumpkin to the state fair. Basically put, this is not notable and is highly unlikely to become so. I really don't see this being worth incubation. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to be honest, I don't see where the film itself has actually gotten any coverage beyond routine listings in local student film festivals along the lines of "so and so won this", which isn't really that big of an accomplishment Wikipedia-wise when you consider that he's won a competition along with about 100+ other films for one competition. (And one of the links in another article was dead, so there's no telling how many progressed in that one.) It's no more likely to become notable than any random student film from any high school or college. If the film itself had received any real coverage from local papers or media, then I'd be more likely to think otherwise, but it hasn't.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentKevin Durant (an NBA player) is releasing a film with the same title. So, if you googgle this movie, don't be confused by the more prominent Durant flick.JoelWhy (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTo the above editors: removing a premature article from mainspace does not always demand deletion... specially for a new film. My hope that it will have greater coverage is just just a hope, yes... but as it is verifiable, and even if currently unsuitable for mainspace, we DO have options other than outright deletion. I would be just a fine with a temporary return to its author. If this "prize pumpkin" gets no futher press, it won't be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm worried about is that everything I've found that discusses this film has been advertising/promotional attempts by the author, with this Wikipedia entry being just his latest attempt to promote for his film. The only things that aren't put out by him are lists of competitors/winners for various local student film festivals, meaning that there's been zero coverage of this film and zero reason to believe that this film will ever gain notability. I'm not entirely adverse to the article getting userfied, although I'm worried about the potential conflict of interest as the article itself is full of puffery and advertising-speak, with Hossini (as he's the editor who created the article) throwing in unverified claims that the film was "praised especially for its visual effects" by unknown people (his friends? family? judges? no way of knowing). If this is userfied, I recommend that he goes through someone else as far as re-writing the article is concerned. He'd need someone to show him what's needed for notability and what isn't. From what I can see, he does have a working knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia, as evidenced by his edits (he knows how to create references and how to put "for the wiki entry on this, see this" at the top of articles), so what he really needs is to have someone go over notability guidelines and conflict of interest with him. If someone wants to help him with userfying then that's one thing, but I don't think this film would be worth incubating. It's just no more likely to gain notability than any other high school student's film festival entry, despite the director's attempts at advertising.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that the editor has also attempted to add one of this other films, The Survivors to Wikipedia as well as trying to create a page for himself back in 2009. This just seems to be his latest attempt at self promotion here on Wikipedia. I'm going to post some COI information on his page, but Schmidt, you might want to try taking him under your wing as far as stuff like this goes. I'm just worried about him trying to add his other films to Wikipedia or making edits that could be seen as a conflict of interest or promotion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in his interview by WXIA-TV, Atlanta [47] last February, it was established that Zach is 15... thus his poor contributions in 2009 were when he was 11. So we might grant that newbies are newbies and see his newness and lack of understanding in the ways and means of editing Wikipedia are likely due to his age and enthusiasm and lack of understanding or experience in Wiki-editing. Since being interviewed by the news would be quite a rush to a teenage filmmaker, we might certainly expect that now that he has caught the eye of the media, we will hear more about this youngster, and not less. I had suggested incubation because userfication was problematical. Let's send him to WP:PRIMER and WP:NAY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 20 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) 01:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Capoeira Batuque[edit]

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

This article has no independent sources and is about a martial arts school whose sole (unsupported) claim to notability is that it is the oldest capoeira school in Southern California. Papaursa (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to make any real claims of notability and has no independent sources. Clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to show this school is notable or has any independent coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Independent sources to demonstrate the notability of this MMA school. Hasteur (talk) 17:21, 24 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. From my own reading of this discussion, it's possible that he may just squeek by but there's not enough participation to make a call. If someone wants to speedy renominate this they can but I would recommend waiting a while. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Chapman[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass the notability guidelines. Fails WP:CREATIVE, as neither his poetry nor his screenwriting has received major critical attention (Burning the Bed did win a WorldFest prize, but only bronze). Insufficient independent sources found for the alternative route of GNG to be available. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hey... bronze in a worldwide fest is still pretty darn good, yes? Anyway, I was able to find numerous references. I think it's good under wp:gng Easily verified many published works, honors, variety of media. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work on sourcing is appreciated. However, I'm unconvinced that these sources do provide a pass of WP:GNG.

Irish Writers Online has an extremely low bar for inclusion: "At least one poetry or short story collection, novel, play or script published by a bona fide publisher or if it’s a play or film, produced professionally." I'd be open to discussing this one at WP:RSN.
The IFTN article is a passing mention of the film Burning the Bed, and doesn't even mention Chapman.
Anyone can submit poetry to the Dublin Quarterly; they don't even pay for submitted work.
This Irish Film Board entry lists Chapman's name at the end of a string of writers, but provides no information about him.
As far as I can tell, The Short Review is essentially compiled by bloggers. It does seem to have some editorial controls, though, so again, may be worth discussion at WP:RSN.
The GoodReads source is merely a plot synopsis, and says nothing about Chapman save for a credit as author.
Ditto the Doctor Who Guide entry.

I don't mean to be an arse about this; if the man is genuinely notable then I want to see an entry on him as much as anyone. However, with the only-faintly-possible exceptions of 1 and 5, above, I see nothing here that passes the requirements of GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 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) 00:14, 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, BusterD (talk) 01:47, 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. Any plausible redirect can be editorially created. Sandstein 17:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Alexander (East Lansing, MI)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; fails WP:POLITICIAN in that he was a losing candidate only. Fails the WP:GNG; GNews searches for combinations of "bob armstrong" "democrat" "east lansing" and "mike rogers" bring up assorted basketball players, video producers and a Texas land commissioner but no significant sources that discuss this person. Tassedethe (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2008#District 8, which gives the most information (includes unsuccessful 2004 candidacy), since no election coverage exists at Michigan's 8th congressional district, and the corresponding Michigan, 2004 subarticle does not yet exist. Dru of Id (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was going to say redirect per Dru of Id, but title seems like unlikely search term. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be moved to Bob Alexander (Michigan) or Bob Alexander (politician) (which already redirects there); Robert D. Alexander redirects there also. Dru of Id (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unelected politician, which usually falls on the delete side of the line by consensus. I have personal views which lie outside of consensus on such matters but no specific opinion here. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HealthySYNC[edit]

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

This vending machine was only installed in one middle school. It is non-notable, same with the middle school which I redirected to the school district. I did not merge the middle school article to the school district article because I would never merge unreferenced content. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNothing notable here.JoelWhy (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete A vending machine that used to be in a middle school. No sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as borderline nonsense, cases like this is why we should have a db-product criteria. Secret ^account 19:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(d) I've merged the content to Upper_Darby_School_District#HealthySYNC. Suggest this be SNOW closed.--v/r - TP 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no sources outside wikipedia mirrors to even meet WP:V and WP:NOR, a delete is better. Secret ^account 19:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." and WP:V says "However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." Are you saying that you find HealthySYNC so contentious that it cannot be included in the article about the school district?--v/r - TP 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually if we can't prove if the item even existed, Google bought only mirrors of Wikipedia, then it fails WP:V because we can't verify the information thus it's original research. That's the main rule of the policy. Secret ^account 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Google isn't the only source of information in the world. Not that I have a source, but basing your argument on WP:GHITS isn't very compelling.--v/r - T P 19:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course Google isn't the only source of information. But how can we know that the editor didn't make the information up? And if it did exist, this is original research talking about an individual vending machine in a school with no sourcing to back it up other than their memory. It's the same as an article describing a celebrity that you knew non-notable car before they got famous. It might have existed, but there isn't going to be sources on that person car other than your own memory. Is the car mergeable then? The timeframe when the machine was added and removed was easily in the Internet age, and it was being described as it was an innovation (vending machines that accepts coupons are common now, but not in 2001, so Google should have an hit or two on the machine). It's always been the consensus on Wikipedia, if the article subject can't be verified to exist, then there shouldn't be an article, nor it should be merged somewhere. Secret ^account 19:47, 23 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. Unsourced one-sentence content. Redirect at editorial discretion. Sandstein 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Health effector[edit]

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

Very few references to this can be found. Social determinants of health is a much better and more widely used coverage of almost the same topic. KarlB (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge Instead of deleting, suggest merge health effector with health effect.

Social determinants of health would only cover a subset of health effectors. Looking at Category:Health effectors, various items there are not social determinants - e.g. exercise, drinking water, pollution, and some of the others are only peripherally social. In addition there are many health effectors that are not covered in the category (e.g. toxins, radiation, ...). Zodon (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a redirect or merge. This is not a commonly used term (in fact it's ungrammatical - if anything it should be "health affector" but that is not a commonly used term either) and there's not enough content to bother merging. In any case, the article Health effect seems to be talking about something else. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under this title / 'Merge' to Determinants of health. An article on the things that affect health both positively and negatively would be nice, and there is evidence that that concept is useful and used by professionals in the field. Not super happy about the single sentence length, though. I know that does not mean we cannot add to it later, and I would support a new article creation, but on the other hand, we would not be missing out on much either. Anarchangel (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Determinants of health was merged to Social determinants of health at 19:02, on 25 July 2006‎ by Kurieeto "(Redirecting to Social determinants of health)". Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This exists here Health#Determinants_of_health already. I don't think the present article adds to the info already in Health --KarlB (talk) 01:12, 20 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Archer (former teacher)[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:CRIME. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the perpatrator does not appear to have national or international renown and the motivation for the crime is not unusual per WP:CRIME. -- role^player 22:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 19 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. Sandstein 05:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Call Girl[edit]

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

1. Notability (with only citations for industry awards, none for bulk of article) 2. advert 3. spam 4. COI 5. content (see 1.) Widefox (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes our guideline for films, awards are not "advert" or "spam" but evidence of notability, per WP:MOVIE#3. And from what do you argue there's a "coi"? --Cavarrone (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article clearly meets general and topical notability guidelines for films. Couldn't find any indication of COI, lack of neutrality, or supporting information or clarification on talk page about concerns. That said, a conflict of interest (even if identified) is not a valid criteria for deletion. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secondary source coverage from multiple references, recipient of numerous awards and accolades. — Cirt (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF though its awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pornographic industry promotion and spam. - Youreallycan 20:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply having a neutral article on a topic that meets applicable notability criteria does not promote that article nor make that article spam, no more than it does for any other article on a topic meeting notability criteria. Pardon, but your argument could be just as erroneously mis-applied to The Sound of Music. What we do with otherwise acceptable stubs on notable topics is encourage they be improved, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I came here from anti-vandalism (hence my COI tag which is for unusual editing patterns that are not plausibly justified as a new editor), and I do not consider this article creation, the style of the "new" editor that created it normal, or anything about the content and hollow industry insider refs being neutral. AVN isn't the Oscars. WP:LIPSTICK is good background reading. This article is undue weight on awards cf negligible film content, maybe we have a general problem with too easy notability for porn? Widefox (talk) 21:14, 22 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.