Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 August	24 August >

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Today (Australian & New Zealand website)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline as it doesn't have any reliable third party sources which give it significant coverage of notability, no does the article establish as to how the site is notable other then "Radio Today is the leading radio website in Australasia according to the independent Alexa rankings" which has a link to the Radio Today site but even if it was cited with Alexa, it is trivial and was created by an editor who has a COI. Bidgee (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bidgee (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is where I put this reply - apologies if it isn't. My understanding (I posted the article, but deliberately didn't talk the site up due to my COI as you have noted) was that Alexa was a valid source, if this isn't regarded as such then this comment can perhaps be deleted. The Alexa site does consistently indicate that the site is the leading site. Our other sources are notable. How you can regard Commercial Radio Australia as no a reliable source, or MCM Media as not reliable, or Crikey - all of which are highly reputable companies - is surprising. However, if you need information provided to further flesh this out then let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrs (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Reply moved to where it should be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability aside, when I accepted the article during the Articles for Creation process, I presumed there was significant coverage based upon the claims it had and the 3 sources it does have. According to WP:GNG, it should be presumed that a subject is notable when it has significant coverage. Is 3 reliable sources good enough? After all, the only reason the significant coverage is required is so that the information within the article can be verified. In my opinion, yes. HOWEVER! The 3 sources are not considered reliable, as they are trivial, simple mentions that do not meet the requirements. I'll continue to check and will give a !vote soon. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many links would suffice to establish notability? Here are 3 more. One from one of Australia's biggest newspapers 'The Age', one from music industry site noise11.com, and one from the website 'thehoopla.com.au'. Hope this helps. Again, my apologies if i'm posting this in the wrong place.

http://www.noise11.com/news/dan-bradley-reignites-the-australian-music-quota-debate-20120309
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/smooth-rebirth-for-melbourne-radio-station-20120427-1xpfh.html
http://thehoopla.com.au/women-radio-dial/

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrs (talk • contribs) 23:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are websites that mention Radio Today and don't necessarily establish notability. The sources have to be about the content of the article itself. Also, if Radio Today earned an award of some sort, then it's notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web). It also seems this website is a part of Radio Today (website), so perhaps we could merge it? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) However, the sources you provide may be used to verify the content in the article. Make sure that there is enough coverage to verify an article that extends beyond a stub. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian site is different to the UK site that you mentioned Michael, so best not merge. Thanks for considering the Radio Today (Aust /NZ) site, it is appreciated, and I look forward to you deciding whether it remains up or is removed. Obviously I hope it stays up! When will you decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrs (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An admin will close the discussionn on or after 23:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (seven days from when the discussion was open by Bidgee at 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the references above, http://www.noise11.com is about an essay published by radiotoday.com.au, not about Radio Today itself. http://www.theage.com.au describes Radio Today's ammouncement of the rebirth of 91.5 FM (Melbourne radio station) as Smooth 91.5, which is not about Radio Today itself. http://thehoopla.com.au doesn't mention Radio today. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources here do not represent significant coverage. Specifically, Commercial Radio Australia is simply an entry in a list of links; MCM media is a PR piece focusing on themselves and is not coverage about Radio Today; The Crikey article is a passing mention; and finally, their #1 ranking on Alexa is self-claimed and self-constructed. The other sources named above are in the same boat. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay whatever you decide is fine, if you wish to delete go for it. Our intention was not to cause hassle or have a drawn out process, simply to have a page here reflecting our site. But if you feel it should be deleted then please do so, and we'll let it go. I jsut didn't think that it would be this big of a deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrs (talk • contribs) 12:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to change the name of your website. Radio Today is descriptive, used world wide, and, to start stounding out, it may help to have a distinctive name, like AuZ Radio Today (for Australian & New Zealand Radio Today). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any news coverage of the website. The website itself does not maintain an In-the-News page of news coverage about itself. No newspaper covered the website's formation, launching of 20 February 2012, or it's growth since 20 February 2012. There are many hits for Radio Today (usually as in adio today (e.g.[1])). Does not meet WP:GNG. Also falls into WP:NOTGUIDE: 4. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:59, 30 August 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 '. userfied to User:Some indian sou/List of Twitter users in India Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twitter users in India[edit]

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

Contested prod. I know it's WP:BITEy to AFD an article so soon after creation, but I think this one either needs to be nipped in the bud, or given the all-clear to proceed, as it sets a precedent for 203 other countries. I was tempted to just redirect this to Use of Twitter by public figures, but I'm sure it will just be reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. I'm sure the arguments are familiar, given the number of ...on Twitter discussions there have been. To be useful this would be unmanageably large, while to be kept to a size that doesn't crash every browser, every single name on the list will be an arbitrary value-judgement - the majority of celebrities now have a twitter account, and a population of 1 billion makes for a lot of celebrities. If Twitter turns out to be a flash-in-the-pan like Myspace this list will be pointless; if it continues to spread this list will be no more useful than List of people by name was. And yes, that redlink really did once used to be blue. Mogism (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides what the nominator said, almost nobody is notable for using Twitter. (Although many notable people use it.) You might as well have "List of newspaper readers." Borock (talk) 21:48, 23 August 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 While We're Up (band). (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 22:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Booher[edit]

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

This is a recently dead musician. The band he was in is of questionable notability, but he's pretty clearly not for two reasons. One is that notability is not inherited. The other is that the only thing he could be individually notable for is his death, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E (per WP:BDP) apply.- Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to While We're Up (band). The only coverage about him I can find is related to heis death. I can't find anything that would establish him as notable independent of the band. I have no opinion on the notabbility of the band, but since it isn't up for deletion, then a redirect there is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested; or smerge if needed. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 29 August 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. Early close, could have been speedied probably, too :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Hilton[edit]

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

No notability is present or asserted. Also there are no reliable sources present or available -- no arm's-length third-party expert sources that state that Mr. Hilton has any notability with respect to other members of his profession. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined this A7, but I still can't believe Hilton is notable. No reliable sources are provided to establish that he is. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe I'm just unnerved by all these beautiful people glowering out of the screen but I'm failing to find him even on the modelling site that is offered as the sole reference? Without that, it is an unreferenced BLP. And with it, the fact that someone is working with an agency is hardly evidence of notability. It's just a job like any other. AllyD (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article indicates that he is also a "socialite" but I found no reliable sources to corroborate that either. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zippy was correct for declining the speedy. Modeling for the magazines listed is enough to pass A7, but fails WP: NMODEL, as they are not considered "mainstream media". Electric Catfish 14:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no evidence of notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:38, 28 August 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Valley Equestrian[edit]

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

Non-notable training barn for horses; there are no hits for "Eagle Valley Equestrian" on Google News or News archives, while Google Books hits predate EVE's founding and are thus false positives. CtP (t • c) 20:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Referenced by nothing but a single primary source. Appears to be serving only as an advertisement. -- WikHead (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage and arguably a speedy A7 as it doesn't even assert notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a lack of any sources at all, and there is nothing to show notability. I agree that this could have easily been a candidate for Spedy Deletion under A7. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 30 August 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) —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 00:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Schjelderup Dalen[edit]

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

Article about a hockey player who fails WP:GNG, but PROD was contested on the grounds that she played for the Norwegian national hockey team and passes WP:NHOCKEY. However, a simple google search only shows some stats-sites and some article in the local paper ringblad.no, which means that the article fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even though this article technically passes WP:NHOCKEY, it should be deleted because there are no significant coverage of the subject in reliable source and fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NHOCKEY by playing on a senior national team. I am not an expert on looking up Norwegian sources, but was able to at least find a number of articles in Ringerikes Blad, which appears to be a reliable source. I am not sure what offline sources exist in Norway, but I think there is enough already to satisfy a presumption of notability. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I know how to look up Norwegian sources, and that's why I nominated this for deletion: all I could find was 4 articles in ringblad.no (Ringerikes Blad), but not what I would call "significant coverage". In fact, one of the four articles are about her team winning Dana Cup at the age of 15. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a source on the IIHF website that should be reliable. Added to article. Maple Leaf (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NHOCKEY and sources found by Rlendog. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead of WP:NSPORTS (which NHOCKEY is a part of) says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept., and further down on the page you can read " In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." And the sources used as reference plus the 4 articles from the local paper Ringerikes Blad is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is your right to believe that, but I disagree. The sources found by Rlendog and Maple Leaf are enough to meet GNG. All it takes is two references from two different sources that talk about the individual in significant detail to meet GNG. There is no provision in GNG that local sources are not acceptable. Though it is often a common mistake that some people make. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, let's say local sources are as good as any other sources, even though the articles in the local source is only "trivial mentions". But if two different sources is enough, where is the other source? All I can find is a bunch of statistics-pages and nothing else. I'd be happy if there was 1 single source that "address the subject directly in detail", but as a matter of fact, I can't find anything. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Always met NHOCKEY and now meets GNG. Patken4 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NHOCKEY by playing on a senior national team.--Juristicweb (talk) 02:04, 26 August 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) Rcsprinter (chat) @ 22:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proletarian Nights : the workers dream in Nineteenth Century France[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No independent refs. No evidence of meeting WP:NBOOK. PROD removed by creator who said it was a classic based on claims made on the publishers' website (see talk page). Also pointed to this review which appears to be a strongly partisan website rather than a mainstream reviewer of books. Google books gives 13 hits for the term "Proletarian Nights" including some hits which are not about the book. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I nuked pretty much all of the previous incarnation. It's written like a personal essay and has a lot of OR in it. I did notice that the original title was "Nights of Labor" and I'm getting some hits from that, so this might be a keep. Might. I'm going to see what I can find as well as move it to the correct name.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once I dug and found the original title of the first English release, I managed to find quite a few journals about the book. The article still needs more work, but I would highly recommend that the original editor not use his personal essay on the book word for word and that he or she be more neutral and encyclopedic about it. If I've got the correct guy and I'm positive I do, then he does appear to be someone that could be considered an authority on the subject as he's a professor at the University of Westminister but there is a bit of neutrality and potential conflict of interest since he'd be quoting himself quite liberally. I recommend getting someone to help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy or Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology just to keep everything on the up and up. There's more out there source-wise, I just have to keep digging to get at it since the book isn't really something that's covered in the more mainstream sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can speak French, I found a mention of the original text in a French journal. Of course I speak no French and Google Translate can't translate this document. [2]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proletarian Nights, the title of the new Verso English edition, is a more literal translation of the original French edition - La nuit des proletaires - than the title of the first English edition Nights of Labour. A colleague suggests this title might have been used because of a USA resonance to Nights of Labor. Confusing I know but I think the new title is a more accurate translation of the original. I think you have unnecessarily diminished my summary/synopsis. An significant book needs to be represented with more detailed and interesting content or Wikipedia just becomes very bland. Szczels (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point behind me removing it was because it read like your original research, which it was. You might be someone who obviously knows what they're talking about, but that does not remove the fact that it is original research. You have to be exceedingly careful when it comes to you quoting yourself, as comes close to being non-neutral, original research, and looking like it's a place to promote your own personal essay of the book. I know that you mean well, but you've really really got to be careful about this. It might seem "bland" but you've got to understand that it must also be encyclopedic and well sourced. If you have sources (even if you wrote them) you could potentially use them, but I highly recommend that you go through someone in one of the various WikiProjects in order to get around any potential COI and to avoid the risk of you giving yourself undue weight. I don't mean this to sound overly harsh, but when you selfquote and use your own research it almost always comes across as original research and self-promotion. Please read up on WP:SELFCITE, WP:OR, WP:SELFPUB, WP:NPOV. You've got to be very, very careful when putting your own stuff and opinions into articles, whether it's sourced or not.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. and thanks for all the formatting work etc. The page looks good as a beginning. Its about time there was something up about this book. Szczels (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like there are plenty of sources and it satisfies GNG. The article just needs some improvement. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 02:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw The current article is about completely different thing with a different title. It's now clear that it's notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep: no deletion rationale whatsoever. Mephistophelian (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Reynolds (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Pim Rijkee (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating as a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin C. Roșescu[edit]

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

The claims of notability are a little thin, and besides, the sourcing is zero. If references were added, we might be better able to evaluate, but until that happens, we cannot accept any of the assertions made. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of availability of evidence of notability.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject utterly fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, & WP:SOLDIER. No significant coverage of the subject found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Operation Autonomous. The topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, but searching Google books for "Constantin Roșescu"[3] brings up the book "SOE: The Scientific Secrets" by Fredric Boyce, D. H. Everett, ISBN: 0752453297. that reference also is in the article and the article notes, "He is known for having custody of the three British SOE officers parachuted in Romania during Operation Autonomous, in 1943." Delete and redirect seems reasonable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:19, 30 August 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. That being said, I will individually create redirects to Pentangle as Mr Stradivarius raises a very solid point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History Book[edit]

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

The band Pentangle has no less than 18 compilation albums that have been released since the band's breakup. Pentangle didn't have a particularly large output, so these albums tend to have similar track lists, with songs like "Once I Had a Sweetheart" and "Pentangling" appearing on nearly all of these compilations. Some of them are no more than reissues of earlier compilations under a different name. None achieved any notable sales, recognition, or anything else that would qualify them under WP: NALBUMS, as they are essentially just cash-ins on the band's fan base. I'm not sure what could have motivated the creation of articles for nearly all of these compilations, save a misconception that Wikipedia is supposed to serve as a discography of sorts, but none of them have significant info beyond each release's copyright year and track list, despite having been on WP for over five years. A Pentangle discography article could hold this info just as easily. At any rate, upkeeping individual articles for every single Pentangle compilation strikes me as ludicrously overkill. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I am nominating all the Pentangle compilation articles as a group. Here are the others:[reply]

--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - It's ridiculous that we have 18 different articles just to cover the compilation releases of any one musical artist, much less one that doesn't even have a "Pentangle discography" article. The few references which appear in the articles are just there to cite the respective album's catalogue number. As the nominator points out, this information would be much better suited to a discography article for the band, which would be much more convenient for WP readers.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Pentangle discography; none of these are notable on their own, but would just pass if grouped in a single article. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per WP:GNG. The numerous stand alone articles appear to have been posted without concern of first sourcing the information to relialbe sources. WP:NOTGUIDE seems to apply in that element of the compilation need to be significant in their own right to be included in an article. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the compilation or its significance in the industry. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - As stated, none of these individual albums pass the GNG. Creating a new Pentangle Discography article to merge the album lists to would be largely pointless, as a Discography section (with each of these albums already listed) already exists at the band's own article, and that article is not so large that a split would be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Pentangle (band)#Discography. This seems to be a textbook case of WP:NALBUM - "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." (And there doesn't seem to be much space in the band article.) The pages would be useful redirects, keeping them as redirects will help prevent them from being recreated, and keeping the edit history will make it much easier for any editors who might like to try their hand at writing a discography article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:12, 31 August 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 and redirect. JmaJeremy's comment that the article started life as a redirect and should be returned to it is true...except the redirect was at Indian sports. Sgxi moved Indian sports to Indian Sports Teams & Players midway through his creation of this article; that is the logical return-to-redirect, not this term. Therefore I have deleted Indian Sports Teams & Players and recreated as a redirect Indian sports, redirecting to Sport in India, its original target. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Sports Teams & Players[edit]

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

A completely unencyclopaedic article. I know using 'unencyclopaedic' is a circular argument but this article really doesn't make any sense. It contains some cherry picked national teams and sports-persons of India, maintaining their records. Wikipedia is not a directory, and I don't think given content can be merged with any correlated articles (like sport in India). — Bill william compton^Talk 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be a rather arbitrary collection of results. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of Indiscriminate information. Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sport in India. The article started as a redirect in 2007 and remained virtually unchanged until this month when a single editor (Sgxi (talk · contribs)) began filling it with disjointed and loosely correlated information over a series of 42 revisions. It seems like it was done in good faith, perhaps with the false assumption that a redirect should eventually be turned into a full article. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sport in India. Not the most likely of titles, but we may as well keep it as a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Telugu Brahmins. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu Brahmins in media and entertainment[edit]

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

Reason Saran9999 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Reasons for asking to delete arise as the article is promoting Religion (Caste actually) unnecessarily and creating disharmony in Indian Society Norms! As per the Wiki, reasons are G10 and G11 Totally delete this page and in future, stop encouraging such communal or religious pages! — Saran9999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 August 16. Snotbot t • c » 14:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Telugu Brahmins. Hindustan ^Zinda ^bad 15:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not a bad idea; I don't see that any other group has been split off like this one, and that list does not seem too long. postdlf (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this page to be deleted for a reason already mentioned by Saran999. Also, the list is not accurate, there are several Tamil Brahmins included in the list such as S.S.Taman,S. Janaki etc. Few of many what I saw. Since it contains inaccurate mentions without reference. This page be deleted. tausif(talk) 15:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 01:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see the hint of a policy-based rationale for deletion here, not from the nominator (who has no edits outside of this AFD, and has no idea what G10 and G11 actually mean), not from the "me too" deletion !voter. We do not delete content because we think it may create "disharmony." Nor do we delete content for fixable issues as Tausif has raised. See WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE. So unless someone can advance a valid reason for deleting this, this should be speedy closed. postdlf (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also completely arbitrary and senseless to delete this but not the master list of Telugu Brahmins, from which it was split off. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that Wikipedia has even put this up for debate. The allegations raised against the entry are utterly ridiculous. A quick sifting through the entry would tell you that there's nothing of the sort alleged contained in it. It has just names of people who, the author claims, hail from a certain social grouping (or Caste) that speak Telugu language. Any objections, if at all, can be only made on the veracity of the claims inside the article. Should there be any incorrect information put it up for debate and delete it after due deliberations. Brahmins have a right to make a list of prominent persons from their community on Wikipedia or any other online forum. There's nothing wrong with it. I am not a Brahmin, nor am I a regular contributor to wikipedia. Having landed up on this page through some totally irrelevant google search I was startled to see such a malicious request made against the page. PLEASE DO NOT ENTERTAIN SUCH FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS. Thanks. User ID: prince747 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince747 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confess _ 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Telugu Brahmins. I see no reason why this short list warrants its own page. MisterUnit (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge in to List of Telugu Brahmins. List of Telugu Brahmins can be reformatted to include columns, one of which details things about the entry, such as working in media or entertainment. Another column I suggest for List of Telugu Brahmins would be a reference column per WP:V. Requiring a Wikipedia reliable source to justify an entry into the List of Telugu Brahmins will considerably reduce the List of Telugu Brahmins. The non-reliable source entries can be added to a Telugu Brahmins people category. List of Telugu Brahmins probably could be deleted and the article Telugu Brahmins could handle the list of notable Telugu Brahmins and the remainder be place as part of a Telugu Brahmins people category. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:44, 30 August 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SymbioNode[edit]

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

Non-notable type of "data carrier". — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 3 August 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, —Hue Sat Lum 00:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This should be merged into Delay-tolerant networking or deleted since it is part of that topic. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | communicate _ 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Should not be merged as there is no content supported by reliable sources to be merged. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no independent coverage found at Google or Google News Archive. (It's always a bad sign when the top Google hit is the Wikipedia article!) --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:49, 30 August 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. Delete !voters have indicated that no reliable, independent sources are available and thus notability has not been shown. Although I agree that a merge might be nice per PRESERVE, there is at present no applicable target and a fairly clear consensus that the content is not worth an independent article. I am not against userfying this if someone wants to work on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik (web browser)[edit]

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

No indication of this browser's notability: the search in Google Books, Google News and duckduckgo (Sputnik KHTML query proved to return most relevant results) returns either this article's clones or fan sites, forums and other kinds of self-publsihed works. Same goes for references in the article with exception of the fan magazine's interview with browser's developer (which is a primary source, and doesn't indicate notability as such).

The talk page and previous AfD discussion contain some discussion of notability with implication of historical significance (see WP:NSOFT § Inclusion criterion #4), based on the fact that there was a period of time when this browser was the only "modern" browser for MorphOS platform, though the article lists other MorphOS browsers with nearly identical feature set in several of them.

Overall, I propose deletion of the article per WP:N and WP:NOT (particularly WP:NOTDIR). Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just don't see the coverage that justifies inclusion on Wikipedia. Its historical significance does not appear to have been documented in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ to KHTML, which, according to the article, Sputnik is a port of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KHTML is a layout engine used in Sputnik. They are related the same way as, say, Avant Browser and Gecko, Trident and WebKit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I'd reckon keep, a rather weak keep but as there's no logical merge target I feel this should be kept rather than deleted. Notability is very borderline but in borderline cases with no merge target, content should be kept, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | babble _ 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems independently notable, and it appears to be very notable to the MorphOS community. I don't see any reason to delete this. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be more precise: it seems notable per sources in the article? Or you found other sources? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep~~ - Source material incudes [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Some of it is press releases, but those could be good for a few sentences in the article. The others that are independent reliable sources seem to provide enough content for a stand alone article. ~~With the referenes now in the article, seems to be a keeper.~~ -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia article says the Sputnik (web browser) came out in 2006, but the Sputnik + browser sources I found go back to at least 1998.[12] Only external links 7 and 8 in my post above are 2006 or later and both those are press releases and might not actually be relevant to the topic as described in the article. A search for sputnik and morphos doesn't bring up any reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record: all of these (including the newer two) are about Sputnik Agent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources about this online, which leaves the sources in the article. MorphZone and AmigaWeb don't look like they qualify under WP:RS, leaving the Total Amiga Magazine source, and I don't think that this is enough to prove Sputnik's notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr. Stradivarius and Uzma Gamal. This doesn't seem to have made it, and the window is past. --Bejnar (talk) 01:27, 31 August 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand (football club)[edit]

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

It seem to be a hoax. The club seems to be purported to be based in Principality of Sealand. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Logo and info stolen from Thurrock F.C.. List of players is bogus, with links pointing to unrelated people or DAB pages. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax as per Alexf Hillabear10 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hana[edit]

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

Not-notable, single website-sourced. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced. I count at least five websites. stuff.co.nz is the collective website of all but two of New Zealand's major daily newspapers. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found two sources which seem good: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10779764 and http://www.3news.co.nz/Tributes-pour-in---but-who-really-was-Blanket-Man/tabid/423/articleID/239457/Default.aspx. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Not-notable outside of locality. Also, the one umbrella web source promoting stories about Hana appears merely indulgent of making a character of a local for web-copy and print if nothing more. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Double vote striked. Nomination for deletion already implies a "delete" vote. Cavarrone (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 03:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 03:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable within NZ, but not internationally. Well reported in national, not just local media NealeFamily (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being noteworthy because of media attention. Even more noteworthy is an article about, say, Poverty in New Zealand. But hey, that's how WP works... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why Ben Hana is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and therefore, in my opinion, the article does not meet WP:BIO.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment meets WP:BASIC on media coverage NealeFamily (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced, clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't see any valid concern for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been at AfD before, so if it was considered notable then, how can it have lost notability in the meantime? Schwede 66 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above - SimonLyall (talk) 11:19, 29 August 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken John[edit]

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

Self-Promotional, and not-notable outside of the "burning man community" and his own promotional affairs. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He's gotten a fair amount of coverage (as a GNews search will reflect)[13] and while much of it was for an unsuccessful mayoral run, e.g.[14] that's not all, e.g.[15][16]. I tend to think he qualifies as a notable activist/eccentric. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG. Unsuccessful mayoral run does not meet wiki standards. Hillabear10 (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN would suggest notability criteria is not met. On another note, the template on the page does not link to this AFD for some reason... Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not received enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to warrant a page. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Not enough coverage in secondary RS's to pass WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article definitely needs some help, but consensus seems to be clearly keep. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 02:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devita Saraf[edit]

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

Reason The whole article seems like a resume , i really doubt the notabality of the person . most of the sources linked to papers states of being a participatory in an event ! !! . and also most of the articles stated in the news papers does not have any neutral tone nor any news may be a work of personnel marketing executive as it only speaks about her company and what it does and about her fathers legacy. it seems an editor has been sock puppeting to add information to the article and the reason for blocking him seems to be that he confirmed that he was payed for changing the article please refer to link and new link so please contribute if you think it is important to be kept , also please keep in mind on future possibilities if teams are hired to make changes in wiki for google page ranking(seo) Shrikanthv (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep which I say with some regret because it seems clear to me that the article was spawned by 'hired help' to create an article on Wikipedia way before the subject would have come to notice. A major contributor has been indef blocked for sock puppetry and has also uploaded a swathe of promotional pictures of this person, her business and her father. Emotionally that sways me against the article. So I have checked more than half the references to determine if the subject passes WP:GNG. I feel annoyed that it is a clear pass, and that she is not only notable but is verifiably so. The articles in which she appears may be puffery but they are puffery in reliable sources in sufficient volume to be proof of notability. This annoyance is caused by the way the article came to be edited, not by the lady herself. She appears to me to fulfil all the criteria for an article here. My own prejudices against the major contributor(s) are irrelevant. I believe the article does read like a curriculum vitae. That must be addressed, but it is not of itself a reason for deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although at first glance it seems as confirming to WP:GNG it is going in wrong direction with what wikipedia is not and is definitly against WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMOTION , i am stating that as a self promotion as it can be proved that there was herself involved in the article Shrikanthv (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. The article does require improvement. It is not against the rules to self promote, but it is judged to be unwise. Even if the lady is indulging in self promotion, if the article is valid then it is valid. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She was named one of the 25 most powerful women in India by a reliable newspaper, she's covered in several different reliable sources. She clearly meets WP:GNG. Despite what some people may think there is absolutely no rule forbidding paid editing on Wikipedia. There never has been. As long as she is notable, there should be an article. Now, you're more than welcome to make edits to the article if you feel it's promotional; it does look like some of those sources might not meet WP:RS, but there is absolutely no policy based grounds for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qwyrxian explains the rationale well. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note that statement of "was named one of the 25 most powerful women in India by a reliable newspaper" is linked to an external source which is stating the list of speaker and is not linking to any official list or the said news paper or the broad casting network Shrikanthv (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I can't find any online reliable source for the statement (though it appears in so many publicity notices I can't imagine it not being true). --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. One source [17] does put her in a list of "25 power women of the country". Not sure if that's the same thing as "25 most powerful women in India". At best, it amounts to "Saraf has been called a power woman by India Today". Seems like a fluff piece. The rest of the sources are all either pr pieces or fluff pieces (what's in her laptop). --regentspark (comment) 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "what's in her laptop" is a detailed piece in an independent reliable source about the subject. The SiliconIndia piece is short and part of a bigger collection, but still points to notability; the same can be said for the economictimes, coolavenue, and India Times articles. Please, everyone (I'm referring primarily to the proposer here), put down the natural distrust of paid editing, and follow policy: there is absolutely no prohibition on people writing about themselves. If you think the article isn't neutral, fix it (though it may be easier to wait til the AfD is done). If there's puffery, remove it. But until policy changes (and it won't--several site-wide RfC's have shown majority support for the idea that paid/involved editing is fine as long as other policies are followed at the same time), who created or edited the article is absolutely irrelevant to the question of deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No as a proposer the whole idealogy was not to go against paid editing ( as i respect if some one is hiring people to improve wiki ) but against some one saying

1) attended queen mary school in Mumbai, 2) attended H.R college of commerce and communication 3) made course on game theory and strategic thinking at the London School of Economics.(and prooving this from giving reference from list of particpatory details in an event ) 4) won award 1 & 2 "not" refering to any official list (e.g IT People's IT Woman Leadership Award own by her refering to a page were "some one " has made an interview with her ) but where is the offical award page ? 5) not ever involved in any news or events that is known to Indian public.

I guess all this above are going against Wikipedia:No original research as, if we are considering the newspaper online article as a primary source there are no secoundary or any other source to confirm this . (E.g this also means if i am able to publish some article in newpapers about my conquest in olympics , i will be able to write an article about myself saying olympics names "ss" as youngest one to be in top 25 athletes in the world. )

Was really against the above things and not against paid editors adding content. But i am ok if the AFD comes out as keep , as this will set standards on the quality of reference that can be used i8n future Shrikanthv (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're actually confusing the two terms; a list from the college or "official Award page" would actually be a primary source, and Wikipedia prefers to use secondary sources like newspapers. So, yes, if a newspaper that met our reliable sources guidelines said that you won an Olympic event, then we might include that; of course, if we had multiple other sources, including reliable ones like the IOC data or other news sources that said differently, then we probably wouldn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrikanthv: Please note Qwyrxian's "Wikipedia prefers to use secondary sources". Primary sources can perfectly be used for stating straightforward statements of fact. So if ABC won some award and the official award page says so, its sufficient. However to add that "this award is the best ever" you would need secondary sources. Also to establish notability of award, because sports competitions held in your colony also give awards, secondary sources are required. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perfectly notable enough to stay. Many newspapers have written about her. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though it does read like a CV, but seeing her here, shows that she is notable enough; having said that, the article needs a rewrite! --Ekabhishek^talk 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blow it up and start over. I think the subject's notable, but the quality of the article is terrible. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article with reliable sources. Torreslfchero (talk) 17:17, 29 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmoud Adel[edit]

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

no notabilty, likes self promotion Esteban (talk) 12:44, 23 August 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 August 23. Snotbot t • c » 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmoud Adel brings up no usable sources that would help to establish notability. Same goes for Google Books or Google Scholar. A Google search using the Arabic transcription مود عادل (not sure whether the spelling is correct, should be rechecked by someone who knows the proper spelling in Arabic) also doesn't seem to uncover any usable sources. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:28, 26 August 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 BLP close. I'm going to use the administrator page protection tool, not the administrator deletion tool, here. The text in this revision of the article at hand is identical to the text in this old revision of Gopal Goyal Kanda, which latter has already had to be reworked for copyright violations. Let's do all this in one place, with the one article. I'm reverting to this revision of the page and protecting it for a month. By then it should be apparent whether sources exist for writing a biography of this person, rather than an article all about a police investigation and some other person masquerading as a biography. Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geetika Sharma[edit]

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

Significant BLP vios. The subject of the article committed suicide and her death is being probed by the police and there is no coverage outside of the death. The death is also being covered primarily in the context of one of the suspects who is a state politician. An e.g. of the BLP vios: the article states "Using his money power and political muscle kanda got Geetika's facebook account deactivated.[12]" while the reference says no such thing. Delete and hopefully snow/speedy as this is becoming a coattrack for BLP vios on Gopal Goyal Kanda. —SpacemanSpiff 12:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that deletion is warranted due to BLP issues. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians in India charged with corruption[edit]

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

This article is a BLP nightmare; it is already under indefinite protection due to BLP violations. A linked category is currently under CfD, while a similar article was deleted by AfD in March 2012. Giant Snowman 11:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or confine to those found guilty of corruption. The way in which the Indian political and judicial systems operate make the usefulness of this article extremely moot even if there were no issues with BLP. As the nom say, there are in fact continuous issues. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as utter BLP failure. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and suggest that all "lists of accusations" be similarly shown the door. Collect (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody above. We don't want a list of anybody "charged with" anything. "Convicted of", maybe, but not "charged with". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of scandals in India There is tremendous popular need for people to be able to sort information about corruption in India, and somehow the articles of politicians who are intimately involved in high-profile, well-published scandals and scams need to be sorted for development on Wikipedia. I propose merging this article to the existing list of scandals, and that article include a column of "players" which would include people which reliable sources associate with the corruption. This would include judges, activists, and politicians. This article should be a redirect to that one; do not delete this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this resolve the BLP maintenance nightmare? That list is itself a mess and will be more so with a merge. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to name who is charged, accused, convicted, or anything else. There should be a table matching particular scandals with the key figures which the media has associated with the scandals and from there readers can click the names and read their biographies. There is no need to describe how anyone is affiliated with any scandal but everyone in the list ought to have a citation which mentions their involvement somehow. People should be named as associated if there is heavy media coverage describing their association, but the article itself does not need to describe their association. I do not think there should be an article which summarizes accusations against anyone, but it will usually be incontestable that certain names are associated with certain scandals. If a scandal itself is notable and a scandal article lists names of people associated with the scandal and the individual's biographies also mention the scandals then there is room on Wikipedia for a list article which connects these two bits of non-controversial information for the benefit of readers. Here is an example of a list which names names - List of federal political scandals in the United States. There are other precedents for this. The controversy in this article is not that scandal articles are naming politicians or that politicians biographies mention scandals - the problem in this article is the phrase "charged with corruption". There is no agreed-upon definition of either "charged" or "corruption" in this context and those words need to be dissociated and replaced with accurate descriptions. An accurate description is "associated". In the "List of scandals" article there should be an "associated persons" section next to each scandal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'll have a think over the (long) weekend. Are you aware that over two-thirds of the present Indian Union lower house either have been convicted of or are facing allegations of criminality? That is just a single house in a bicameral system that also has bicameral houses at state level. And are you aware that this level is nothing particularly new? I'll try to find the source for this - it was The Hindu or some other quality thing. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source that says one-third. There is something new - more people worldwide are interested in reading summaries of notable information from reliable sources about these things. I am aware that many Indian politicians have been convicted but just because someone is convicted does not mean they are guilty, and allegations do not mean anything at all. I would prefer to steer conversation away from guilt, accusation, conviction, charges, investigation, serving jail, or anything else which is debatable. If a scandal article mentions a person and that person's biography mentions the scandal then that ought not be debatable that the two things have an association. I think that might even be a good inclusion criteria for the list - the scandal and the person both have to be independently notable and their articles must reference each other with good sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, maybe Merge as per above comment. Right now India is going through tumultuous times with the current Administration is actively promoting corruption, and Censoring the Internet to protect itself. This needs to be documented. --Ne0 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing new about the situation and the issue can be (and is) more sensibly documented by other means. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree - this should be managed in the scandal article and the biography article, but there is a need for the list of scandals to be matched in a single page with the persons who are associated with the scandal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For those who have been found guilty. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the average criminal trial in India lasts 10 years and then anyone found guilty will not go to jail until they get an appeal of some sort, which may take years more. The motive behind making this compilation is to get information to readers so waiting for a trial to resolve is not helpful. Also, some people are associated in name with many high-profile scandals but never found guilty of anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So wait ten years before adding them. I assume that there are people accused of this in 2002 who can be added now then? If they're not found guilty, then don't add them. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others in favor of deletion. BLP nightmare indeed!--JayJasper (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I am open to being persuaded. Can someone please point to me where in WP:BLP it states that high profile people (which every politician with a WP article is) cannot be described as having been accused of a crime? I'm specifically drawing the line here at politicians for which charges have been filed in a relevant court of law (or, in India, there are bureacratic, extra-judicial equivalencies)? Note that this article used to be something like "accused of corruption", and after quite a bit of work, specifically with reference to WP:BLP concerns, we restricted it only to those people with charges filed. Lastly, please note that the indefinite semi-protection is irrelevant--it's there because new/IP users don't understand or refuse to accept the "accused"/"charged" distinction. No one would argue that indefinite semi-protection on Barack Obama is somehow an argument for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it would appropriate to have an article about those who have been convicted. The mere fact that they've been charged (or in many cases in this article, merely accused) is not appropriate to mention. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. The mere fact of reporting the allegation may do political damage even if the person is innocent, and we have to presume they are innocent until a Court finds them guilty. Therefore, I have WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and specifically WP:UNDUE concerns with this list. I think the situation is different in specific articles. Compare and contrast Julian Assange who has been accused of a crime but not charged or convicted. Because Assange is vastly notable for other reasons, because he has been through an exhaustive appeal process and a Court has found that he has a case to answer, and through sheer volume of coverage, it is appropriate to mention that Assange has been accused of offences in the article about him. But I do not think it would be appropriate to list him in a List of Australian journalists charged with sex crimes, if we had such a thing.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one thing: every single person in this article has been charged either judicially or by a special agency. Or, at least, that's is the consensus about how it's supposed to be; if something crept in as just an accusation, then it should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, specifically per S Marshall. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's a violation of WP:BLP, especially as it pertains to a neutral portrayal of the subject(s). While we can nitpick on individual entries, the main issue here is that an accusation is not something that's neutral, unlike a conviction. Cases can be genuine, politically motivated, otherwise falsified etc, and in a list such as this, we portray only the accusation, without all the other aspects of the bios of the individual(s). This is quite different from an article on the subject where such aspects can be dealt with individually, providing due real estate for such things. —SpacemanSpiff 10:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations should stay on Wikipedia as long as they are clearly stated to be accusations. Thats staying neutral; not deleting it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... because?—S Marshall T/C 06:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because these accusations are mostly the reason why these subjects become notable per WP:GNG. These people don't necessarily pass "significant coverage" without these accusations. Its like writing about Bach and not mentioning music. Non-locals don't know if Kanimozhi has worked for providing job opportunities in rural areas. They didn't even know if she was daughter of Karunanidhi until 2G spectrum scam came out. People in most parts of India would associate her with this scam and not with her work on woman empowerment or whatever.
If the accusation is itself notability, it will go in the subject's biographical article. If it can stay there, it can also stay on any other form of relevant article. For eg. Corruption in India can be a good host for merging this list. But given that article's already huge length this list can be forked out for technical reasons. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I've distinguished between mentioning the accusation in the subject's biographical article on the one hand, and mentioning them in a "list of shame" like this one on the other. How do you react to that distinction?—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it will be undue to have a separate list? Had there been an essay on Australian journalists involved in sex crimes, there would have been a list of those people; either embedded in it or stand-alone. This is nothing different. Its just a forked content of Corruption in India which has been taken out for technical reasons. Would the list be undue had it been embedded in the article? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:BLP applies no matter where. No matter who. Collect (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting User:Qwyrxian; "Can someone please point to me where in WP:BLP it states that high profile people (which every politician with a WP article is) cannot be described as having been accused of a crime? I'm specifically drawing the line here at politicians for which charges have been filed in a relevant court of law (or, in India, there are bureacratic, extra-judicial equivalencies)?" §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They can be described as having been accused of a crime, if it is verifiable that they have been accused, but on their own biographical pages -- not on a list of people charged with crimes. I don't think Wikipedia wants a list that would mix the guilty together with the accused-but-innocent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then we are good here. The list clearly, from it's title also, says that this is list of people "charged" with corruption. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" may be good, but I don't think this list is. There are people on the list who were convicted, people who were acquitted, people who are awaiting trial, and people in other situations as well. Those who have not been tried yet, much less those who were acquitted, should not be placed on a list of "charged" people along with those who were convicted. Also, I disagree with the idea that "these accusations are mostly the reason why these subjects become notable"; most of these people have held significant political office such as being ministers at either state or federal level. As such, they would have qualified as notable under WP:POLITICIAN whether or not they were notable under WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now your comment suggests that some entries, (not majority of them) are wrong; especially the one who are acquitted. If any such entry exists, that should be removed. All other convicted, awaiting trial, etc. can be categorized under "charged" as they are charged. Hence they are right. We can have lists of all such subcategories if need be. That way the title and content would match precisely. Or we can think of another name or another location for this list.
And your notability comment sounds like a outsider's comment. Although WP:POLITICIAN allows creation of articles of all people who have been members of parliament, we don't create stubs of all these people. Why should we have articles that only say "PQR was member of parliament form this to that day."? (Ofcourse, for the sake of argument you would agree that such one liners should not be made. But when such articles are created you would come and ask for deletion as they fail GNG. Could you be any more hippocratic?) No one is denying existence of these biographies. They are notable to stay on Wikipedia irrespective of scandals because these people held/hold positions. But biographies don't limit themselves only upto Wikipedia's policies of notability. Nor do these policies say that only information related to notability should be written.
(I personally have decided to get less involved in AfDs. Hence this will be my last comment. Hence i won't specially vote here. Do as you please. Admins win!) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I proposed a format for salvaging some of this information here - Talk:List_of_scandals_in_India#Sorting_format_proposed. I made a new kind of table here which associates the names of scandals with the names of players in that scandal. I proposed earlier that this content be merged into that article and this is how I propose that it be done. Thoughts from anyone? Please post on that article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those who have merely been charged with a crime ought to be removed, as an arguable BLP violation could be seen by someone who reads statements about unconvicted politicians like "illegal mining scam". Keeping a list of those who have been convicted, on the other hand, should be fine. dci | TALK 20:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP issues. While it is fine to include material about a person being charged with a crime in a biographical article (provided it is well covered in reliable sources and properly contextualized), merely maintaining a list is a bad idea because of blp issues. At a minimum, the list won't contain sufficient contextual material to put the charges, and even convictions, in perspective. --regentspark (comment) 00:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is a violation of BLP. Delete per S Marshall, SpacemanSpiff, and RegentsPark. Salih (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We can keep those whose charges have been framed by a court of law. Agree with Qwyrxian, AnimeshKulkarni

Before deleting this list, we need to understand how Indian criminal justice system works. Anyone can accuse anyone which could lead to First Information Report (FIR) being filed against some person. But, that FIR first needs to be investigated by either an investigating agency (or even by a private person. See 2G spectrum scam and Subramanian Swamy). After investigation is complete, a chargesheet is filed which is a formal document of accusation including supporting evidence. After this, the court gives opportunity to the accused to defend against the charges and then court applies its own mind and decides whether there is any prima facie case against the accused, If yes, charges are said to be framed against the person, if no, then the chargesheet is quashed at that stage itself. After that, trial begins (if accused pleads not guilty). Finally, after all the arguments, etc the court comes to a conclusion and pronounces the verdict (which could be challenged in superior courts). At each stage, accused can approach higher courts (right up to supreme court) to quash the charges, if they are untrue they would be accordingly quashed. Even after approaching so many courts if someone is not discharged, there is a strong reason to believe that the charges and evidence are credible (which is why courts are proceeding with the case). Based on this, it is not fair to drop all these stages and just include final conviction stage. Plus, they are clearly mentioned as being "charges" and not "conviction". AgniKalpa (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly falls under WP:BLPCRIME. The list creates a single collective of these polticians and that single collective is relatively unknown, even if the individuals in the list are not. The article not only is suggesting that the persons in the list has committed a crime, the article list heaps guilt by assiciation. The list still suggests acquitted Prakash Singh Badal committed a crime by his being on the list and being assiciated with other people on the Wikipedia list. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that NSA documents alone are not enough to demonstrate notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JOSEKI (cipher)[edit]

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

Article has no open sources. The three references listed include a caveat that they are classified. It is mentioned in some documents online referencing military radio equipment, but there is no description of its operation. In addition, there may be a concern about unreviewed classified information here. 226Trident_talk 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — First of all, I think that the NSA can take care of its own secrecy concerns and that we don't have to worry about them at AFD. I have a feeling that if they wanted that article gone, it'd already be gone. More to the point, the patents which mention this encryption scheme show that it's real (see this google scholar search). Once we know that the thing is real, the sources in the article show that it meets the GNG. We should assume good faith even though they're not accessible easily, since that's explicitly not required in WP:RS ("It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.") Two of them are listed as "releasable." Finally, it can't be all that secret, because here it is as one of the multiple choices in a study guide on network security and cryptography (not claiming this as a reliable source).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles mention the algorithm(s) by name, but don't actually detail its operation and functionality. The caveat of "releasable" does not refer to release to the general public, but instead refers to release of classified information to relevant allies (NATO, ISAF, GBR, etc.). The information is still classified at the level of SECRET, and is still national security information. There is no way to verify the existence or content of these sources. My understanding of consensus is that classified documents are considered primary sources, and under GNG they would not be considered enough to establish notability outright.

226Trident_talk 14:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't understood that about the meaning of "releasable". I think I'll let my keep stand for now, though, because there are so many sources that aren't easily accessible. We take their existence and accuracy on faith in general. This is an extreme case of the difficulty of accessing sources, but it's interesting enough that I'd like to see what the community thinks.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think that NSA documents about this cipher are sufficient to establish notability. I don't see any sort of coverage about this algorithm outside of the NSA material. Even if it is secret, a notable secret algorithm si something that I would still expect to see some sort of coverage (including informed expert speculation) on it in security related books or journals. I didn't find such material but I'm prepared to change my mind if somebody can dig up some material. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's nonsense to claim that there are no RS (merely to demonstrate existence and notability, we're not looking for implementation details) because there clearly are sources, but we're going to refuse to talk about them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:NOTCENSORED. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources presented either in the article or at this AFD are indicative of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 23 August 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, A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability requires coverage in multiple independent sources, and all citations that come from one author/publication/organisation (in this case the NSA) only count as a single source, so it's not established as notable. Could possibly merge if there's a target. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 23 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Lynch (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is probably not notable. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Please delete the Lee Lynch(Singer) page. I am the creator of this page and I am also Lee Lynch's son. The article was intended as a reference to those wishing to read about him but I am fed up with the constant tampering with this article and the stupid messages attached to it by Wikipedia robots that I would need a degree in science to understand. Indeed, Wikipedia instructions are so complex and ridiculous that I don't even know if I'm posting this message in the correct place.

Lee Lynch passed away on 22nd July and this robotic interference is frankly an insult to his memory. The Wikipedia system seems to operate on a 'you've got to prove it' basis, citations needed, references needed blah blah blah. Well, no I do not and if the Wikipedia process is unable to accept the article in the nature it is intended then I would prefer it not to be there at all. We have an excellent website for those that want to read about Dad which is a far better source of information and a far better tribute to his memory.

Phil Lynch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcmazz (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are not familiar with the way Wikipedia works and what it is for. We are sorry for your loss but WP is an encyclopedia, not a memorial site. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia for which I wrote an accurate article, only to have it interfered with by robots and other people that don't know what they are talking about. For this reason I would like it removed please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcmazz (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot locate any reliable sources to support this article, which is a shame as it with reliable sources ("I know it is true" is not verifiable, I'm afraid). Writing about subjects with who you have a personal involvement can be challenging, which is one of the reason we deter this. See WP:COI. Also, the article cannot be deleted as a author-request speedy at this stage because too many editors have contributed, and the article is old. However, it appears likely that the article will be deleted in a few days through this process. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:26, 26 August 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. Consensus for keep has been established twice within 30 days. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denisa Legac[edit]

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

Non-notable expert, with STILL not the slightest shred of evidence that her 'expertise' isn't entirely self-styled. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, why did you fail to mention this in the previous AfD you started, that had been relisted twice, and instead are insisting on wasting everyone's time again? Secondly, all the claims in the article are sourced - the article does not actually say she is an expert in a manner that could reasonably lead you to denigrate it; it states her profession and her general notability. In fact, your behavior here could very well be a violation of WP:BLP. (Speedy keep.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The validity of her expertise is utterly irrelevant when determining whether she satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria. Is this yet another in an endless series of cases where our selective use of the word 'notability' leads to misunderstanding? Aren't we getting tired of addressing that ambiguity? The definition of 'notable' means "worthy of notice", not "has been noticed". Maybe we should be using a word like "Conspicuous"? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:01, 24 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mansukh Ranwa[edit]

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

This may be a systemic bias issue but there is nothing at GSearch, GBooks or GNews to indicate that this writer meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR/WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably not an issue of systemic bias. There would be something in a major English language daily if he were notable. --regentspark (comment) 12:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:AUTHOR if that is the appropriate criterion here; certainly doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO. Google search found only Wikipedia mirrors and social media; Google News found only this; Google Books found only passing mentions, as in "list of Hindi authors". --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 30 August 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.

Kumar Parakala[edit]

The result was moved by The Rambling Man- no need for this anymore. My apologies for bringing this up. (non-admin closure)A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page is absolutely empty and I want to move the page here from Kumar parakala. I hope it can be done quickly. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to rename Kumar parakala, you're better off asking at WP:Requested moves. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, completely forgotten that. Will close this now. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I've moved the page. Please close this unnecessary AFD. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 23 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Garner[edit]

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

An actress that does not meet the notability requirements for actors and entertainers. She has only had very few, bit roles, as indicated by the filmography, most of which were uncredited. Most of them are as extras (IE "football fan", "Fashion Show Guest" and other unnamed background characters), and the two roles listed as being in films are greatly exaggerated. Her role in "Teen Spirit" was not a "featured role". In fact, her role in the movie was so minor that she was not even mentioned in the article for that film until the author of this page added her into the credits section. Her role in Piranha DD was an uncredited minor role as well. There are also no reliable sources discussing this individual in any meaningful way as well. The PROD was removed by the page creator with the argument that "she needs a page", but I'm going to have to disagree and say that no, she doesn't. Rorshacma (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and the only coverage I found was an article about her joining a news station team, but it's by the actual channel that hired her. This makes it a primary source and therefore unusable as far as showing notability goes. [18] Even if it wasn't, this is just one source and one source doesn't show notability. As far as her acting or news careers go, neither has been extensively reported on in reliable and independent sources. Notability is not inherited by performing in a notable movie or a music video by a notable group. You'd have to have at least a few sources talking specifically about Garner's roles in order to show that her acting was notable outside of the bounds of the movie or music video. There are no such sources covering Garner's acting roles. As far as her having significant roles, the roles seem to be of the walk on variety and aren't considered to be the types of roles that would allow her to pass that aspect of WP:NACTOR. A significant role would be if she'd played Mrs Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and then played another high profile role. Playing a bit part and a few walk ons is not what is considered significant. As far as the other guideline, having a big cult following, that would require some proof via RS and I just don't see where she has the type of cult following to qualify. I've rarely see anyone pass this qualification without having enough RS to pass GNG or some other aspect of WP:NACTOR. Basically put, almost all of the qualifications for notability pretty much rely on having a reliable source of one type or another. They're just not out there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:54, 26 August 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 Buckethead discography. No prejudice against changing the redirect target to an article about the "pikes" series, if the series can be proven to pass WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shores of Molokai[edit]

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

Redirect and protect due to lack of notability in accordance with WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable, uncharted album only digitally released on artist's bandcamp website. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 06:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Cindy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.183.203.7 (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC) The album will be released on CD soon, see http://bucketheadpikes.com/. Also the site is not bandcampsite, but the artists own label site (ok the download section seems to be related to bandcamp, previous CD purchaces have not been through bandcamp however). Previous albums in the series can be found in iTunes, this will likely also be there in the near future. I strongly feel this page should not be deleted, but if it is deleted maybe other album pages from this artist also need to be deleted since this page is no diffferent from many of the artists album pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.183.203.7 (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buckethead or Buckethead discography. There are no reliable sources out there to show that this album is ultimately notable at this point in time. Will it be? Maybe. Buckethead is a notable person and it's possible that there could be more coverage. We can't guarantee that though, as even the more mainstream bands and artists have had times where they released albums that got little to no attention. As far as deleting all of his albums, that's a little hasty. Some of them could very much be notable and have gotten enough coverage to pass notability guidelines in one format or another. Then again, maybe they didn't. The other albums aren't the ones that are up for deletion right now, so stating that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument because all that might mean is that someone hasn't gotten around to listing them for deletion yet. As far as the source in the article goes, it's a primary source and cannot show notability. It merely shows that it exists, and existing is not notability, no matter how notable Buckethead is. Very few people are so notable that everything they did would be considered notable as well. People of that level of notability would be someone along the lines of Shakespeare or maybe the Beatles, but even then there are limits. That's an astronomical and almost near impossible level of notability to reach. Buckethead is not at that level at this time. Now with all of that being said, I have no problem with someone wanting to userfy a copy of the article if they wanted to continue to work on it. If the IP user is so inclined to sign up for an account and work on finding reliable sources, I have no problem with that. We just can't keep an article unless there's some reliable sources to show notability and we can't keep an article under the idea that eventually there might be sources. (WP:CRYSTALBALL)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that even if the album was released on CD through a recording house, that in itself also does not give notability. Notability is shown through multiple and independent reliable sources, which again, are not out there right now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move all "pikes" series albums to one page As mentioned before all the albums in the "Pikes" series are more or less similar, released through the artists page and also sold on iTunes, tour and maybe some other instances. Since none of them probably meets the notability guidelines on their own maybe a single page combining them could be created (with more or less the same information as on the individual pages now). Would that be considered more notable? I always thought it's good information is available so I fail to see the logic why pages with perfectly good information are deleted. But that's just me and my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.183.203.7 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. This album, like all the Pike series albums I've looked at, lacks independent notability. Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. Wikipedia is not a Buckethead fan site. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is and, please, RESTORE Balloon Cement and Empty Space articles immediately or the chronology/navigation within the albums infoboxes will not function properly. All these A[RT]lbums, as well as all other albums by this fantastic artist, are very notable. For example, visit Empty Space and Balloon Cement at Discogs, and Empty Space, Balloon Cement, and The Shores of Molokai at Rate Your Music. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of The Shores of Molokai subject per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:13, 31 August 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. Sources support WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-F210[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Removed PROD due to previous AFD. PROD reason was "no third-party sources, notability not demonstrated in any way" Article is essentially unchanged since previous afd. Illia Connell (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need to do is create a List of Samsung phones and then merge/redirect everything in {{Samsung phones}} to it. None of them will be independently notable enough for a separate article but all of them ought to have coverage at the list level. Would anyone object if I co-nominated all the bluelinks in {{Samsung phones}}?—S Marshall T/C 08:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of these articles are stubs that are unlikely to be further expanded, but not all phones in {{Samsung phones}} are stubs -- all the latest Nexus phones for example. A List of Samsung phones would be useful, but perhaps AfDs for the individual stubs should be tackled as they are noticed. I doubt that anyone is going to have time or inclination to go through them all at once to determine notability. As an aside, I would remove all the redlinks from {{Samsung phones}} as some of these older models are unlikely to ever have articles that are much more than the name of the phone, but that's for another discussion. Illia Connell (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we should do the same as we have with List of HTC phones with links to phones worth articles (e.g. most of the i series have respectable articles) and just list entries otherwise. Let's not go delete-happy until we get existing the data (and especially pictures) in the stubs transitioned to the list or it'll be a lot more annoying to gather that info back up. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed and featured on several well-known tech review sites.[19][20][21][22][23][24] Notable. (Most of the reviews are from British sites, and it doesn't seem to have much American coverage, but not all phones are released in all markets.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. Those sources look promising. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the rationale of Colapeninsula. The article for this gadget should be significantly expanded, however. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:52, 30 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything But Monday (magazine)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reason from deleted PROD: "College magazine. No evidence of anything beyond this" Appears to be abandoned, orphan, non-notable article. All refs and ELs appear dead. No secondary sources found on Google. Illia Connell (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. This article is about an independently distributed comic book which apparently lasted for only a few issues in the 1980s. It is listed in a couple of comic book price guides that I could find but without any description or commentary. Most of the sources provided are broken links -- the best-sourced fact in the article is that Drew University distributed computers to its students in the mid-1980s, but what that has to do with this comic book or the university's attempt to censor it remains unclear. I have not yet been able to find any significant articles about this comic book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete "College magazine. No evidence of anything beyond this", as original nom. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Santiago[edit]

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

Found only tangential name-drops, no reliable sources. Only notability is that he hangs out with the Black Eyed Peas now and then. Did nothing else of note at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article doesn't really make it clear, but his "claim to fame" (or rather notability!) is as a founder member of the group that became the Black Eyed Peas; he frequently appears as a backing singer on their records. His appearance on The Voice UK, a national TV show where will.i.am introduced him to the TV audience in those terms, probably isn't enough to pass the GNG on its own, but seems very helpful in terms of bolstering his overall notability. Some reliable third party sources would be helpful. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His only real claim to fame is that he's friends with famous people, and notability is not inherited. He may have been part of the group of friends that eventually became the Black Eyed Peas, but since he was never actually part of that notable group, that doesn't do much for his own notability. The only sources that are really available all talk about his appearance on The Voice UK, and are pretty brief mentions at that, since he is merely on the show as a guest of one of his actually notable friends. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:59, 26 August 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neuron Games[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. The article has five references. References 1, 3, and 4 are promotional and not independent of the subject. Reference 2 (PC Magazine May 2002) is problematic. No page number or article title is given. In fact, there were two issues of PC Magazine published in May 2002 [25]. So which one was it? I’ve looked at both issues online and could not find any mention of Neuron Games, but I cannot rule out a brief mention. (Another possibility is that the reference is plain wrong.) Reference 5 (GamePro Magazine Jan. 2003) does not supply page number or article title, and it was not available to me online. This reference is used to support a claim about a game that already has its own article. It does not seem that the reference (assuming the reference is correct) is in-depth coverage of the company itself. I have also done a Google News archive search on Neuron Games and found very little—a couple of interviews in blogs, and a passing mention in a local newspaper [26]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
Delete per Logical Cowboy's excellent research. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L'Auberge du Lac Resort[edit]

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

Outdated and unreferenced affair (a press release is no reliable source). Fails WP:V. The Banner _talk 03:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More than 800 hits at GNews.[27] It would take some time to sift through, but there does appear to be some substantial coverage in there, such as [28][29][30].--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why exactly is this page up for deletion? CTtcg (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Due the fantastic claims not backed up by sources. The Banner _talk 18:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy closure as keep (as nominator) suddenly the sources are there, rendering my arguments for removal totally outdated and obsolete. The Banner _talk 18:31, 23 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACharts.us[edit]

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

No reliable sources documenting this website can be found. The assertion that Wikipedia editors consider it to be a reliable source is original research at best (while it is mentioned on WP:GOODCHARTS, its use on good or featured articles is discouraged because of licensing issues). Its authorship is anonymous, its licensing uncertain, its copyright status dubious, and, above all, there are no reliable sources making direct reference to this website. —Kww(talk) 03:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator says it all. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this website; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Gongshow ^Talk 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A website featuring a mix of official charts and unofficial charts isn't worthy of an article. Widr (talk) 01:39, 27 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Remias[edit]

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

Vanity bio of non-notable local politician, created and principally edited by the subject of the article. Subject fails general notability guideline and WP:POLITICIAN -- Rrburke (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. 20:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 August 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School board member, city auditor - nothing here to meet Wikipedia's notability standard. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:58, 30 August 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bettis[edit]

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

I cannot tell if he is notable: the current references do not seem reliable, but it's not my field. I had previously G11'd a much cruder version,which is why I happened to notice this.) DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bettis should positively not be deleted from Wikipedia. He is making great strides in his career, has just released his 8th studio album for Disney's GayDays and has co-produced the new musical, The Groove Factory, which premiered in New York City on July 23, part of the 2012 New York Musical Theatre Festival. He is influential and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apworldny (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep I'm not an expert on his scene, but I think Noize Magazine is a reliable source by our standards and there's a few more sources we could consider, though not all may meet WP:RS. His albums are listed on AllMusic.[31] There's a review on Edge Miami[32] a feature on Edge Boston[33] and a couple on about.com[34][35] though about.com isn't necessarily a reliable source. There's a feature on GaySpy[36] and an interview in OutInJersey[37] which also attest to his fame among gay fans of cheesy dance music. All these are commercial websites, not one-man operations, though you can argue about their editorial standards. Per WP:MUSICIAN he's released multiple albums on Centaur Records but I'm not sure it's this Centaur Records (which would establish notability). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:42, 9 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Only one wp:notability-suitable reference and that one is brief/marginal regarding coverage. (BTW, it is not linked, I had to use the search engine at the linked web site to find it.) Also the article looks promotional and COI written and has has near-zero sourcing. The question mark is because if all of the unsourced claims of activity are true other suitable sources might exist. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:57, 23 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Purcell[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — The-Pope (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:00, 28 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Cannell[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — The-Pope (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:00, 28 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Surey[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — The-Pope (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. As such, this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:00, 28 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Tomić (footballer born 1991)[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — The-Pope (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the usual caveats that it's too soon as he has yet played a senior game in a fully professional league. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. -- KTC (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:00, 28 August 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. There is agreement that this passes WP:NFOOTY. (As a side-note, the article could do with some clearing up for neutrality.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radovan Filipović[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal World Cup participant - not notable? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Sure, but i doubt it.Simione001 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment According to NFOOTY "FIFA sanctioned senior international match" satisfy the requirement. GNG to be decided though. Albaniafutboll (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thats regarding association football not Futsal.Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - But, he is Australian national futsal team captain, with official FIFA futsal tournament appearances. Sorry to say, but I can´t see any higher futsal level than that. FkpCascais (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Correct, and, btw, Futsal is, by definition, simply a form of soccer, governed by FIFA rules as is soccer. The rooles of NFOOTBALL are the same for soccer and futsal. NFOOTY is satisfied fully. Albaniafutboll (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Playing in a Futsal world cup is not enough to get an article. If that was the case then every player in the tournament would be eligible. Futsal is a variant of association football, its not association football. He also hasnt played for any professional futsal teams.Simione001 (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I can´t see any of your logic behind. Who is eligible then to have a futsal player article (in your view) if not a FIFA World Cup player? FkpCascais (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, i suggest though that if the article is going to stay it should be improved. Infobox, more links etc.Simione001 (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — The-Pope (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reasoning behind the sport specific guidelines is that it makes the assumption that at the defined level, there will probably be significant coverage in a reliable source, even if it isn't online or findable by google. Australian futsal players are almost certainly going to be only covered by unreliable or trivial brief mentions. To answer the question asked above " Who is eligible then to have a futsal player article (in your view) if not a FIFA World Cup player?" The answer is someone who has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That isn't this guy. The-Pope (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said that media should be mainstream sports media? We reference medicine related articles with reliable sources on medicine, not with some articles appearing on Huffington Post. In the case of Futsal the best media we should be considering is Futsal related publications, as they are the most reliable. I found a couple of them, and with the diffusion of Futsal there will be more. This guy, along with 5-6 others, is certainly one of the pioneers of the sport in Australia and an inspiration for other generations, certainly a Hall of Famer for the sport in that continent. Albaniafutboll (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see 2000+ hits in google and I will contribute to satisfy GNG. NFOOTY is satisfied the way the policy is written. Albaniafutboll (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get a few thousand hits when i type my name in google as well. We need specific articles.Simione001 (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I entered some and there are more. All the trick is to eliminate the ones that are copies of Wikipedia. Albaniafutboll (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appearances at the FIFA Futsal World Cup Final should be fine for notability, WP:NSPORT says "Sports figures are presumed notable ... if they: 1. have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". The Futsal World Cup Finals are the highest level of their sport so this should pass. Camw (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTBALL and needs bringing up to GNG. Giant Snowman 09:59, 28 August 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Desktop Applications/Rich Internet Desktop Applications (RDA/RIDA)[edit]

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

Of the sources listed, none of them are reliable. 1, 2 and 4 aren't reliable sources. 5 isn't really a source at all, and 3 doesn't exist anymore. I've had a look for more reliable sources and can't find them. Delete per WP:GNG. I did think about whether a redirect Rich Internet application might be reasonable, but the title seems so needlessly extravagant and implausible a search term, I'm not sure there's much point. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rich Internet applications. The articles share same topic with RDA/RIDA being buzzwords in the scope of proposed target. Unfortunately, marketing efforts and recentism make these buzzwords quite used, but in essence the scope of the article may (and should) be completely described in encyclopedic manner by a succinct note in proposed target and (possibly, but not necessarily) a category (not a list for that matter). For the record: I don't see any way WP:GNG may apply to this article, as it lacks distinguishable subject, while WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I know what the author is talking about and the topic will undoubtedly exist in the future (Forrester even cited it as a trend not so long ago -- the development of rich end-user environment leveraging the computing power of mobile devices coupled with cloud-based storage and a relative minimum involvement of the network since that is the weak point). But that trend is at best just starting and certainly hasn't established a grip on the industry yet, so this is WP:TOOSOON. Also, there is no clear picture of exactly what the future will look like here, nor is there any industry consensus on terminology yet, so this is part WP:CRYSTAL and part WP:OR.
BTW, strongly oppose a merge to Rich Internet application; this is most definitely not a synonym for RIA. -- BenTels (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a synonym for RIA, it is a subtopic of RIA, a further development of the idea. And currently nearly all of non-mobile RIDAs are exactly RIAs with some code added for RIDA functionality. BTW, it is a very bad idea to refer to use buzzwords to separate the subtopics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that it's a subtopic of RIA; the concept is a different class of application. -- BenTels (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:56, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation due to the low level of participation in the debate. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIRDZ[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found some extensive coverage on "Mediálne" and Živé, though I have no idea whether these resources are reliable. Even if they are, I'm not sure whether regional notability should count. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:57, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:54, 23 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biofina[edit]

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

Company, with only a short mention in one short huff post article. The company seems to be very active with online media (publishing blogs, twitter, facebook, etc), and is probably pushing for SEO. However, aside from those types of SEO-related links, I can't find an incredible amount on this company via searching that would meet WP:N. I'd encourage other editors to look as well before !voting to see if I've missed anything. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company; this article also seems to read like an advertisement... Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:49, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - not notable - passing mention in Huffinton Post, nothing else found. Practically nothing even on own website.

Also (if exists) should be disambiguated from Biofina SA (france) [38] which comes closer to notability but does make it either.Oranjblud (talk) 14:14, 23 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Clark (author)[edit]

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

Article seems to be autobiographical; notability not established despite request dating to 2009; no answer to allegation of autobiography attached to page. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd done a pretty thorough search and other than a large amount of merchant sites, reviews by non-usable blogs, and listings of speaking appearances, there's really not anything out there to show that this author or any of his books have enough notability to merit an article at this time. I had hits come up for various other Tim Clarks, but none that showed notability enough for this Tim Clark.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:21, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Tokyogirl79. HairyWombat 05:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that notability is not established under either WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Run of the mill academic, as one could say. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Rare Earth[edit]

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

The references do not seem to support notability for the organization, and the content is mostly the promotion give-away of explaining why the overall subject is important, which is true enough . DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically just an industry lobbying group, and does not have a high enough profile to qualify as notable. BTW there are two links that are supposed to show the notability of the president and CEO, but one of them is a dead link, and I couldn't find his name mentioned at the other (wasted several minutes looking). --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 30 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Lambda Chi[edit]

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

Very small local sorority, with less than 10 chapters. Not affiliated with any recognized umbrella organization, not recognized by National Panhellenic Conference. Article has zero sources and is far below the general notability standard. GrapedApe (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—26 hits in Newsbank for "Pi Lambda Chi"+Colorado and every last one of them a routine mention. Most of them just note that someone is a member of the sorority and the rest are listings of service activities.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, and no obvious redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 30 August 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 Dudjom Lingpa. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nang Jang[edit]

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

Fails all WP:BKCRIT & WP:PLOT#1, no secondary sources cited or available, permanent orphan (1 incoming link) KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: Additionally, this book is listed by its transliterated (from Tibetan) nickname rather than by its proper title in either Tibetan or English (translation published as Buddhahood Without Meditation ISBN 1881847330) and is notable only for the fact that it has been so translated. No secondary source material is available in English, and none I can find in Tibetan (though I am no scholar of that language). All existing citations are to the primary source. It has had Template:rewrite for almost three years, and IMO cannot be rewritten to conform to policy or standards, no matter how much I personally enjoyed the book or the attendant teachings. It is unlikely ever to be linked to from anything but Dudjom Lingpa, the author's bio. KGF0 ( T | C ) 01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a pity to delete this article, as it does contain interesting and useful information, which is referenced. I don't like actions that smack of censorship (I am not saying that this is necessarily the motive here). The article can easily be linked to other articles on Tibetan Buddhism or Buddha Nature, so the argument that it is irremediably an orphan does not hold much water. Totally deleting the article strikes me as too drastic a move. I vote for its retention, but improvement by its being linked to other articles, as indicated. Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom in reply: Certainly not meaning to censor, but you should probably read WP:BKCRIT, WP:PLOT, and WP:V to see why this article is not suitable for a project like Wikipedia. Especially note that, whereas the Nang Jang article cites only the Nang Jang book, standard editorial policy around here is that, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Also "orphan" does not mean "no outgoing links," but rather "no incoming links," and few such are likely. It would be different if the book were widely cited elsewhere, but it isn't so far as I have been able to tell (which makes sense, since it was a "secret teaching" for most of its existence). --KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. How about if we incorporate the information contained in this article into the Dudjom Lingpa article? That might solve the problem? Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 03:16, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dudjom Lingpa, which already includes a lengthy section on this. (Dudjom Lingpa is apparently the teacher whose teachings are in the Nang Jang.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree at this point in time with Colapeninsula. The key info is now at Dudjom Lingpa. Best wishes. Suddha (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wong Nang Jang is notable. However, I wasn't able to find anything on this topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dudjom Lingpa per Colapeninsula. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:50, 30 August 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. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Keys of the City in the United States[edit]

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

Most of the recipients are not notable. Sources are merely promotional or incidental local coverage. Doesn't seem like a notable topic. Contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I contested the prod because I had concerns with the deletion rationale, and my opinion hasn't changed. At least half of the recipients are notable. While there are definitely non-notable people and/or cats on the list who could (should) be removed, there are more than enough notable people to still have a decent-sized list. Likewise I am sure the sourcing can be improved, because events of this type are often covered by local media. I think the concept of "keys to the city" is widespread enough both in real life and as a fictional trope to probably be notable, and it is probably worth listing those notable recipients of such honors. This content could be moved to Freedom of the City, but that article is already rather long. Now, all that aside, I can see a potential WP:OR/SYNTH deletion argument being advanced due to the list being a loose grouping of unrelated awards (though they are fundamentally similar) that have not been discussed together in reliable sources. So for now I will stay neutral to see what others think. Camerafiend (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 09:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the notability of the recipients, this seems like a rather quixotic venture of very limited value. If an individual being granted a key is deemed notable, mention it in his or her article. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable WP:SPINOFF article from the Freedom of the City article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter how many individuals on this list are notable, but whether the underlying concept of a list of "Keys to the City" recipients is notable. Google turns up several such lists, so I'd argue that it is. And if it weren't for this list, I'd never have known that Saddam Hussein had the key to Detroit. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful adjunct to Freedom of the City, which is a notable topic, and this article could be considered a breakout for reasons of length from that article. Only mentioning in the individual people's articles isn't so useful for navigation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 23 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asamblea Internacional del Fuego[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Asamblea Internacional del Fuego

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

This band appears to fail GNG. I could be wrong though, as my Spanish isn't too swift. SarahStierch (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Chilean band. all I could find was some blogs and other user-generated content, certainly unreliable information. Diego Grez (talk) 17:21, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 23 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nattavud Pimpa[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability of this academic--writings by him, yes, references to him, not easily so. Language issues in play, reliable secondary sources would be welcome. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are citations to be found on GS but with an h-index of only 6 this is probably too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:46, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article is also an WP:autobiography, and the main author has repeatedly removed maintenance templates without addressing the issues. --115.67.34.67 (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts too small for WP:PROF#C1, the journal he edits is too new to even be published let alone count as "major" and "well-established" per #C8, and the news hits I could find seemed to be only articles by him, not articles about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the analysis above that evidence of notability as defined in the Wikipedia PROF guideline is lacking here. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shloime Taussig[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. There seems to be zero coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC 7. Niche acts can still be notable in their specialist field, and just from the sources already provided, Taussig seems to be a prominent member of the Hasidic music "scene". Some coverage in reliable third party sources would be good. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:50, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient source material available for the aricle. See WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Adapt[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (or lack thereof). The adjectives used herein suggest puffery, and the absence of reputable or independent references does no good to establish this band's impact. The albums too are without references or statements as to their importance. Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete but I'm open to arguments; inclusion under WP:MUSIC 7 seems possible if we can find some reliable sources (i.e. something in the Icelandic press attesting their importance to the scene - not self-published stuff or webzines). As it stands, there's not enough verifiable information to support notability. COI is also a concern. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a vote, but the link here from the article itself appears to be a broken redlink. Can this be fixed? We're possibly missing out on valuable contributions to this discussion. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete basically per Fosse8. Also worth looking at bundling in the articles on the albums. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The best I could find are these sources. Any more? Gongshow ^Talk 10:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:52, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:50, 23 August 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria of Bohemia, Tsaritsa of Bulgaria[edit]

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

This article should be deleted. There was never a Maria of Bohemia who was Tsaritsa of Bulgaria. Boleslaus I of Bohemia and Biagota's daughter was Mlada who became an abbess under the name of Maria; she never married. The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. 22:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Delete. This article is based on the conflation of two different historical women. Reliable sources confirm that Mlada, the youngest daughter of Boleslav I of Bohemia, became abbess of the Monastery of St. George in Prague, adopting the religious name Maria. There is no connection to Bulgaria. The Czech Wikipedia has an article on her: cs:Mlada, as do the German and Slovak Wikipedias. She is notable enough that we ought to have an article on her, but obviously not one with Bulgaria in the title. Then there is Maria, wife of Ivan Vladislav, who was tsaritsa of the First Bulgarian Empire, and on whom we already have an article. Nothing is known about her antecedents, so there is no way other than OR to connect her to Bohemia. --Lambiam 03:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. I might be helpful if someone (eg one of two above?) could create a one liner stub for Mlada the Abbess to avoid further confusion. Oranjblud (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated the whole article from the German Wikipedia: Mlada (abbess). --Lambiam 23:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lambian. It looks like Maria of Bohemia, Tsaritsa of Bulgaria is not a valid (or likely) redirect to either and should be deleted .Oranjblud (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:32, 26 August 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. I would suggest individual nominations if anyone feels like renominating. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Life Equation[edit]

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

A "fictional equation that serves as a MacGuffin in comic books" with no sources other than comic books, i.e. a plot device with zero real-world significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are all items in the same limited comic universe with the same notability issues:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 23:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to New Gods, as these are artifacts/abilities/things associated with them. Worthwhile mentionining in their article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 18 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These things are discussed in detail in sources such as Superheroes of the Round Table: Comics Connections to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Warden (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, At least the Source Wall, Boom Tube and Mother Box appear in comics that are not based in the New Gods. Arussom (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Colonel Warden. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly KEEP 27.48.225.66 (talk) 13:16, 25 August 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. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Megaupload raid[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Ryan Vesey 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The List of Megaupload raid is useful. It will give information for those who really are interested about Megaupload case. Also, the text is in public domain, because it is work of United States federal court system. As a work of US Gov, it's in public domain. I don't see any reason to say it is not useful, if it is. Article tells just about 5 precents of it, if even it. --Einottaja (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the text is in the public domain, you might be able to upload it to Wikisource then include {{Wikisource}} on Megaupload legal case. Ryan Vesey 14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Einottaja (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced list whose significance is unclear. Even if the article were kept, it would need to be moved to a more grammatical title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An indiscriminate list without any claim to notability or any sources. JIP | Talk 05:25, 23 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headline Prime[edit]

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

Non-notable block, can easily just be brought up in the main article. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much in the way of coverage. I found this news article about how adding Headline prime doubled ratings for HLN, but this is not especially substantial. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:26, 16 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Naming and branding has been entirely abandoned, article reads as not being updated since 2008. What little content there is can easily be merged into the HLN article if it isn't in there already. Nate • (chatter) 02:50, 23 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Chewy[edit]

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

Not notable, which isn't unusual for a 1 year old company. Two of the sources aren't reliable, the other two are not significant. Since there is no real claim of notability, it is borderline A7, but it won't hurt to wait 7 days to discuss before deleting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears to be unambiguous WP:ARTSPAM. The reliable sources listed only briefly mention Mr. Chewy in passing without giving any useful information about it or confirming its notability (i.e. failing significant coverage). —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. If the company becomes more notable in the future, an article can be created at that time. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Should've A7'd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
Delete - Not notable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 25 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Morel (marine)[edit]

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

May not meet notability guidelines. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May meet notability guidelines. Warden (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:GNG subjects must have "Significant coverage" from "Reliable" "Sources" "Independent of the subject". The four links in the references section are as follows: a dead link, a "KIA tribute", a 1st Recon Bn Association tribute, and a DoD memorial page. The tributes are not independent of the subject nor are they really reliable sources. While the DoD page is reliable it lacks the independence and would need to be backed by other sources. These sources do not constitute significant coverage. If there are other reliable sources for this subject, I think you would have added them by now. EricSerge (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer awarded single second-level gallantry decoration the same as many, many thousands of others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:1E resulting in the award of a single second-level gallantry decoration is not sufficient to confer notability. While tragic see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. EricSerge (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and 1E are different concepts. 1E means that we shouldn't have two articles if the topic is just one event. But where's the other article about this event? If there isn't one then this is the only article and the policy WP:PRESERVE applies. As for notability, that has nothing to do with the number of events and is just matter of sourcing. The article already has numerous sources and there are plenty more such as this book. Being documented in detail in works such as this is the essence of notability and that trumps WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which is about topics which are not notable. Warden (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trotting out WP:PRESERVE, it does not trump Wikipedia's notability requirements. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a policy and it trumps WP:1E in this case. The point of WP:1E is that we shouldn't have multiple articles about a notable event - one for the event and one for the people involved. But that's not an argument to delete an article when it is the only article about that notable event. The point is that we shouldn't be deleting sourced information because that's disruptive to the general improvement of the encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E, the article already written is Iraq War. I used WP:NOTMEMORIAL since a the majority of the external links and "references" were memorial type webpages. EricSerge (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails Wikipedia's notability standards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes WP:GNG, being the subject of multiple sources. WP:BLP1E is irrelevant for subjects who are dead rather than living. WP:SOLDIER is an essay not a policy. That's three strikes. Warden (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources cited (those that aren't dead links) are standard memorial pages for dead servicemen. If we're going to take these as acceptable sources for determing article notability then we may as well declare that every servicemen from a Western country killed in recent times is notable, as most of them have similar tribute pages. And if we decide this, then we presumably also have to declare that all servicemen ever killed in action are notable, as otherwise we'd have systemic bias from the facts that servicemen from Western countries are far more likely to have such tributes than others and that the vast majority of servicemen killed in history were killed before anyone could post a tribute to them online. This is clearly ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E then. The subject does not pass WP:GNG due to the pages used as sources being, as mentioned, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a fallen soldier. And WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First let me link to the subject's citation for his Navy Cross. That being said, although I honor the Captain's ultimate sacrifice during his service to a great nation, this article clearly falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Although the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, they primarily cover his death, and the event that lead to his expiring. This is why coverage can be considered routine for the death of a servicemember; additionally the arguements for deletion cite WP:BLP1E are due to the fact that the event that they are pointing to is the subject's death. Moreover, although it is only an essay, the weight given by WP:MILHIST to WP:SOLDIER (which is a lot) means that among the majority of active editors in the scope of MILHIST being and recipient (even posthumously) of one second rate medal of valor is insufficient to be considered notable on the grounds of awarding alone.

All this being said, if it is the wish of the primary editor that the content be preserved believing that additional sources can be found to show that the subject is notable for more than the subject's death, it can be requested that the content be userfied so additional work can be done to it outside of the articlespace.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, not a memorial. Not a compelling reason to preserve either p b p 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reiko Ōmori[edit]

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

Near-empty article which is a biography of a living person with no evidence of any kind of achievement or notability beyond a role as a voice actor. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't seem to find enough reliable sources in either Japanese or English. Since I have a high standard for WP:ENTERTAINER, I don't think it passes that one either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep per the coverage by Hitoshi Doi found below. If we can actually find those magazine articles, the article can go a long way. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would the article contain though? I don't see what evidence there is in those articles that she is more than just yet another photogenic here-today-gone-tomorrow pretty girl. And it is already "tomorrow", nine years past her heyday, and she has gone. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your points, I don't think they have anything to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Articles don't have to be long, coverage doesn't have to be recent, and why someone received coverage is immaterial. Even if she was just another pretty girl, if magazines devoted pages to her, I think she qualifies for an article. Calathan (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies for an article saying what? "Reiko Omori is a cutie from Japan who had some photos of her published in a magazine in 1999" - end of article. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the coverage listed on Hitoshi Doi's page. He lists her as having been covered in articles in 21 magazines [39] (for magazines with links on that page, you can click the link for more information on their contents). Though some of those appear to have just been small bits of coverage, the Bomb August 1999 issue devoted 32 pages and the cover to her [40], and the Toukou Shashin January 1999 issue devoted 5 pages (plus a fan picture) and the cover to her [41]. Hitoshi Doi also descibes an event she headlined as having the most press coverage of any anime or seiyuu event he had ever attended [42]. I think in total the coverage of her amounts to enough to pass WP:N. Though it may be difficult to actually obtain copies of the articles about her, just knowning that they exist is enough to justify having an article about her. Note that about Hitoshi Doi, his website is genereally considered a reliable source on seiyuu, as he has been interviewed or otherwise treated as an expert by reliable sources. I wouldn't consider his page significant coverage in and of itself, but it is a trustworthy source for determining what other coverage seiyuu have had. Calathan (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the "Bomb" magazine nor the "Toukou Shashin" magazine has an article about them in English Wikipedia. "Bomb" is a glamour photography magazine, and "Toukou Shashin" is a defunct publication that cannot easily be found on an internet search. I don't think that photos of a pretty girl in Japanese-language publications from thirteen years ago merits an English-language wikipedia article. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article on Wikipedia has nothing to do with being a reliable source. Calathan (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure these magazines are a "reliable source" of photos of cuties, not so sure they are a good reason for a wikipedia article. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines are still magazines, even if they don't have articles on the English Wikipedia. Magazines are usually considered reliable sources, so even if they don;t have an article, if the articles are shown to be actual coverage, then notability is established. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"if they don;t have an article, if the articles are shown to be actual coverage, then notability is established" - I cannot understand this. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all magazines have articles, in the same way that not all books have articles. Nevertheless, such periodicals can still be considered reliable sources if they are shown to be an expert in the field and/or have some sort of editorial staff. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for arguing about semantics but it's not a "reliable source" of anything if the magazine has just pictures of her in a swimming costume. What on earth the "field" would be I'm not sure - the academic study of girls in bikinies? Anyway, enough said on this topic. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to point out that the Bomb magazine apparently has 16 pages of text related to her in addition to 16 pages of pictures. I have no idea what sort of information is included in that text, but the magazine coverage isn't only pictures. Calathan (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contents page - I have no idea what sort of information is included in that text - A wild guess would be things like "what's your favourite colour/food/pop group?", "who was your first love?" and "what kind of boys do you like?" I'm sure it's very charming but not sure why Wikipedia needs to cover it. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the mere fact that she is the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources should be enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party coverage or sourcing to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've noticed that the Japanese Wikipedia page for her lists her under a different name (apparently she changed from using her real name to a stage name), lists her as having done something as recently as 2009, and includes a source that appears to be minutes from the Diet of Japan. I can't read Japanese, but I was wondering if anyone here can tell if any of that is useful information or would be helpful to find more sources. I'm particularly curious about why minutes from the Diet are included as a source in the article. Calathan (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The diet stuff is about a problem with her working late at night while still of school age. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the Diet minutes: In 1999 she was on a live broadcast on Mainichi Radio in Osaka for a late-night program. Osaka Police hit Horipro and the radio broadcaster with charges for violating national child labor laws. The reason this was a floor debate was because Johnny's Jr. was doing the same thing with their underage talent but never charged. She was never mentioned by name. Jun Kayama 04:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She's gone through three names. She debuted in 1996 as Reiko Ōmori with Horipro. She changed to Rei Aihara in 2005 when she switched agencies to Eldie Media Works. She quit that in 2009 to focus on a music career and now her name is Ray, fronting for a band called Rainy UNGLEBUN [43] which, by the way, just had their farewell performance on 7/28 so it doesn't exist anymore. I'm reserving judgment on this one. Jun Kayama 03:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite the actual stub would suggest a very-very-low profile person, close to a BLP1E case, looking at Japanese WP IMHO the sum of her activities make her quite notable: in addition of voice acting she worked on radio, had regular roles on several TV-dramas and shows, released multiple singles and albums, was protagonist of photo books and gravure videos, appeared in commercials. Let's add that, as noticed above, she was subject of significant coverage by reliable sources, there is enough for me to pass the notability bar. Cavarrone (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable voice acting role for a major character on a notable series, and also has been featured in a lot of books and magazines [44]. Dream Focus 22:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article may be a stub, but any position that there is no evidence of achievement or notability is clearly misguided. Absence of a plethora of WP:RS in the article is not proof of absence with regard to such sources. Jun Kayama 07:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - please don't give up so easily looking for possible sources. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 29 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of Mariah Carey[edit]

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

This is an un-notable album released by the legacy records division of sony music. Legacy Records has released one of these for virtually every artist signed to sony music, re-hashing previous singles to provide an album which is not marketed by the artist or record label. There is no information beyond the track listing thus not meeting WP:NMUSIC. This article contains a generalisation of information providing nothing substantial. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. There's a brief review of the album at Allmusic, but that alone is not enough to warrant an individual article (per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS). No other coverage found. Gongshow ^Talk 00:35, 25 August 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.