Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 April	23 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geek humor[edit]

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

No content; a mere dicdef. Nothing changed in 2 years since the last afd. The phrase "geek humor" may be in use, but no evidence that there is nothing but a collection of computer jokes, mathematical jokes, physical jokes, school band jokes, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 22. Snotbot t • c » 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The further reading section suggests there are books that discuss this topic, so that even if this article hasn't been improved yet it still could be. It's taken many pages a lot longer than 2 years to get to a reasonable state. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably didn't look into these books. Both of them are actually about hacker's subculture, in particular, about computer humor. The second one is just a joke collection. In other words, they are actually about "computer geeks". Please check my nomination again: there are dozens of other kinds of geeks, some of them with incompatible senses of humor. There simply cannot be one common "geek humor". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not one common Religion, either. In other words, the fact that there is more than one type of geek humor is the foundation upon which expansion of the article can take place, not a justification for deletion. For now, I would just love to redirect it to JR Raphael, Android Power, or eSarcasm, as might befit topics that come up on almost all of the 125 Google News hits for "Geek humor", but none of those articles exist. Anarchangel (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only foundation for article expansion is availability of scholarly research of the subject. We can reasonably find refs for separate scholarly discussions of computer humor, mathematical humor, physicist humor, etc. However unlike Religion, everybody failed to present a body of research into the multitude and commonness of geek humors. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just isn't enough of substance here to justify a page.JoelWhy (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Geek is all about the details. There is considerably less specific content than suits the subject atm (i.e. Monty Python is arguably too mainstream), but there are no good rationales for deletion either. It is not merely a dictionary definition, nor is it currently presented as such, and what is wrong with a type of humor being a collection of jokes, exactly? Also see my comment above. Anarchangel (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I significantly improved the article, but my changes were reverted by User:Staszek Lem. Some of what he deems "original research" is paraphrased from the geek article. I suppose it might be considered SYNTH, if it were not empirically observable. In any case, this edit removed all the additional citations and other improvements; such heavy-handed and myopic deletion reminds me that there was a reason I curtailed my WP editing to the bare minimum of articles with great potential deserving rescue. Lem also asserts: "Also, you don't need references to wikipedia articles" Yes. Quite. However, the appearance of the linked subjects in a list is equivalent to an assertion that these are examples of geek humor, and this assertion requires verification. Hence the citations. I'll thank you, Lem, to restore them, for I will not soil my hands with picking up after your messes. Anarchangel (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You even know how it is called, yet you boldly proceed with it. So please don't act offended with what was to be expected. Per your explanation, I restored two refs that describe something as "geek humor". I can run google myself and add a dozen or so further usages of the term. But face it, colleague, for two years and counting not a single defender of the subject came up with a reference with encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per my reasoning at the AfD two years ago which still applies in its entirety. Reyk _YO! 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation- the undeserved survival of the article at previous AfDs have hinged on unsupported arguments that it might be sourceable and that it can maybe be improved. However, the sources have never been forthcoming and the promised improvements have never happened. Frankly, I think I've done more looking for sources than the article's defenders and I have come up empty-handed. The only real edits to this article since the first AfD have been the insertion of yet more unsourceable trivia. At what point do we say that the article's defenders have failed to meet the burden of evidence? IMO it should have been at the last AfD, but it must surely be time now. Incidentally, this also explains why delete opinions from previous AfDs remain valid today but the keeps do not. Reyk _YO! 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, from what I can see, nobody has ever defined clearly what "geek humour" actually is, thus making it next to impossible to write an article on it that doesn't contain original research or synthesis. A listing of humourous things that individuals have described as such is not really all that useful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the Geek article can be used to cover the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at prior two AfDs which still applies in its entirety.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, and just like your resoning in two prior afds you give no arguments that the subject is defined somewhere in an encyclopedic way. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I noted that improvement needed to done and cited some avenues in the past.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please get familiar with wikipedia rules WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. None of the refs you added mention "geek humor". They may be such, but it is your conclusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please get familiar with the world, your ignorance is laughable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect wikipedia rules mentioned, as well as respect other wikipedians. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing beyond a description, can be adequately covered in the geek article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now; or userfy. While in theory an article could be created, it would take some time. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just repeating what I said the first time this went to AFD, since its still a valid argument now. Dream Focus 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Computer World [1] labels a commercial "geek humor" in the article. Wired Magazine[2] calls "Humans are Dead", "the best geek humor of the year". Its clearly a genre, and used as such. It isn't original research, its common sense. Is there any sincere doubt of what the term means? Dream Focus 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is no doubt what terms "nerd dress" or "moron smile" mean, but the existence of a word does not automatically warrant a wikipedia article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Please fix your signature. Your timestamp is misleading. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are those things an established genre though? Totally different situation. Dream Focus 21:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The situation is exactly the same as with "geek humor". What is you reason to doubt in the existence of nerd dress style? I am donning some of it right now (not exactly the one on the photo, though). Oh, drat, I am so NOT giving you an idea of a new article! Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's just a forum discussion. If you can find enough coverage of it, then yes, it'd be fine article. Other styles of dress have their own articles already. Dream Focus 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        What does "enough coverage" mean to you? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Enough to prove it really exist. Find at least two reliable sources that mention it enough for that. Geek humor is something covered in the media quite often, but do they cover the nerd style of dress anywhere? Dream Focus 00:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I suspect you are confusing the terms "covered" and "mentioned". If you find me a single reliable source (not from blog or forum or wikipedia mirror) which explains what does the term mean beyond the definition "geek humor is a humor of geeks", then this discussion is null and void. Yes, "nerd dress" is "covered" by media. How do you think I picked up the terms? I didn't invent them just to make fun of you. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that was an omnibus AfD back in 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather, covering a good many lists of songs about [topic], some of which got deleted, some not. . Wikipedia doesn't follow precedent, and this is 5 years later. I very much doubt if the same conclusion would hold today, especially because the closing nominator used the criterion "I will delete all lists in this nomination except those that at least one person in this discussion recommended keeping or that have survived a previous deletion discussion". For an AfD of that scope and different degrees of article quality, , the procedure today would be to relist individually. In fact, it would be good to restore some or perhaps all of the articles, suitably edited to meet the only valid objection--that some of the films listed only mentioned the topic, and were not principally about it. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DocTree (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a category with the listed items in and redirect this page to the category. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How you can have a category unless its a real thing, a genre in this case, and thus worthy of its own Wikipedia article to explain what it is? Dream Focus 16:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Geek. There is no substance to the article. It merely tells us that people make jokes about geeky stuff. But people make jokes about everything. I don't see the significant third party coverage of this subject as a distinct form of humor. Sandstein 11:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the six years this article has existed, it often had much more (uncited, but citable) examples of geek humor and additional content. There are two books cited in the further reading section of the article which provide more expansive coverage of the subject. Its interesting to me how techy-culture articles like this used to be relatively immune from deletion because the geek quotient of wikipedia editors was fairly high--e.g., articles with far less sourcing (like about some small co. tech CEO or VC group) would get kept and I'd simply remain silent, a bit amused by this anomaly of wikipedia inclusiveness. By 2012, though, most of these editors have left, I guess, and its left even subjects that are notable rather vulnerable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:05, 30 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie LeBec[edit]

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

Non notable character, was only ever a minor recurring role on the show and appeared in a handful of episodes. Possibly redirect? Not really sure if it is a notable search term. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carla Tortelli he primarily is related to her and there should be a small short on him in relationship to her. Otherwise the article isn't indipendently notable, Sadads (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or for that matter, maybe it should be merged to List of recurring Cheers characters, Sadads (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_recurring_Cheers_characters, which has a section, but zero info on him. He may not have sufficient notability for a stand-alone article, but a mention in the Cheers LoC doesn't hurt. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Either of those would be fine alternatives. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere; either of the two above suggestions would be suitable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Disabled (band)[edit]

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

Unremarkable musical group. GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a tough time finding even trivial secondary coverage, let alone anything substantial and WP:RS. Their Last.fm page shows a total of 9 listeners, ever. Fails WP:NBAND, fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. For that matter, I'm not even finding much in unreliable sources although that may be due to the name of the band requiring qualifiers in the search parameters to weed out some results. The albums are all self-released on their own label. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NBAND. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 29 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ataria[edit]

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

Article went through AfD previously with the result of delete. It was moved to userspace to be incubated, and now has been moved back. But the originally issue still stands. There is insufficient reliable source coverage to establish notability. The addition of a passing mention in a single book does not substantiate the notability effectively. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is essentially recreation of previously deleted material. I'm seeing the same issues identified in the original AFD. RadioFan (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Clearly notable, a Class 1 site of Habitat of European Community Interest. Sufficient citations to 3rd party RS are present. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the person who worked on it in userspace. It's not a G4, it's sourced and some notability is established. It's significantly different to the previous version and I ran it by the deleting admin before reposting and he agreed it wasn't a G4. I think the architecture nominations help establish notability. English language sources are an issue but they don't mean it's not notable. No !vote as I believe my move back to mainspace probably represent a COI. I'll say what I did at the last AfD - if it's deleted again, please send it back to my userspace and I'll work on it again. There are more sources out there but I believed the ones present in the article are enough to establish notability or I'd not have moved it back. StarM 02:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure about the notability, but a merge to Salburua would be an alternative to deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. StarM moved this back to mainspace on my advice. It looked likely notable and certainly improved in enough in sourcing to not be eligible for a speedy deletion as recreation. On the merits, the sourcing in the article is still pretty thin but more sources are likely, perhaps in Basque, given it's status as a local attraction and nomination for the architecture. Though sources are likely, those that are currently in the article are probably just short of the GNG lacking either independence or in depth coverage. That would normally make my opinion a "week keep" at best, but given the other indicia of nobility (architecture nomination) and the subject (museum) I am comfortable opining straight "Keep" given that the pillar, WP:V is fully met and it's solely a question of the more flexible WP:N bar. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The presence of a ref tag, even the presence of multiple ref tags, doesn't flip the notability light on. While there are references now, which is good, I'm not convinced that significant coverage has been demonstrated here. Two of the refs are to directories and one to a very brief (1 sentence) mention in a book. There are some mentions of awards but only nominations. If that's enough to demonstrate notability for architecture, please point us to the applicable Wikipedia guideline or project, that's not how it works for any other subject area. Perhaps this doesn't meet speedy criteria but the same concerns expressed in the first AFD are here again in the 2nd AFD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2012‎
  - Comment: An article in the Institute of Civil Engineers proceedings and some coverage on the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands website would appear to demonstrate notability without any doubt. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't be against a merge to Salburua if I was positive that would survive AfD. Not certain in its current state. RadioFan, you said this had the same concerns as the first one but the (valid) question that Vancouver raised in the first AfD has been referenced so how is it the same issues? The 1st incarnation was a copyvio google translate mess, I don't disagree there. What likely establishes its notability per WP:ORG - the importance to the city - is now sourced from multiple multi national sources. I'm not aware that it has to meet architecture guidelines as well. It's a relatively new building (2008) in a region where English is the 3rd language. That extensive English sources haven't been located doesn't mean they don't exist which is why I flagged it for WP:Spain on recreation. This is an environmental building in a city that's an environmental capital in 2012 I am absolutely positive that more sources exist. StarM 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - Thanks to the excellent additional sources that have been turned up, the article now appears to be acceptable in terms of supporting notability claims. I thus withdraw the nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:16, 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. Consensus here is that the limited coverage by secondary reliable sources, in addition to an award of questionable notability, is insufficient for this company to merit an article on Wikipedia at this time. — ξ ^xplicit 01:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Systems[edit]

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

No real notability. WP:NCORP needs more than "top 10 web design companies" in Seattle or a vanity award for "outstanding achievement in web development." Kilopi (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and it is SPAMish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award is significant: see [3] -- it's a "Best of Industry" award. The lower levels as listed on that site are not sufficient for notability , but this is. The cure for spammish articles is to improve them. There's been too much use of of "spamish"as a reason for deletion. Incurable spam is a reason for deletion spam without notability is a reason for deletion. Fixable errors in tone are notreasons for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the notability of the award, I considered:
- Has www.suzanneperkins.com been studied as an example of particularly good web design? Not to my knowledge. Even WebAward doesn't discuss how the winner was chosen beyond the vaguest insight into the scoring.
- Has anybody published an in-depth interview with Peak about what went into their winning design? Not to my knowledge. I couldn't even find a self-published commentary.
- How many other sites were considered for that award? Unknown. WebAwards doesn't name or even number non-winning sites. I estimate less than 100 since the "Standard of Excellence" is given to all "above average" entrants in each category.
- How are candidates selected? Self-submitted, only requirement for consideration appears to be the application fee. Even being on-line is merely optional.
So I don't see such awards as evidence of notability. Rather, they strike me an opportunity to pay some guys to review your site and hopefully generate a press release that you can use to WP:MASK your lack of notability. Kilopi (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage in ProQuest, Gale, or web search engines. If this company's work or any awards it has picked up were of great significance, we'd have newspapers, magazines, and books that would tell us plainly why they were so significant, rather than leave us guessing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this company. I see no evidence that the WebAward is a major award. Their website has all the hallmarks of a pay for award site with 86 categories to choose from. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment' an examination of the awards site leads me to the opposite conclusion. There is one award in each industry category a year at this level. There are additional ones at lower levels. I see no indication of paying to get a particular level award, though every reasonable quality site submitted will get some kind of award, only the best in the field will get the toip one. The only problem is the number of industry categories, apparently 90. Now, this fis an example of the familiar technique of giving many first prizes by having many events, best exemplified in some porn industry awards for best performer in each of every possible type of sex scenes. I conclude its a respectable level of award, though not the grad prize nationally. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were a national award from a notable organisation maybe, but not a city-level award. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:53, 29 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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 05:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denzil Meuli[edit]

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

Delete. A run of the mill priest. Yes, there are refs (some from his own website in contravention to policy) but that does not make him notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite finding a number of sources, I'm not seeing anything that rises to the level of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are at least two solid references to establish Meuli's notability: Elizabeth Isichei in Archives des sciences sociales des religions, 1991, Vol. 75, Issue 1, pp. 113-125 (a respected academic journal in the area) and Nicholas Reid, a respected New Zealand historian, in his biography James Michael Liston: A Life, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2006 p. 291. This is the second time a attempt has been made to remove this article. From memory, the first nomination for deletion was dealt with very quickly because of the academic treatment referred to. Meuli achieved most notability in New Zealand in relation to James Liston and perhaps more on the cause célebre involved, could be placed in the Liston article.Rick570 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Speedy was declined with this edit and the comment "speedy delete declined, this person has academic articles about him, so could be shown to be notable with references". Stuartyeates (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the basic requirements for WP: Notability (people) because he has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times; and has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. I can't see anything within the article that would mitigate this requirement NealeFamily (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note if Speedy Delete was declined with this edit with the comment "speedy delete declined, this person has academic articles about him, so could be shown to be notable with references". Does not that judgement still apply? What changed circumstances now require its deletion?Rick570 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is only used for the most egarious of situations, PROD for less egarious and AfD (the current process) for situation where a consensus decision is required. The "could" in the speedy decline indicates that even the decliner wasn't sure whether this person was truely notable. I'd hesitate to call it a judgement. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note If the article was previously acceptable, What changed circumstances now require its deletion?Rick570 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All articles remain of uncertain acceptability, pending an WP:AfD discussion such as this. The previous speedy incident demonstrates that the article is not blatently unacceptable. This WP:AfD discussion attempts to be a more considered process, reaching a consensus amount editors, based on policies such as the Wikipedia:Notability policy and the Wikipedia:Notability (people) policy. I encourage you to find reliable sources which are independent of the subject but discuss the subject in detail, becuase the existance of such sources is at the core of the AfD process. It is also posssible that while the subject is not notable, they were affiliated with a notable event, organisation or other topic which already has a wikiepdia page and the contents of the two can be merged. Roman Catholic Diocese of Auckland and Roman_Catholicism_in_New_Zealand seem like good candiates in this case, but neither cover individual preists, making them non-ideal. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understanding the content correctly (and bearing in mind I know almost nothing about the Catholic Church) merge and redirect to James_Michael_Liston#Last_years seems like a good solution. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note That is very helpful. Thankyou. I hope you will give me some time to improve the article with independent references.Rick570 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this entry. He is world famous for his work on the pro multus issue. (added by User:125.237.73.40)

The article doesn't mention "pro multus" or in what way he might be famous for it. I invite you to add discussion, with references, about this to the article. If can can be shown to be world famous, the article is likely to be kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I am rewriting the article and will look into the question of "ad multis".Rick570 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the nomination for deletion can now be withdrawn. I will do more work on the article and also on the other other other relevant topics: Zealandia (newspaper), James Michael Liston, and Roman Catholicism in New Zealand and perhaps articles on one or two of the other editors.Rick570 (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me now. Generally when you update another page based on a conversation like this, you need to mention your updates to get people to revisit the other page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per recent additions by Rick570. (change !vote, see above) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NoteThanks very much for your help.Rick570 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not convinced that the rewrite establishes notability. There is still two primary sources and a lot of the other stuff is from one source or from less reliable publications. Also, some of the stuff is more applicable to the Zealandia article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are at least four good sources , including Zealandia itself. You are really talking about sources and not about the Meuli's notability. His notability is his achievement as editor of an established newspaper in such circumstances and his priestly ministry is very unusual for a catholic priest and not "run of the mill" at all. The article also needs to have a reference to his "ad multis" views which probably marks him out as a dissident really. I propose to do more research on that to add to the article. I agree that Zealandia (newspaper) should be expanded to fit in with this article.Rick570 (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also [4] (not independent), [5] (reference to a group led by him), [6] (quite a solid ref) and [7] (have to check at work). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much. I will check them out later. I appreciate your generosity.Rick570 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem likely that there are sources covering his time in Europe (if one spoke the appropriate languages and knew where to look). It is a pity that papers past doesn't yet cover the 1960s. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough now to be notable. NealeFamily (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per improvements to the article and rationale above stated by User:Rick570 in their !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources do seem to back this one up. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good rescue. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 29 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pridi Magazine[edit]

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

Student magazine that published 15 issues and then folded; no assertion of WP:Notability per WP:GNG Can't find anything about it online in English or Thai apart from the two WP:Primary source links given, and a Facebook page. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, close the discussion and move on to the next issue that needs to be sorted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic may be notable, but this isn't clear from my web research (including of the Thai term) or from the article. gidonb (talk) 21:34, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) B music ian 05:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MyBB[edit]

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

Previously deleted article on the subject of non-notable software has been re-created. I have searched once again for sources, and not found any significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 06:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For assistance: I've compared the previously deleted article to this. It is not a simple re-creation of exactly the same content. There are differences in structure and content. There are, however, similarities. Both, for example, cite as supposedly reliable sources articles written on openly-editable wikis by pseudonymous authors whose identities, and thus reputations for fact checking and accuracy, cannot be determined. (They don't even claim any identities, and the wiki itself even notes in a disclaimer at the foot of every page that its articles are potentially inaccurate because any user can edit them.) Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is getting tedious, quickly. MyBB is an open source forum software comparable in size and popularity to that of SMF. Likewise, it's hard to uncover sources that fit within notable source guidelines. MyBB has been an active project for 10 years, has a sizeable community and has, on average, 500 new activations per day. It is also a media partner and participant at ForumCon. There are dozens of less known forum software that have never been up for deletion on Wikipedia; I find it convincingly harder to keep this free encyclopaedia relevant and up to date with this much red tape. --Mooseypx (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — Mooseypx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Just an added comment, MyBB is also available with Softaculous. Mooseypx (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an added comment, MyBB is also available as part of 1&1 Internet Click and Build Applications; if inclusion from the 4th largest web host is notable. Mooseypx (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an added comment, MyBB was mentioned by Neowin when 1.4 was released Neowin: MyBB 1.4 Mooseypx (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- 3rd party software also integrate MyBB; Forum Runner or Tapatalk. Softpedia also have recent MyBB News. There are a few mentions in books but as passing references; mostly mentioned in the same scope as vBulletin, PhpBB and SMF. A Columbus Dispatch article from 2008 about a local resident selling a popular forum also mentions MyBB. Hansup used the software before merging to community-centric software. Unfortunately, free forum software isn't really 'news' for many review sites - something that Phpbb and SMF suffer from. CNet, Wired and other sites that could be considered as notable are not going to be paying attention to this industry; they don't even list giants Vbulletin or IPB. Mooseypx (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I pulled the PROD off (mistakenly) thinking this version was different than the last, sorry to Bongomatic for the inconvenience. Per the last AFD, I still would rather keep this article than delete, per WP:IAR, as it is a hugely popular package and has been for a great deal of time, and the encyclopedia is better off with the information than it is without. And yes, sourcing is an issue, but not a contentious one. IMHO, this is one of those exceedingly rare instances that WP:IAR was really created for. The above links are interesting, but rather than debate WP:RS, I will stick with my keep rationale, weak or not, it is true and accurate. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I see that some feel it was "different enough" from the last. We will just call this a draw Bongo :) I still say keep, as above, with slightly better references than last time. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:50, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dharma[edit]

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

Band lack notability and have already split up. Page reads as if written by one of the band. Knockknees (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article as it stands is a disaster area, but there are sprinklings of hints that this band might just have scraped past WP:BAND - mentions of coverage in the NME, achievements like being the first unsigned band to sell out the Cockpit etc. - and the article turned into a salvageable stub, if sources could be found. I'm not finding anything, so I'm !voting Delete. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 15:47, 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) 00:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NME "coverage" was an advert paid for by the band in the Unsigned section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knockknees (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can find some better citations, very little to indicate notability here.JoelWhy (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The closest thing to coverage that I can find is this concert listing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; and I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find anything that would help to support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:17, 28 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chitram Bhalare Vichitram[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTFILM, does not meet WP:SIGCOV, Found no hits on Google, only music and video download sites Wikishagnik (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too hard to verify, deletion is not permanent and per nom. Close and move on. Lots of work to do here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Imdb listing is enough for verifiability of a film--though of course it is not enough for notability of a BLP. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with DGG. It should be further noted that the internet is decidely unhelpful for early 1990s Indian / Telugu films. What we need is input from Telugu Wikipedians who may have access to hardcopy sources for this film released and screened twenty years ago. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pretty borderline. With foreign-language material such as this, the first place I look is the native-language wikipedia (which is likely to have better content / refs), but in this case there isn't one. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not contain references to reliable sources that would make the subject notable per WP:GNG; IMDB is not a reliable source. Sandstein 12:02, 30 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. Sandstein 16:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vedala Hemachandra[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. Questionable notability per WP:NMG. bender235 (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This guy does seem notable per WP:GNG, in a couple of reliable sources. One, from TOI says many things about him. He also has a profile in the newspaper. Secret of success 05:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:48, 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 delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CrystalDiskInfo[edit]

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

I found no articles and no reviews. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found over 3,000,000 Google hits. However, I'll admit that a lot of them are probably duplicates. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits do not show notability. As an admin, you should know that. SL93 (talk) 20:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually no content, no sources, and no assertion of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. No in-depth sources. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing depth of coverage. I'm not quite sure how it gets so manner hits with so little real content, maybe clever marketing? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only trivial coverage so passes no WP:N criteria. Google hits are not references and cannot impart notability. WP:GNUM is a good essay to read. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:02, 29 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) 09:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Powell[edit]

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

One reference. What makes this notable? The most interesting man in the world (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She played for her country at the highest level of women's cricket, playing a Women's Test match, and ~~though not mentioned in the article~~, a Women's One Day International also. She passes the inclusion guidelines of WP:ATH and WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per AA: she has played at the very highest level of women's cricket. Harrias ^talk 08:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per AA: Just needs work.GuzzyG (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Noticed this hadn't been closed and had been nominated for nearly a month. Wondered why it was still open/hadn't been extended, then noticed it was missing categories. Hopefully now it will be actioned. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 22. Snotbot t • c » 21:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a sports person ho has played at an international level. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013-14 in english football[edit]

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

Is this the right time to create this article? I said that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but another editor removed my prod on the grounds that 2013 is only a few months away. My calendar says that 2013 is more than eight months away, but possibly I'm not familiar with the calendar used in English football. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. This simply doesn't need to exist yet. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious WP:CRYSTAL violation. It'll be quite a while before we know of anything that would go in this article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing concrete can be said about this season so it is too soon for the article. Keresaspa (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CBALL the fact it only has headings & subheadings says it all. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnecessary, there won't be anything to say about the 2013-14 season for another year. One other minor point, the title is incorrectly capitalised -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. There is no need for this page at this point in time. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eight months from the start (usually 1 July for any English football season) would be 1 November 2012, which is another few months yet. Of course, being as there's nothing to report for now is reasonable grounds for deletion. Cloudz 679 15:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 2012-13 season won't even begin for 4 months so the 2013-14 season is clearly WP:CRYSTAL.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and snow close - clear consensus here that this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 17:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete – obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. – Kosm1 fent 17:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Also looks like WP:SNOW to me. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:52, 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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Cheryshev[edit]

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

PROD contested by El rayo que no cesa (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as he has not received significant media coverage and also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the Segunda División B isn't fully professional. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeforce Challengers: Bowling vs. Voelker[edit]

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

Contested PROD : This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets, they are either not independent or from MMA centric websources that lack diversity. Mt king ^(edits) 20:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks "well sourced prose" as requested by WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event was designed to showcase up and coming MMA fighters. I see nothing that shows long term significance as required by WP:EVENT and the coverage was WP:ROUTINE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom Fails WP:MMAEVENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign to delete MMA events has been shown to be bias and dubious motives. As such, all events purposed for deletion during this period need left alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.218.139 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — 173.22.218.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7eventh Time Down[edit]

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

Another editor thinks that play on Air 1 is an assertion of notability. But no evidence of notability is offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass a single one of the 12 parts of WP:BAND for prove notability. No reliable sources available. Only sources I could find were Facebook, Myspace, a few non-notable forums, and a few websites listing their past and/or upcoming shows. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)\[reply]

I'm glad that you found these sources, but I think everything is pushing it. The Houston Chronicle piece is from their blog. Generally, it seems to be the case that blogs aren't often considered reliable. Maybe it is, because its the Chronicle. Also, I'm not too sure by what is meant by WP:BAND #2, but I have never heard of those two categories for Billboard. Obviously they exist, but I don't know if that really makes them notable. Also WP:BAND #1 includes multiple reliable sources except: "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". I could be absolutely wrong, but I do not agree that Q&A interviews are enough to warrant notability. If there was some real juice, why isn't there just an article or story written about them. You've basically listed an obscure Billboard chart and some Q&As. I still say delete. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to see if the article can be improved, but I don't see any secondary sources for it, so unless some turn up, I don't think there is demonstrated notability of the band. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I can't find any secondary sources. Zach Vega (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No. 2, This is the source. I can provide additional ones if needed!HotHat (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No.1, Here is source 2, Episode 214 if you want to listen.

Criterion #1 of WP:BAND requires multiple reliable sources. A story somewhere else besides New Release Tuesday would help the cause. —C.Fred (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another interview source.HotHat (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is secondary chart source.HotHat (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although they are listed at Allmusic, no biography has been written about them there. I'm not sure that makes them non-notable, but it's a point of data. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a Houston Chronicle article interview about them on the "Stay Close Tour" with Fireflight, which source is sufficient to prove No. 4, so now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are notable.HotHat (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some secondary sources turned up. :) The coverage is coming in in a slow trickle, and the participation in the tour is enough for me to say that yes, they're notable per WP:BAND. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable after the sources appeared. Zach Vega (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RHaworth, you misunderstood. The Air 1 source, I was told, might save the article from CSD if I found it (which I didn't), this article with the current sources is notable, and this was a bad faith nomination from the beginning. Can we WP:SK this AFD, please?Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we're having this discussion means that it saved the article from speedy deletion. Further, I noted that the article being sent to AfD was a likely outcome if reliable sources weren't provided—and there weren't any in the article when it was nominated. A hasty AfD nomination is not bad faith. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Faheem Akbar Kakakhel[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources, only Wikipedia mirror sites and a few YouTube videos. J04n(talk page) 19:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find reliable sourcing. In addition to the usual searches above (my results echo'd that of the nominator), I also made an attempt to dig up information related to his bar council position, with no success. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Determinator p t c 10:15, 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 keep. — ξ ^xplicit 01:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telesma[edit]

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

~~Unremarkable musical group GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 19:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

How about waiting more than, literally, TWO MINUTES before nominating the article for deletion, so a few other editors can read it and contribute to it, and help support the band's notability?Rosencomet (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the most notable group, but notable enough. I'm sure more data to support it will follow if the article is given the chance. Immediate action is unnecessary.Rosencomet (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability matching anything under WP:BAND. No good resources available. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These guys are really big in Baltimore, and their work with Alex Grey and the CD and DVD they made together makes them notable IMO.JuliusAaron (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in these two sources: Baltimore Citypaper, Baltimore Sun. The Interior (Talk) 17:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The press coverage and 10 years of performance with collaboration with notable artists seems to support notability. They have published notable material.Maegdlyn Morris 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maegdlyn (talk • contribs)
Keep — well-organized article with clear notability from press; clearly meets #1 under WP:BAND, as well as maybe #7 Groupuscule (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has stated its importance.--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 17:32, 28 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 Cheryl Cole. This is an afd submitted by an editor with a handful of contributions, who is unlikely to have read the guidelines before opening this debate. The article had already been redirected after which the page was blanked. It appears to have then been nominated on the basis that it was a page created with no content. But prior to the redirect there was quite a well referenced article so that rationale does not seem appropriate. A true article with no content is a clear case of WP:SPEEDY. As per WP:CRYSTAL it is probably a little too early for a page on this subject to exist, but there are plenty of references to indicate the album will be released in a few weeks so I've reinstated the redirect for now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Lights[edit]

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

No content. Mattios550 (talk) 13:17, 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 delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Green (politician)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Not a politician, not even a candidate. Fails all aspects of WP:POLITICIAN. No 3rd party sources that would pass the WP:GNG Tassedethe (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced article about a 19 year old political party functionary who hasn't held elected office. Maybe some day, but not now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose he could become notable if there was something unique about him - i.e., if he was the youngest person to attain a senior position in a political party. But otherwise he doesn't seem to pass WP:BLP or WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, no third party sources covering him in any kind of depth. Valenciano (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deelte per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Since local councillors are NN, it is inevitable that local party officials are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Wood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I declined this A7 CSD, but I am not convinced that this animator/director/producer is notable according to our standards. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no strong references from a rudimentary google search, and the videos produced are all on social media sites rather than anything more substantial. The only reference provided is imdb. -- role^player 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article describes him as a "Multi Award Winning Animator" which just happens to be the exact same language used on his own website and LinkedIn page. I've been unable to find significant coverage of Wood in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the same user has also created another page, Jordan Wood Animations, that is largely composed of a filmography for Jordan Wood. A few magazine articles are listed, but with no indication of what kind of articles they are. If the Jordon Wood article is deleted, perhaps Jordon Wood Animations should go too. Michitaro (talk) 03:02, 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. Sandstein 12:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fry an Spyrys[edit]

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

Created in 2006, never properly sourced and tagged as such from Dec 2010 and it little more than a promotional exercise for a pressure group concerned with a possible future event Jpacobb (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latest Annual Report (2010) of the C-of-E Dioceses Commission (the body responsible in first instance for any such scheme) makes no mention of the Dioceses of Truro or ExeterJpacobb (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This looks like a small short-lived pressure group, probably resulting from a rumour that had little or no foundation. Both the external links appear to be deal links. The original creator of the article has not edited anything since 2006. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 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 Speedied (requested by author as well). Peridon (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Society Of St. Mary Magdalene (SSMM)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and possible hoax Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is one Society Of St. Mary Magdalene founded by a Fr. Bernard, but they don't mention any LGBT equality as their core believes. Delete as non-notable, biased entry (see author's username). De728631 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-group, either non-notable or invented, supposed leader matches article creator's username. Hairhorn (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this seems to be a hoax invented by the author. As noted, no sources exist and user names himself as SSMM leader so presumably joke/self-pub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as hoax, or something made up one day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/FatherBenet/info gives more information about the group that appears to be consistent with an earlier version of the article. It gives a location in Wales (Abermule, SY15 6NW) and a link to a website http://www.societyofstmarymagdalene.co.uk/ that turns out to be under construction. It sounds like it is a bit more than something made up one day, but only marginally so. A whois search for the domain gives a different location in Wales. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be created in good faith, but does not assert notability as an organisation. No objection to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, although I see no need to hurry. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criteria A7. I've gone ahead and tagged the article as such. No use going through the remainder of the AFD process for an obvious case. Rorshacma (talk) 18:08, 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. Sandstein 16:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Patrick[edit]

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

No indication of WP:Notability. Primary sources for websites he is involved with do not count, the reference to a Barclays award is not a reliable source. fidgitbox does not look to be a reliable source for notability purposes. noq (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the young Mr. Patrick has done a lot in such a short amount of time and is something to be encouraged and admired, he still lacks the necessary coverage to pass notability guidelines. Maybe he'll have it in the future, but it just isn't here now and that's what is ultimately needed for notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 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 Speedy deleted by ReaperEternal. Peridon (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24 Suns[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. A planned album release does not make the "project" notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:59, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something for Rockets[edit]

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

Unreferenced, does not appear to meet notability guidelines, especially as per WP:BAND (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Two hits from LA Times are in the "Calendar" section, so can't be claimed to be general coverage of LA Times as a newspaper of record. Other coverage is in minor sources and consists either of concert listings or "color" stories on the connection to Itzhak Perlman. ^Bongo_matic 10:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem very notable.--Deathlaser : Chat 15:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 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 delete. Sandstein 11:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biochemic cell salts[edit]

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

Obscure fringe topic, impossible to have neutral content as it's been ignored by the mainstream. Content of article openly admits that there's no WP:MEDRS. bobrayner (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot neutral, almost appears to be advertising.--Deathlaser : Chat 15:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dilute~~Delete as having about as much notability as it contains useful trace elements. Quackery, and obscure quackery at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources in googling, google scholar, google books etc. No sign of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further the one reliable source we have states: "No peer reviewed scientific clinical trials have been conducted on tissue salts, and they are less well known to the public than some other complementary therapies". This appears to be a positive confirmation of lack of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if for no other reason than that a decision to delete should be made by disinterested editors and not a lynch mob. Paul venter (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason, it's just a bad faith assertion thrown in. Can you provide policy based reasons for a keep? Can you find reliable sources to demonstrate notability? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice is a compelling reason. Biochemic cell salts or tissue salts are a fact of life, and used by an immense number of people, misguided or not - a whole industry is based on these chemicals. So notability is not a problem. If the article's critics have issues with the way that it is written, then they should find someone to rewrite it in a neutral way, but not howl for blood because they think it advocates a "fringe" belief. Paul venter (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite it with what sources? There are not enough (are there any?!) reliable sources to make an article. What you regard as a fact of life does not establish notability, reliable sources do. See WP:N. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul venter, but that's just the start of it. First this article is divested of a number of references that this discussion should have been the forum to discuss. Now, instead, having removed all that was there in the last uncompromised version of the article, it can be claimed, and is being claimed, that no references exist. I have no illusions that people who are emotionally driven and vehemently antagonistic to anything alternative will find themselves unable to find any reliable sources on this topic. I think we need only click our way onto the German version of this article and take a glance at that article to establish that this topic is clearly notable, and that reliable references exist by all accounts. And of course, it's not just the German counterpart. In fact there are a total of five other Wikipedia's having this article. The article has been viciously defaced through tagbombing, a practice which clearly qualifies as disruptive editing. Here the strategy is blatantly obvious: rather than leaving the article in its original state, or attempting to build it up prior to this discussion, a dedicated effort has been meted out to make it look as awful as possible, THEN nominate for deletion. This process amounts to an abject testimony of the lack of community spirit and collaborative intent on a fanatical group of editors who's mission, rather than in a general way to improve the encyclopedia, can be likened to a witch-hunt—an inquisition. __meco (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources which were removed. None of them are reliable. All of the sources were self published. Perhaps you should step down from the WP:SOAPBOX and address that instead. There is no reliable sources on this topic. That other *pedias have the article does not establish notability. Reliable sources establish notability. Where are the reliable sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want the reliable sources to confirm? That biochemic cell salts exist or that they are effective as remedies? That cell salts exist and support a global industry is undeniable and the title of this article sets out from that point. Whether they are effective in what they claim is irrelevant, unless the content of the article echoes the claim, and only then is it necessary to find reliable references. It is possible to write the article from a neutral point of view without any waving of banners from the pro- or anti-alternative medicine factions. So you also need to get off your soapbox and try to be more Wikipedian in your approach. Paul venter (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want significant coverage in reliable sources to confirm it is notable (I already stated this in my above comment). This is an AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you want is neither here nor there - what is important is what WP wants. Tissue salts are simply another material like Epsom salts, gold, granite or jelly babies. Wanting to establish any material as notable denotes very fuzzy thinking bordering on the ridiculous - this is not a minor celebrity we are considering. Paul venter (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously suggest you read the notability guidelines before commenting further: WP:N. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would seriously suggest that this "debate" could benefit from fewer drum-thumping wikilawyers and more sensible editors. Paul venter (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that restoring unsourced content and re-adding self published sources does not demonstrate notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Meco was canvassed to come here User_talk:Meco#Biochemic_cell_salts by Paul venter. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pondered this myself and considered making a remark about it. I however checked the user's contribution log to see if more users had been notified similarly. They hadn't. I therefore decided that Paul venter for some reason had considered myself to be someone who would particularly want to be notified about this discussion, and I didn't mention it here. I think it as appropriate that you find reason to make a note of it though. __meco (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources provided, except for one, establishing the non-notability of the subject ("and they are less well known to the public than some other complementary therapies.")

The See-also section looks pretty silly. We could just as well continue:

==See also==

Trace mineral (Note: this product does not contain any)
Tiger penis (Note: this product does not contain any)
Diamond dust (Note: this product does not contain any)
Alkaloids (Note: this product does not contain any)

- DVdm (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reluctant delete Well, they are mentioned in something that looks vaguely like scientific literature if you squint a bit. Books with such names as "How to Give an Astrological Health Reading", "Radiant Healing", "The Healing Echo: Discovering Homeopathic Cell Salt Remedies", "How to improve your health: the wholistic [sic] approach" and my favourite, "Stepping into Spiritual Oneness: Spiritual Rememberings of the Soul Through Life Exerience" by, well, let's use the name she uses on the book, Dr. Patti "Diamondlady" Diamond, DD. I did worry that I would not be able to point you to the page where she talks about biochemic cell salts as "the Spiritual Treasure Chest is free from being page numbered". Strangely, her publisher seems to have not gotten the message from the spirits and has put page numbers in there, and so it is on page 361. According to this highly reliable source, Cell Salts "are a great way to begin the infinite circle of water and salt being as One", and they help "bring body cells to a state of natural balance" and "bring about alkalinity and alignment". My spiritual perceptions are duly shifted, but sadly, I have to decide based on those boring old unenlightened rules that govern Wikipedia, namely WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE, so although it would be wonderful to keep this article around for comedy value, I can't see how we can source it to anything by people other than, well, Dr. Diamondlady. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there we are - the title of the article is being ignored while the association with fringe lunatics is being milked for all its worth. Perhaps all articles dealing with crystals should be expunged because of the healing powers they are supposed to have - and is there room for flat-earthers, flying saucers and feng shui. I must point out again, writing an objective article about something does not mean one supports the idea. Paul venter (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show that there are independent, reliable sources on the topic that come from non-fringe non-lunatics and I'll happily change my mind. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the German wikipedia article gives two references to attacks on the method written by Edzard Ernst. Does that count? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a german speaker? If so, can you look at the particular references? From the title (and from google translate) it appears they may not specifically address the salts or may only provide a minor mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Edzard Ernst in Stern has these salts ("Schüßler-Salze" in German) as its subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tom. The topic does not pass the GNG --Guerillero | My Talk 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, Paul, I know you put a lot of work into this but we can't have a medical topic for which no WP:MEDRS compliant sources exist. All WP policy and nuance aside, doing so would be unethical. SÆdon^talk 21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely that NPOV sources will ever be available, risk of recreation neverteless. So, pun intended, Delete and SALT. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 10:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC) With no prejudice against unsalting, should a neutral RS be demonstrated.[reply]
Delete: Like IRWolfie, I could only find a single RS that basically said the product was non-notable BS. Nothing at all of encyclopedic value here, and highly doubt that there ever will be. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:05, 30 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) 11:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umesh Waghmare[edit]

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

Article does not fit according to WP:GNG. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 10:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the article seems to be the person himself, User:Vaghmare aus and the contributions also depict that only. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 11:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. GS gives an h-index of 20. Even with many co-authors this is respectable enough for condensed matter physics. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk).
Comment. Qwfp has done a better search than I did and increases the case for keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I get an h-index of 28 from a GScholar search for "UV Waghmare", with the top counts of 1792, 435, 369, 247 all being for papers from the last 10 years. Plus the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology, the highest award for science in India (the 2nd most populous country in the world) surely meets WP:PROF#C2. Questions of WP:Conflict of interest or WP:Neutral point of view can be dealt with without deletion as the article isn't in that bad a state, certainly not a case for WP:TNT. Qwfp (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:COI is a problem, but WP:PROF is clearly satisfied. -- 202.124.72.217 (talk) 10:32, 27 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 Withdrawn. Still think this could be merged into the parent article, but obviously no longer needs deleting Jac16888 ^Talk 11:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine Military Academy alumni[edit]

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

Seems to be a list of pratically every single person who has ever gone to this school regardless of notability. Entirely unsourced and I see no reason the why the few who are notable can't be either in a category or listed on the academy page Jac16888 ^Talk 10:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My prod removal edit summary in full: 'List includes a president, more than one secretary of defense, and over 100 flag officers; even if all non-linked names were removed, meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists.'

This is a 75 year old national military academy; it should not be surprising that over a hundred graduates have gone on to become flag officers, all of whom meet the current guideline of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide: '#3. Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or'; if it was only the president and multiple secretaries of defense, this could undoubtedly fit in the main article, and this is not a complete class roster. There are sufficient blue links to show that the list meets basic requirements. Entries without ranks may not meet #3, but may meet #5. 'Played an important role in a significant military event; or; #6. 'Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or', and should be pruned with care. Needs some sourcing, but alumni lists need not source every entry. Dru of Id (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject guidelines hold little weight, perhaps if you read the requirements listed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, of this article perhaps a handful of entries meet the first requirement, and none whatsoever meet the second, if I was to remove all entries that therefore do not meet these requirements it would be a very short list indeed--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~President of the Philippines Fidel V. Ramos~~ doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability requirement? Secretaries of Defense? Senators and Representatives? Dru of Id (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, those are the handful that meet the first requirement. None of it is sourced. Considering we already have Category:Philippine Military Academy alumni, I don't see why this article is necessary at all--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck President Ramos; several USMA graduates have been inserted and will need to be identified and removed. I have sourced three with articles, and the first female valedictorian. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive; the main advantage of lists is the a reference covering multiple individuals can be NAMEDREFed once, found in one article and used to support others, rather than going through 100+ articles looking for one that also covers your subject. Dru of Id (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. The vast majority of individuals listed here don't have Wikipedia articles, and many of them don't have any indication near their names here that suggests that they are notable enough such that they ought to have Wikipedia articles. In addition, I notice that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is listed under the class of 1978 as an honorary member, which seems misleading; honorary degree recipients shouldn't be listed here, and if she did receive an honorary degree I doubt that happened in 1978 when she was a graduate student in economics, as opposed to later in her life such as when she was a senator, vice president, president, or representative. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The above recommendation is no longer relevant now that the list has been significantly edited down. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a hatchet to the article, keeping only entries with links to actual wikipedia articles, using the nonguideline WP:WTAF. I also removed the honorifics, which may be contentious but seems very appropriate for the article and perhaps for the summary, not for use prior to the name. (implied at WP:MOSBIO). tedder (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a short list easily fitting into Philippine Military Academy, itself a fairly short article--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stand-alone if size of list of notable alumni merits it, merge only if not. In the future, please remember that AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP and to consider alternatives to deletion before listing at AFD. Any list that contains non-notable entries that shouldn't should just be edited to remove those entries, and maybe merged to a proper parent topic if it is not large enough. postdlf (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the other Secretary of National Defense with an article; no page exists on the DND website for him, although his picture is in sequence and he was subsequently Secretary of Public Works & Highways, where his bio confirms it. I've !restored the two Philippine Medal of Valor awardees, as their WP:N is automatic; one is the current CG of the Philippine Army. I've commented out other governors, congressmen, and Commanding Generals of the Philippine Army I could reference or sequence (position or dates), and they can be restored as the articles develop. Dru of Id (talk) 10:41, 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 speedy delete. Clear A7/G11 Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fo4rth seal[edit]

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

Possible lack of notability, possible conflict of interest and contains promotional content. Not written in a neutral point of view. jfd34 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might be sources in other languages, but a search in English did not bring up anything that would show notability. From what I can see, there's no talk about this band on the internet that wasn't started by someone promoting for the band.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/G11, no need for an AfD... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Should have been a {{db-band}}. Actually, I think I'll go do that… Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 12:32, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Hairs[edit]

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

No content at all barring the tracklist which means its level of notability is dubious at best. — foxj 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Added additional content in regards to the album Robert H Alpert 19:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therob006 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a non-notable album. Stormbay (talk) 23:04, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MasCable TV[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. No main stream coverage. — иz нίpнόp 07:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd check for non-English sources first. In addition keep in mind that our articles covering this area of the world tend to have some serious copyedit needs.~~ Strong or speedy delete per User:Mrschimpf. Raymie (t • c) ~~22:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)~~ 04:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the mess that is TV Aljazeera, also from ALJABBAR ALHIJRAH (talk · contribs) which you'd think would be the Malaysian branch of the global news network but is described but anything but that, and this provider's listed 2020 launch, I think we have another editor using Wikispace to host television fantasy lineups for their home nation. Most of the hits for the name "Mas Cable TV" come from providers selling Internet TV for Spanish speaking customers (no mas cable TV=no more cable TV). Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; something in me wants to say that a cable service slated to launch eight years from now doesn't quite add up… and while there apparently was a company called "MAS Cable TV" circa 1978 according to Google News' archive search, it actually served Montpelier, Ohio — not quite Malaysia. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cable company which already has its channel lineup and pricing structure in place, but isn't expected to actually launch for eight years hence, is clearly one of two things: either crystal balling, or an outright hoax. Either way, if there aren't reliable sources that can be added to attest to its existence, then delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 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 12:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language Axiological Input/Output[edit]

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

I do not see how the article is notable. This may be great technology developed by very respectable people, but it was only published earlier this year (plus there are two references from 2011), there is no evidence in the article that the technology was noticed by anybody but the authors, and I was not able to locate such evidence myself. May be it becomes a great technology much in demand in a couple of years, and then the article will be recreated. As it is now, it is just a scientific article, one of dozens of thousands published every year. Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I could find no evidence that this newly-described technique has become mainstream or has caused any particular notice in the field. The single article in which it was published has only been cited by others twice, per Google Scholar, and there has been no publicity at all in popular media. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hewitt (teacher)[edit]

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

Being a party president doesn't make a person notable. Does not meet WP:BIO, and certainly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as a party president. Precedent per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Neufeld. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen LeDrew, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Marlowe. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't use precedints. We have common outcomes, but not precedents, in particular to discussions that happened six years ago. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Green Party supporter on his/her user page. West Eddy (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage I can find is commenting on the suitability of a candidate, a sound bite in protest of voting stations, and newspaper article about a a car accident he was in. The position does not come with inherited notability, and there is no significant coverage (i.e. the coverage is not about Hewitt), and the sources are not what I would consider enough to establish notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the subject were the president of a national political party, or a major provincial party, he might be notable by virtue of that. But he's the president of a provincial political party that has never won any seats in its province's legislature. So I'm not convinced of his notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; also very little coverage does not corroborate notability, at this stage. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. President of a significant party with seats, a history of electoral success, or a reasonable chance of upcoming success would be good enough to me. The Ontario Green party doesn't appear to fulfill any of these criteria for me at the present time though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BASIC. West Eddy (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A party president can be notable if real reliable sources which actually demonstrate that the person has actually received substantial and sustained coverage in that role are present; a party president is not notable if the only available sources are ones which superficially confirm that the person exists but which convey no meaningful or substantial information about them or their career as a party president. The only sources here are his page on the Green Party's website itself, and one article whose only mention of Hewitt is a brief quote within an article that's about Mike Schreiner, not Bill Hewitt — in other words, the cited sources certainly confirm his existence, but utterly fail to demonstrate his notability. Furthermore, all of the "precedent" discussions alluded to above are six years old, and there's been more than enough tightening of our notability and sourcing rules over those six years that those discussions are absolutely inapplicable to any discussion happening in 2012 — many more discussions since then have established a clear precedent against poorly sourced articles about presidents of parties at the provincial level. By contemporary standards, in fact, both Neufeld and Marlowe are overdue for a revisit; LeDrew gets over on the fact that he went on to be a mayoral candidate and a television pundit after leaving the party presidency (as well as the fact that he was a federal, not provincial, party president of the party that was actually in government at the time he held the role, and thus garnered more than enough coverage in his own right to get past WP:GNG regardless of any blanket rule about the notability of party presidents.) Accordingly, as written, Mr. Hewitt does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG — while I'm certainly willing to reconsider my vote if the article can actually be expanded to properly convey genuine notability rather than mere existence, in this form it's an absolute delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 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. Sandstein 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Daniels[edit]

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

Probable self-promotion, I couldn't find any reliable sources on this person on a google or highbeam search, fails WP:GNG Delete Secret ^account 01:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for nominator's reasons. Despite good layout and structure, the article fails the GNG. Chidon01 (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Medić[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Mr. Medic had played in the Danish Superliga, a claim not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass either WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:25, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Sweeney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band has received only the most passing of coverage in the most local of sources. ^Bongo_matic 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article restorer The nominator's assertions are refuted by the content of the article at the time of nomination, which included citations to full articles/reviews from three major (inter)national music publications. I added a few more references since. Meets WP:MUSIC bullet 1, among others. Chubbles (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Sources (after the additional ones added):

allmusic.com. Database entry. Doesn't assist in establishing notability unless shows chart status.
popmatters.com. User-contributed article. Doesn't establish notability.
pitchfork.com. This is the only debatable sources. I submit that the source is insufficient to establish notability (depth of coverage is OK).
chartattack.com. Not a RS.
splendidezine.com. Not a RS.
hybridmagazine.com. Not a RS.
citypaper.net. Local coverage insufficient to establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 22:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Such interpretations of these sources would be a significant departure from prior consensuses on the worthiness of popular music websites, and would be considerably stricter than any prior interpretation of WP:MUSIC I have seen. Chubbles (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Allmusic, Popmatters and Pitchfork coverage show that WP:MUSIC is met. I agree with Chubbles' point above; Allmusic and Pitchfork are about as WP:RS as it gets for WP:MUSIC. Thanks --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 05:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add -- D'Anjolell, Richard (8 May 2003), "CHOICE ; WHAT OUR CRITICS SAY", Morning Star -- to Allmusic bio and reviews and Pitchfork and local coverage this band has enough coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage from multiple reliable review sites. Gongshow ^Talk 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage cited in the article was already sufficient, and I've added refs to another half-dozen album reviews. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:22, 29 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. Opinions are divided but there is a clear balance of consensus that this does not meet the demanding standard of WP:PROF JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khurshid Ahmad (Professor of Computer Science)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. It has been repeatedly asserted, since August 2011, that this article about a living person (see WP:BLP) should continue to exist with a template at the top of it questioning whether that living person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Time to decide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two UK professorships, editing of several works published by a premier publisher, fellowship (not just membership) of British Computer Society. . Multiple refereed publications. Together that makes him an expert in the subject and meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both major books published are edited anthologies not his own work. This typifies what appears to be his contribution: synthesis of fields, not far-reaching research. Re: DGG, his CV lists only two publications in EGC rated A-journals, and his H-score is only 8 (very weak for a end-term academic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.80.237 (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — 46.7.80.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

agreed that books edited are not as important as books authored. I see 4 articles listed on the first p. his web site (IEEE Transactions are peer-reviewed publications) but the link to the continuation p. shows about 190 more. I very much doubt that all of the conference papers listed there were truly peer reviewed in any rigorous sense, but some of the ones listed are peer-reviewed journals,some of them of high standing. Conference papers , are, of course, is his subject a major form of publication. The name is fairly common,so citation analysis is a little tricky. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No more productive (perhaps even less so) than other professors in the same institution. Did become notable some years ago due to controversy within Trinity College but has become quiet since. Does not hold positions of academic note within learned societies, nor positions of importance within College administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.34.220 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ACADEMIC. ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Low performance on standard metrics including citations, H-index, G-index, I10. No other criteria of WP:PROF are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.252.160 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I searched his publications using Google scholar (please see the last bullet in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics for reasons to avoid other databases for this subject), and unfortunately restricting GS to computer science publications cuts out some of his most highly cited ones, so it was necessary to take some care sorting out his pubs from some other papers by similarly-named people in other subjects. Doing so, I found 198 citations for his jointly-authored book "Computers, Language Learning and Language Teaching", 73 citations for what looks like a survey paper, "Corpus linguistics and terminology extraction", and an overall h-index of 16, significantly higher than what is reported above and enough to make a plausible although not terribly strong case for WP:PROF#C1. The personal chair might also be enough for WP:PROF#C5, I'm not sure. My feeling is that the BCS fellow isn't good enough: the BCS sets their bar too low [8] to compare to more prestigious society fellowships such as in his case ACM or AAAI fellowship. But only one WP:PROF criterion needs to be met for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per David Eppstein who, I think, nailed it. He's borderline on a bunch of different criteria. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with additional pubs hindex is low for this stage of career. Other awards unnotable. Does not stand out within institution or in the research community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.245.27 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – On the same reasoning as David, above, but with a conclusion just a hair over the delete line. I panned citations for a but found no gold as far as WP:PROFESSOR; the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO otherwise for lack of substantial third party coverage as well as an apparent lack of notable achievements, awards, and positions. JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 28 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. The article was deleted by an administrator at the request of the author. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Burton[edit]

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

Article written by an editor who originally had the same name as the subject. Subject is a young speed skater who hasn't won anything. Sources are almost exclusively about subject's father, Steve Burton, with very brief mentions of Josh. This article is the best it gets, with 5 lines about the subject. Josh Burton doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT criteria. It would have been fairer and more useful to write an article about Steve Burton! Sionk (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article and took out the subject's father upon request by Sionk. However, I disagree with Sionk because everything in the article is sourced and is written in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. The subject, Josh Burton has competed and meddled in National events which meets the requirements of WP:NSPORT. Also my username was originally J13urton, 13urton standing for the snowboarding company having no relation to the subject in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr ClearNews (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mr ClearNews (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE I agree with the no, the biggest issue here for me are WP:COI editing as this appears to be a vanity page, and WP:NSPORT The subject has not competed at the highest level for an amateur(No amateur placings of note,coverage as a rising amateur, much less the Olympics) this fails the following quoted directly from the WP:NSPORTguidlines

Generally acceptable standards

Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they:

have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. meet any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections below.

I hope one day this kid should have a wiki article, the time just isn't now Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This is a tricky one. There is no specific guidelines for speed skating in WP:NSPORTS, and going by the "Generally acceptable standards", Burton is not notable as he hasn't participated in a major international event at the top level. That said, he has gotten a silver medal at the "2006 US National Championship". Not being familiar with speed skating except knowing that Steven Bradbury is a top bloke, I can't say for certain whether this should tip him over the line into notability, but on a straight reading of the rules as they currently stand, it doesn't. The alternative route to notability, the WP:GNG, is not satisfied for the reasons listed by the nominator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - the article has been deleted by an admin at the request of the author. Sionk (talk) 00:03, 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manikarnikeswarar Temple[edit]

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

Not sure about its notability. I could not find enough refs. If someone can find a few reliable refs, please add them; else this article can be deleted. Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 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, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep [[9]], 48 no.[[10]]. Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : If the temple is built in 1827 by Serfoji-II. It must be notable. Further ref could be found by someone in Tamil language may be. Meanwhile it can stay as stub. Also note that one source names temple as Manikarnikeswar and not Manikarnikeswarar. Interesting to note that deletion nomination is done by same person who created the page.Jethwarp (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it. Indeed, most probably the temple is notable, the information may be in Tamil or in English printed sources, and what is in the article has been confirmed by the sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 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 for deletion. However, as pointed out by two editors, there is point in merging this prop article into the article of its film, which could need the help. The copyvio questions seem resolved. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion airship[edit]

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

An article about a prop in an insignificant movie D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it's an article about a prop in an insignificant movie.

Please point me to the policy that states we delete articles for being about props, about movies because the movie was insignificant, or that the whole category Category:Fictional airships should be deleted.

Yes, it's an insignificant movie. Oddly though, the airship has become rather more notable than the movie ever did. This prop has become a popular trope across steampunk, where the shape of the Lebaudy "hooked" airship envelope has achieved a popularity out of all proportion to its occurrence at the time - due almost entirely to this film prop. The airship, and not primarily the film, have been used Disney in their theme parks, even to this day. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be plenty of commentary on this out there. What's interesting is that people seem to keep supposing that it's a creation of Jules Verne when, in fact, it was Donald G. Payne. Warden (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Trivia doesn't count as coverage (and we don't keep articles just because someone finds them "interesting").Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seeing as there does seem to be a good bank of information out there (this certainly isn't a stub) this should be kept. However, I just feel it's a little too obscure to have it's own page, although it definitely requires a significant subsection on the film's page. --Sebread (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information / Question Why is the WP content almost identical to this external site: [11]? Is this article Wikipedia text or is it Disney wiki text, in which case it needs to be purged ? FeatherPluma (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch on the copypasta. Stuck a dupe tag with the URL to the Wikia article. Is this copyvio? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it was copied from a Wikia-hosted site, nearly everything at Wikia is CC-by-sa anyway. There would have been a need to credit it (in some articles this already happens), there certainly wouldn't be any need to "purge" content sourced from Wikia. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Disney wikia is cc-by-sa at any rate, but if we had copied from there, it would still be a copyvio if we didn't attribute. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much of the content on our article, including substantial amounts of essentially-identical wording, were present in the earliest revision (3 February 2008), while the Wikia page history shows that the page over there was created just two months ago. It's a copyvio, but in reverse — they refused to attribute us, not vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki then? *shrug* --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be merged into The Island at the Top of the World. Gsingh (talk) 03:36, 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 redirect to Everworld. Sandstein 16:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Everworld Experience[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced, no references in a Google News search. Could be redirected to series itself. Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Everworld. The CD is interesting, but there's zero sources out there to show that it has any ounce of notability outside of the series. There's mention of the CD on various fansites and the like, but nothing that would show notability. I've added a brief mention to the Everworld CD and that's pretty much all that this really needs.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 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 Redirect. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Big Pine Creek[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this organization. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like just about every worthwhile place has this kind of friends group. Give them a link on the bottom of Big Pine Creek (Indiana), but not notable enough for their own article. BigJim707 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the creek. A link to their website really wouldn't be in tune with WP:ELNO, but simply redirecting to the creek would be appropriate for this stub on a thoroughly nonnotable group. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, I was able to find two passing moments of coverage for the group, sufficient to WP:V the group and leave me comfortable with the redirect, insufficient to evidence notability for the article to remain. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:45, 30 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) 11:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinpa Tenpel[edit]

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

No sources, not notable, overlooked for a whole year. The corresponding entry at the Dutch Wikipedia (usually more lenient) was immediately deleted (see discussion in Dutch). A process here was announced but never started. gidonb (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All former editors have been notified about this procedure. gidonb (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this is an unreferenced BLP article and, as such, must be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, there is no case for keeping this article. gidonb (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found to meet WP:BASIC notability.--Ben Ben (talk) 07:32, 29 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. Though there is agreement that the article needs a better title and other improvements. Sandstein 11:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filmizing[edit]

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

The article has lacked proper citations since September 2007. None of the article's current references or external links use the term or even discuss a discrete process that could be construed as being similar to the term as it is used in the article. Further, a search (Google, Google Books, Google News) for reliable sources (ie film industry accepted) using the term has been unsuccessful. Filmnuts (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not "quite" as unsuccessful in my own search, the concept and term of "filmizing", or making digital footage look like film, is sourcable and the article citable.[12] Is it earth-shattering news? Nope. Is the process notable? Maybe. Is the topic mergable elsewhere? Likely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I found those sources as well. None are relevant. Only three of the sources use the term "filmizing" as the article currently describes it. The majority of the others use it to mean adapting a previous, non-film work (i.e. a book) into a film and at least one is not referring to photographic film at all. Of the three sources that do use the term in the same way as the article, none are published by reliable industry sources (something like the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers) or the AMPAS (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)). "Corporate Tides" seems to be some sort of business text, not specifically about film. The other two titles, "Making Movies on Your Own" and "Reality Check," each only use the term once and neither states or implies that it is a discrete process or gives any indication of what "filmizing" specifically entails. In fact, the use of the term in "Reality Check" is in a glossary where it defines it as "an informal term."[13] I don't know what your personal level of knowledge on this subject is, but I have been in the film industry for over 7 years and I can tell you, "filmizing" is not a thing. The individual techniques listed in the article are definitely real, however, they are not part of a larger umbrella process. And while there are ways to make video look more like film, there is no defined process for doing so. All of the techniques are simply options that filmmakers have at their disposal to use to create a desired look, regardless of their capture medium. Filmnuts (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Not really germane to the issue at hand, but I have myself been involved in the entertainment industry for some 11 years.[14] I did not opine a keep, but instead suggested that as the term does have usage within the industry and is a seachable term reflective of a method to address the end apearance of a film, that even if the article had not been improved much since 2007 we might at least consider some place where this information might be merged/redirected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ On my first reading of the article it is evident that there is much to do. The term "filmizing" is ambiguous and uncommon. It can be used for both adapting a work (for example a theatrical play or a book) on film, aka filmization/film adaptation, and for making video formats (VHS, Super 8, ... but also digital formats) to appear like a film. From this point of view it seems pretty clear to me that this article could stay on Wikipedia. About sources and citations, there is not very much, actually. A definition of "filmizing" or, more accurately, of "filmlook" (or "film look") can be read on Lindenmuth, Kevin J. (1998). Making Movies on Your Own: Practical Talk from Independent Filmmakers. pp. 139–.... The "filmizing" process or, more precisely, a digital approach to make "videos" look like film, is used by professional video editing software like AVID, Premiere, or Final Cut, and post-production software such as After Effects or Nuke, and also by some digital cameras.
Additional note: while I was writing this comment I noticed that a web-search for "film look" produces some very good results. The following are 3 templates to help find additional (and free) references (including books and magz) for the article:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Happy Editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – probably needs a better title and some better sourcing, but there seems to be an actual topic there. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Film look or Film look process per User:Pjoef. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Film look redirects to this article. No indication in the logs that this article was moved from there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a consensus on best title? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note. The following "delete" is not a second "delete" !vote. After the preceding "keeps", the nominator is simply expanding on deletion reasons.)

Delete:
- If one is to take the meaning of "filmizing" to be adapting an existing work to film, then Filmizing should be deleted and "filmizing" should redirect to Film adaptation. Most Google Books sources use "filmizing" this way, so this seems to be the most logical option.
- No one is arguing that there are not ways to make video look like film. There absolutely are. The reason Filmizing should be deleted is that "filmizing" is neither a discrete process or an umbrella term for all processes to make video look like film. And so far, no source has been presented that makes claims to the contrary. In fact, "Reality Check" (referenced above) plainly states that it is "an informal term," probably not the basis for a full article.
- User:pjoef mentions that "film look" returns many results, that is because "Filmlook" is a proprietary service offered by a company of the same name, a point which "Making Movies on Your Own" (the source of the term) also makes clear. It is not a synonym for what Filmizing claims "filmizing" is. If anything, it would be a type of "filmizing," were that a real thing. The fact that the website for Filmlook [15] does not once use "filmize" or "filmizing" should be seen as evidence against "filmizing" being an actual term; if it was going to be used anywhere, it would be used on the website of a company that, on its homepage, claims it makes "video look like film."
- The sources referenced here in support of keeping Filmizing are not professional sources, they are intended for amateurs or hobbyists. The best analogy I can think of to illustrate this is that using these sources to cite an article on filmmaking is like using sources on RC model planes in an article on professional aviation. These sources don't have the reputation for fact checking or accuracy WP:SOURCES in the same way that professional sources do. Some examples of professional film industry sources would be publications of trade organizations (ASC, ACE, DGA, SOC, AMPAS), publications by labor organizations (IATSE), trade publications (Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Millimeter) or publications by equipment manufacturers, sellers or renters (Arri, Sony, Clairmont Camera, Filmtools). I see the fact that none of these sources use the term "filmizing" as a big strike against Filmizing.
- Lastly, there are certainly some sources that use the term "filmizing." However, there is a difference between a source simply using the term and that source being a usable citation for a Wikipedia article. So far, only three sources have been presented as using the term "filmizing" and each uses it only once. And that's it. There is no explanation of the specifics of what filmizing is besides that it somehow makes video look more like film. This is certainly not enough to base a Wikipedia article on WP:N. Further, any information in Filmizing should be completely disregarded as far as this deletion discussion is concerned, as it currently cites no sources for any of its information. The burden of proof rests on those claiming that Filmizing and any of its content is accurate WP:BURDEN. Since September 2007, no one has presented sources that say any of it is. Filmnuts (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for expanding on your deletion nomination reasonings in such great detail. However, a redirect to film adaptation is unsuitable, as THAT term refers to taking a written work and adapting it to create a screenplay suitable to become a film or television project. As you pointed out, while the article title filmizing is problematic, it would seem that the processes of making an electronic video or digital "film" look like it was done in analog film format IS covered in sources. Rather than redirect to an inappropriate target, I agree with User:Pjoef that we might then consider a better title for this article and discuss how it might be better focused to serve Wikipedia and its readers. If a consensus of editors determines that this process, by whatever name is ultimately used, is verifiable and merits inclusion, and that the topic might thus remain and be improved through regular editing, then it will be. WP:NOEFFORT is not grounds for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There definitely are ways to make video look more like film, and the information should be present somewhere on Wikipedia. However, since there is no single definitive process, nor umbrella term used to describe possible methods, the most accurate title for an article on the subject would be something along the lines of "Making Video Look More Like Film" or "How to Make Video Look Like Film," which is getting into the territory of being a how-to guide rather than an encyclopedic article. Perhaps a better method of conveying the information would be to disperse it among the articles on each individual technique (i.e. In frame rate note that video is usually 60 interlaced fields per second, but that using 24P mode will record at the more film-like 24 progressive frames per second.) In reading the articles that filmizing links to, it seems that for the most part, this has already been done and in cases where it has not, the information in filmizing may be copied over to the appropriate articles and given citations. Simply retitling Filmizing as "Filmlook" or "Film Look" would be inaccurate. Filmlook is a specific proprietary process of the company Filmlook and while most uses of the phrase "film look" are in the context of making video look like film, the phrase is not being used to describe any process or processes themselves, but rather is being used as a synonym for "the look of film" or "the visual and aesthetic qualities qualities of film." Also, I understand that film adaptation is about adapting previous works into screenplays. I suggested the redirect as most of the Google Books results for "filmizing"[16] use the term as a synonym for "film adaptation," rather than a method of making video look like film. Filmnuts (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and determine a more apporpriate article title than the problematic filmizing. I find the arguments by User:Pjoef, User:Dicklyon, and User:Jorgath to be convincing that we have a notable enough topic here that has simply suffered from WP:NOEFFORT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to film look processing or something, obviously. And equally obviously, make the current title be a DAB page, since we have reliable sources for multiple meanings of the neologism "filmize" and its derivatives like "filmizing". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 08:25, 29 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) 11:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nekro (film)[edit]

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

Does not assert the importance of the topic, does not appear to meet WP:NF. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF. Even if not (now) available through google searches, we do have articles speaking about this as the first Romanian thriller film directly and in detail. While it will take some time to pull them off and translate, the film's "official" website show's numerous Romanian articles,[17] in such as Libertatea, Romania Libera, Cotidianul, AZI, Atac La Persoana, Cronica Romana, Panoramic Magazin, VIP, Evenimentul Zulei, Show Biz, Actualitatea. When we have sources, even if non-English sources, difficulties in using them or their not (yet) being used are not grounds for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt,, and request attention from a Romanian-speaking editor with strong Google-fu. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:46, 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.