Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 August	31 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. No evidence of notability under the criteria of WP:NBOOK. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is_(novel)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No indication of notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the various links to scientific articles in the article that seem to be not about the book and are more to back up the other non-book claims, there are no reliable sources out there to show notability for this novel. There's a couple of mentions in the news about book signings and giveaways, but the ones I found read more like press releases that were released to the paper than actual articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recently added external link to review of novel by Babbleabout Children's Books provides notability and puts the book in context with the article about the use of children's fiction to teach science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyco (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book would appear to be notable due to its usage in teaching, and is an unobjectionable article; structured and fairly well written. It isn't doing any harm! MatthewHaywood (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First off, WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument. Neither is WP:ITSUSEFUL. We don't keep books because it could potentially be helpful in one format or another to someone. You have to show that the book is notable by showing links to reliable sources. This leads me to the next point: Babbleabout Children's Books is not a reliable source. It's a book blog. It might be a bit bigger than some of the other blogs out there, but essentially it's a non-notable book blog and isn't usable to show notability for the book. Even if it was, it's one book review and we need multiple independent and reliable sources that talk about the book in-depth. So far there are no sources out there for this book to show that it even slightly passes WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've not found anything to show that this book is so widely used in teaching that it would pass #4 of WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79. Most of the sources being used in the article are not about the novel at all, thus they obviously do nothing to establish notability of the subject. And, as said, the one review is by a non-notable source and is alone not enough. I don't see this meeting any of the criteria of WP:NBOOK. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 30 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'd like to hear more about whether notability criterion number four for books applies. ("The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.") — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pretty exhaustive search and apart from one mention in the British Science Association Booklist source, I found nothing to suggest that this is actually taught or even really mentioned in any or enough schools to warrant it passing criterion number four. I want to note that the link for the booklist is extremely limited and is not done on the national scale, but was compiled by librarians in a specific borough in England. (London Borough of Tower Hamlets) The introduction at the beginning of the list itself says that the list includes lesser known and unusual titles, so I don't think that this book is remotely well known or is considered to be the type of book that's so notable it's taught in multiple classes. I did another search just to make sure, but it just cemented that this is ultimately a book that does not pass any form of WP:NBOOK. Being mentioned in one school list does not mean that it's widely taught, just that potentially it was seen as a curiosity for the librarian who added it to the list. It's simply not notable at all at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No visible reviews except Babbleabout, which I do not consider a RS -- see [1], and a/c worldcat, in only 9 libraries. Worldcat under-represents children's books, but notable current children;s fiction typically has several hundred. Nor does it merely not show up in libraries yet, for it was a 2010 publication. The author has 3 non-fiction children's books also, and none of them did significantly better. He also has a play Bringing Back the Bluestones, which, though apparently unpublished, seems to have gotten some attention. Tokyogirl has it right. If a review and a mention don't get a book read, the book is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 6 September 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. Meets WP:N Wily D 07:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Hartley[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find significant coverage of Ms. Hartley in independent reliable sources. The references that are currently on her Wikipedia page certainly don't establish notability. A web search brings up lots of social networking hits, and a few local news reports. The Las Vegas Sun piece is not significant coverage, it merely mentions her in passing. There are no news hits, and I didn't even bother searching scholar, books, etc.. I am fairly certain that given the nature of her accomplishments there is nothing out there in non-internet print media that would establish notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PEOPLE and WP:MODEL. MisterUnit (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major competitor in a nationally-televised talent competition with 90+ years of history. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being on TV does not automatically make a person notable. By the criteria you made up above, every competitor in the World Series of Beer Pong would meet notability guidelines. You should familiarize yourself with the above mentioned guidelines - WP:GNG, WP:PEOPLE, and WP:MODEL before !voting. Keep !votes should point to significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. MisterUnit (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss America pageant has been held annually since 1921. The World Series of Beer Pong did not exist until 2006. If you can't see the difference between them, then there's really no point to having any further discussion. Any competitor in the Miss America or Miss USA pageants easily meets WP:GNG (See the article on her from Foster's Daily Democrat, a daily newspaper in Dover, New Hampshire). Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you get the point I'm making. It doesn't matter how long the competitions have been around, and just because you say that every competitor in Miss America and Miss USA meets GNG doesn't mean that it's true. One article in a local newspaper also doesn't make a person notable. MisterUnit (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Examining the various state pages, all holders of any state championship in the pageant is apparently considered notable here. We have articles on essentially all of them in the last 4 or 5 years, regardless of whether they have done anything significant before or since. Our earlier coverage is spotty, as usual for WP in any subject--presumably it's just a matter of editor interest not yet catching up, just as with state legislators. Obviously New Hampshire has fewer newspapers than some states, but a Google news search shows at least a dozen articles: about half for her award, and half for earlier years when she was a runner-up. (Merrimack Journal, NashuaTelegraph, Manchester Union-leader, Seacoastonline) There's a purpose to WP:BEFORE--the most superficial search would have found these.

It's a separate question whether these state winners ought to be notable. It's an exception to our usual rule that only national winners (and perhaps the top runners-up for a major contest) are notable . Quite possibly it's a warranted exception, as this is the prototypical franchise of its sort, and probably the best known internationally. It doesn't particularly interest me, but what of it? We don't strictly follow precedent, but it would be really weird beyond our usual to leave out one of the state winners in particular--if it's proposed to delete them all, I think it would need an RfC. A poorly attended AfD like this should not be making such a consensus or justifying an exception to it. (incidentally, just to anticipate, it's not BLP 1E -- there are two events -- her winning the state title, and her consequent appearance in the national pageant.) DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage: [2], [3] and search the following at http://www.unionleader.com/section/SERVICES04 :(i) Miss NH bows out early at Miss America contest, (ii) Miss NH named finalist in service competition, (iii) Once bullied and beaten, Miss NH continues to rise, (iv) When she heard that a 15-year-old Irish girl in South Hadley, Mass. A first mention of her is in the May 3, 2009 New Hampshire Union Leade article "Royal beauties gather for Miss New Hampshire pageant ": "The other eight finalists were: ... Miss Kearsarge Valley Regan Hartley, of Dover, who sang "At Last." Some other mentions in news articles include: [4]. A last article is from May 8, 2012.[5]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. The article appears to pass WP:GNG standards. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Daniel Young[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY WP:BLP1E - Known for 1 event (releasing mink it appears). Other than this one event, there appears to be nothing in reputable sources.PeterWesco (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this subject meets WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin the generic vote Above is a spree of 7 keep !votes in 10 minutes by this editor. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (reluctantly) It's not BLP 1e -- he seems to have carried out a systematic campaign, releasing thousand of mink in at least 6 states. The article is a little heavy on minor details, but that's fixable. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage from a variety of national papers, over many years reporting on many different aspects of his activism. There is also a lot of shaky coverage from highly POV sites, and a youtube reference that I just deleted, but there is no doubt that he is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 7 September 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 per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Mackall[edit]

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

Only sources are directory listings which give no biographical info whatsoever. No reliable third party coverage found. Only roles are fairly minor. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix as a voice artist who has been coverered in multiple reliable sources. While I agree that the nominated version suffered from poor format and misunderstanding of ELs as citations, looking further I found that he is spoken about directly and in detail in what appears to be numerous relibale sources. Many are found archived on his own website,[6], and even a few in G-news.[7] but we have enough there to award our searches. Since his work is verifiable[8] and the article can be improved, perhaps better for the project that we do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The hits on Google News appear to be about completely different Steve Mackalls. What do you suggest it be improved with? The sources that are obviously about someone else? The primary sources? The sources that verify only his roles and literally nothing else? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked and in ignoring false positives, I was convinced by what I found when searching the man's name in conjunction with asserted works. I have real world concerns at the moment, but will return and fix up the article a bit later. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mackall is the subject of the LA Times, LA Weekly, and Plain Dealer pieces, so at a minimum he satisfies WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 04:33, 6 September 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Mother, Ltd.[edit]

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

A defunct video game company that has no notability. It never released a single game, as its only developed game was unfinished when the company went out of business. The only source present in the article is to a blog, and is thus not a reliable source, and I am unable to find any other reliable sources that talk about the company in any meaningful way. The article has been unreferenced and orphaned since its creation in 2008, and I am finding no way to improve this. Rorshacma (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Rorshacma (talk) 22:58, 30 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) 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N, and also to go a small step in correcting the a systemic bias that WP has towards video gaming topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N as noted above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet again, I see an article being sent to AfD without even going through PROD, which is a much lighter and more efficient process. Considering this article doesn't make a credible claim of notability (none!), I would surmise it may even possibly qualify for CSD under A7. Salvidrim! 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, non-admin closure. Nominator has agreed to renominate separately. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of Toni Braxton[edit]

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

Nominating because this was released by Legacy Records on behalf of sony music and is a collection of pre-released material. None of these albums get very much mention from independent sources because the label and artist do not recognised or endorse them.

Also nominating:

— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — most of them do not appear to have been reviewed outside Allmusic. Even if some of them charted, we generally hold compilations to a slightly higher standard. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some. This reminds me of the AfD for Super Hits in 2010, in that these albums can not all be judged equally. Precedent was set then that budget compilations are notable if they charted and have third-party reviews. For that reason, the albums by Brooks & Dunn, Dixie Chicks, Brad Paisley and Dolly Parton should be kept. In addition to charting and being reviewed by Allmusic, Playlist: Brad Paisley was reviewed by Country Weekly (and covered by Country Music Television), Playlist: Brooks & Dunn was reviewed by InMusic and certified gold in Australia and Playlist: Dixie Chicks received a lengthy review by Roughstock. In fact, the Dixie Chicks personally selected the tracks on their album. In the case of the Brad Paisley, Brooks & Dunn and Dixie Chicks albums, they complete the artist's discographies. These four articles are more substantive than a simple track list and deserve a second look as they more than satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Eric444 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and renominate separately. Some of these seem to have gotten more media attention than others, so they should all be evaluated separately. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin speedy close this and i'll nominate this seperately. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:42, 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. No evidence of notability under GNG, AUTHOR, etc. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Crowley[edit]

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

This appears to be an entirely unremarkable person. There's barely even an assertion of notability here; it's practically an WP:A7 candidate, but there are a few claims of 'importance'. Regardless, I can't find any coverage of him in independent sources whatsoever. (The links in the article are broken.) Robofish (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP on author of sailing books. I'm not seeing anything counting towards GNG notability and I doubt the literary output is sufficient to clear the specialized author guidelines. Carrite (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how he meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. And as a side note the description "who has written and illustrated many careers and educational publications" is struggling with logic. If his books are written like that, little wonder they've not attracted much praise... (The article was created by a SPA, so allow me to ABF here that his Wikipedia entry was not written by a random fan among millions.) Tijfo098 (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 20:03, 4 September 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 snow keep. No policy-based reason for deletion has been provided, and excellent sources have been supplied. NAC—S Marshall T/C 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Interosseous cuneometatarsal ligaments[edit]

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

Not viewed much and not edited much. Bobherry talk 21:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep nominator hasn't provided a valid reason for deletion Seasider91 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented, per WP:DEL-REASON. Furthermore, Google Books indicates significant coverage of this topic. See this search for starters. There's also four hits on Google Scholar, See this search. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination has no policy based reason for deletion, and Northamerica1000 has demonstrated that coverage exists. Rorshacma (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel (UK and Ireland) Upcoming Events[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT, with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTTVGUIDE in particular. PROD removed by article creator without rationale.Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 20:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. 20:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 20:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here as all events have a source, one show is tomorrow ffs. However WP:NOTTVGUIDE does apply which is what this article essentially is. Seasider91 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We are not a TV guide. ww2censor (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already deleted once under the title Disney Channel (UK & Ireland) Events because of WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTTVGUIDE concerns, and IPs and accounts keep trying to push this content hard into List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel in the UK & Ireland even though it just reads as an unfiltered press release for the network by fans who show no neutrality whatsoever (in fact, this article seems to have only been created to get around a two-week semi-protect period on the List of article). The same concerns color the List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) article, and I am tired of having to remove this content every time it's added to those articles as there are never any concerns addressed at all. Hopefully this can read as the final decision on adding this type of content to the List of articles so we don't have to deal with it in these forms; we're not here to be free ad space for Nick or Disney. As usual, zero what links here numbers. Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. The article appears to be created by a single purpose account. Is it possible that this is the Disney Channel itself? If so, can their management be told that this is not appropriate. If not, is there not somethin g close to a COPY-VIO? In any event, can some one central in WP please tell them they must not do this? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not their management; as I said, look at the history of the "List of" article; it's a bunch of editors who won't take the point that we're not another press release dissemination point for their favorite channel (and that 98% of viewers don't care about show premieres until the day before when they see it in their EPG listings, or as most kids finds out, it just magically pops up in their DVR). Other editors have fruitlessly tried to point them towards a Wikia made just for the network where they can cruft to their heart's content, to no avail. I also have feelings about socking, but as the accounts edit at such different times and different places, an SPI would be fruitless (especially in the UK/Ireland, where an IP block would affect many more innocent computers than an American block due to their IP structure). Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with other comments, in particular WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 6 September 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) 19:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Lucca[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Notability -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 19:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable based on Google News Archive search. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The gentleman is not completely free of notability but I didn't find enough in my search to meet the WP:GNG in my opinion. If the forthcoming book were coming from an arm's-length publisher and got reviewed in reliable sources, that might help; no prejudice to recreation if notability accrues there. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho-Bravado[edit]

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

Not notable. No refs, no claim of significance other than existing. GregJackP Boomer! 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related page because notability not evident:

List of artists who have worked with Mucho-Bravado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. I agree that there's nothing here that meets WP:CORP and I found nothing on a brief search; there are no reliable sources provided or found. I note also the linked page List of artists who have worked with Mucho-Bravado which should perhaps be linked to this AfD -- closing admin please note. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Notability not established, fails WP:CORP. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP as all sources provided are now reliable secondary/independent Music Industry news sources in Australia. Note: also meets guidlines based information provided on [Talk page]. 1fairywren —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - except the sources do not establish notability, as follows:

theMusic - apparently meets WP:RS;

Bigsound - does not meet WP:RS, it is a web brochure for a high school student run conference, trivial mention;

APRA/AMCOS - trivial mention;

Faster/Louder - is not a WP:RS, user-provided information like IMDb or a wiki-type forum;

Brisbane times - a WP:RS with no mention of Mucho-Bravado; and

Scene - a WP:RS, covers an event, trivial mention of M-B.

Unfortunately, these refs do not establish notability for M-B in any way, shape, or form. At that has been shown is that it exists, not that it is notable. GregJackP Boomer! 10:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with GregJackP that sources do not establish notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another attempt to use Wikipedia to promote Mucho-Bravado, Ben Preece (manager) and their bands. [9]. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A press relaease and passing mentions are not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the Mucho-Bravado page (no evidence that the firm does more than ply its trade, failing WP:CORPDEPTH) and the List of artists who have worked with Mucho-Bravado page ( which I previously Prodded as it "fails to meet WP:LSC" which I think remains so). AllyD (talk) 08:34, 4 September 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) 17:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Thomas[edit]

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

This is one of millions of online poets who post poetry on free websites and indulge in "vanity publishing" on lulu.com, they have no actual credits to their name beyond that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Userdefinable (talk • contribs) 28 August 2012

Comment: I accidentally found this AfD page when checking the nominator's contribution history for an unrelated matter. The nominator added the AfD tag to the article on 25 March 2011 [10] but it was reverted on 12 April because steps 2 and 3 of the AfD process were not followed. The nominator then created this discussion page on 28 August 2012, without re-tagging the article or adding it to the log. I have done both on behalf of the nominator; the effective date of this nomination should be 30 August 2012. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be non-notable, and does not have enough reliable sources to establish any notability. The sources currently in the article are unusable, as they are either first party, or not about the subject. Searching for sources on my own, I found only a single reliable source, here, that was not extremely trivial. Its a review of his work, however it is only a singular example, and appears to be only a very local newspaper, and thus not enough on its own to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 20:07, 4 September 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) 16:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Harrington[edit]

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

Teenage footballer who has never played in a professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTY, and has not received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, so fails WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has only played as high as the Conference South and thus fails WP:NFOOTBALL by some margin. There is also no indication the article passes WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP: NFOOTBALL, since he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, plus it lacks secondary coverage, so it fails WP:GNG. Electric Catfish 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as hes not played in an FPL, youth internationals don't count. Seasider91 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:58, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Grover[edit]

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

External links are hoax and/or claim no information about the person. Not a notable person. Harsh (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Unlike the nominator, I did not find the external links to be "hoaxes"... being to IMDB, a video interview, a write-up in a very new media site, and a review of his work at Times of India which I converted to a proper citation when giving the article some touches of improvement.[11] After performing my due diligence, I found the coverage this person has all seems to be for his well-received work on Gangs of Wasseypur. While he may very well achieve a Wikipedia level of notability within the next year or two, his current coverage is all for one thing.[12] Looking in the google news archives finds other persons by this name: a filmmaker, a professor at Clemson, a businessman, a core member 'Never Forget', etc. Essentialy, what news there is of the lyricist/screewriter is all new. Maybe in 12 months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The refs and external links including IMDB claim no other info than just mentioning the name (some of which were added after I nominated). Hence, failing notability. And by the way, I don't consider citing IMDB as a good source. As for this case, the IMDB entry about the person is empty. Harsh (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7 No indication of notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain News[edit]

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

No refs/sources. Not a notable media organisation. Harsh (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a very close match, almost word for word, to Captain TV except for the date of establishment; possibly this title would be a useful redirect but it's not clear to me that the two articles have the same exact subject. Captain TV is at least clear about the idea that it is a television channel; this article left me uncertain whether we were talking about an Internet-based offering or what-have-you. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 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} 17:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Sai Baba[edit]

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

Article is "biography" of a "yet to be born person" said to be born between now and 2027. This article has been deleted in the past for the same reasons. There is no article for Jesus Christ, Jr. Article is simply NN. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I conducted my editorial research and have to agree with Iconoclast.horizon (talk · contribs), who stated at User talk:Jasonasosa#Prema Sai Baba, "before 1963 there was no mention of Prema Sai prior to the heralding by Saytha Sai,"... "Not to mention Prof. Ruhela is referred to as an 'ardent devotee' on the Sai Baba page and Chitkara a part of the Sai Baba Educational Trust Fund." Based on sources that are not wp:reliable, it is my assertion that this article is about a Charlatan (who was involved in murder and sex scandals)¹ who assumed a 19th century guru's name to fame. Bottom line, this article does not have wp:reliable sources and fails wp:independent wp:academic sources for the concept, term, phrase and name Prema Sai Baba.

Burke, Jason (24 April 2011). "Sai Baba, spiritual guru to millions, dies at 85". The Guardian Weekly. Delhi.

Delete: Again, this article has no merit and no source outside of Sathya Sai Baba predicting his own future incarnation. All subsequent mention has been by promotion- based devotees. The article once listed as a biography does not qualify as such nor does it qualify as notable for mention on Wikipedia. Article has been deleted previously for the same reasons. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the standard deletion templates. The nomination was also not listed in a daily deletion log, so I am listing it now. Please consider the time of this comment as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 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. Consensus is that attribution is not an issue in this case. If it turns out to be later, the pages can be undeleted where appropriate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge/Ca-Cu[edit]

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

Looks like a draft page already merged in Dictionary of chemical formulas, so superfluous The Banner _talk 14:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Anthem[edit]

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

I had tagged this article under A7 but was removed by an anon. My rationale is that this article lack notabilty, fails WP:BAND Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've tried to remove the WP:PUFF from the article but I'm erring towards 'delete'. The online Daily Star article is a good one and there is a claim of further coverage in the national Bengali language Daily Ittefaq, for example. Despite the article apparently being created only yesterday, the links to the alleged coverage don't work and there is insufficient information about the additional coverage to know whether it exists (and what it says). That combined with the very limited discography means I'm not convinced this is a widely known band with significant success. Sionk (talk) 10:59, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demetris_Hadjistyllis[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH and his team is not on the WP:FOOTBALL list. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 13:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable footballer who hasn't played in an FPL, no second party coverage so fails GNG as well Seasider91 (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the spelling of his name is spectacular. However, there is no indication of notability, as it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 10:13, 4 September 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)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varietease[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 13:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Merge/redirect to Bettie Page.~~ Page has been the subject of multiple books (e.g. those by Jim Silke and Richard Foster), and the subject of some academic study, so there is probably some material about this film available in print. However in a quick search I can only find passing mentions, and if she does nothing more in it than take her clothes off, it's unlikely there's much to be said about it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote because of the improvements to the article, which show the film has a history and some critical comment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film is notable although minor, and has been the subject of in-depth discussion in reliable sources. I've expanded the article, adding four solid references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this should definitely be mentioned in the articles on Irving Klaw, Betty Page and Lili St. Cyr, this 1954 documentary film has enough coverage, analysis and commentary to meet WP:GNG and WP:NF. Being the first such directed by Klaw and made during what could be considered in retrospect, a repressed time in American cinema, it made its mark in American cinematic history.[13][14] notability is dependent upon sources BEING available... and sure, the stub as nominated needed work... but improving articles for others is what Wikipedia is all about. Following up on the excellent work by Cullen, I gave it some expansion and further sourcing myself. The improved version is of benefit to the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:42, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Condé[edit]

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

The son of the President does not generate independent notability - unelected position is not notable as a mere functionary/advisor. dangerous panda 13:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make the point that that Mohammed Condé does deserve a page. Despite not holding an official position within the government, he is still documented to have worked for the government.[15][16] Furthermore, he is the son of the President of Guinea.[17] He has been documented not only as an adviser and translator for the President[18], but also as a dealmaker behind the scenes of various suspicious business deals.[19][20][21][22][23][24] This indicates that he is someone that people – especially the people of Guinea – want to know more about. I look forward to discussing this further. OscarK878 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no assertations of notability other than being the President's son, but as per WP: NOTINHERETED, that's not a valid claim of notability. Electric Catfish 15:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Electriccatfish 2. Part of the problem here is that Oscar seems to solely rely on a google translation of articles from the french.contrary to your assertions, The individual does have an official position according to the decree of april 16 that's referenced in your source.That alone gives me pause. It should be noted that the sunday times article that seems to have sparked your interest [25] nowhere mentions this individual. CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC) CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link [26] to a notice posted from one of the sites used as sources on the article. He proclaims in french "Nous avons clairement affiché notre appartenance à l’opposition et nous ne transigerons pour rien au monde." Translation : we have clearly shown our membership in the opposition and nothing will compromise that stance. CollinsGen12 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I had already added a speedy deletion that the user decided to remove without accordance to WP guidelines. The article is not relevant. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 16:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sourcing is not what is being contested in this discussion. I concede to the fact that better sourcing may be required if the page were to live on, and it is not my intention to use politically motivated sourcing at all. This discussion is to decide whether this person is worthy of having a page on Wikipedia or not. I have laid out the primary reasons why I think he does deserve a page:

He is a Member of the Ministry of Economy, Finance and Planning of Guinea.[27]
He manages the agenda and movements of the President.[28] As well as acting as an advisor and translator in governmental interactions between Guinea and South Africa.[29][30][31]
He has been documented in reliable South African, Guinean and Russian media outlets for his involvement in deals relating to mining concessions in Guinea. Both legitimate and disputed. In these cases he acted as a signatory on behalf of the Guinean Government.[32][33][34][35]
He was a signatory on one particular deal that has sparked the World Bank to open an investigation into Guinea’s mining sector.[36]
He has acted as a signatory on behalf of the country of Guinea in at least one commercial deal.[37]

I have outlined the above in order to clearly identify this person's notability in his own right and not inherited. It is also worth mentioning that it was not me that removed the original ‘speedy deletion’ notice. Thanks OscarK878 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did of course note that the primary author of the article should not be removing CSD notices from it, right? dangerous panda 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent CSD notice was removed (declined) by Mr Stradivarius in this edit. Mr Stradivarius has not otherwise edited the article at all. The previous one was also removed by an editor who has not otherwise edited the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still agree that there are no assertations of notability other than being the President's son

@ Oscar This a BLP first and foremost, the quality of the sources is in fact a central issue along with getting it right. I have tried to follow through your "evidence" and i'm not convinced i must say (see below). This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid.

Reason 1: the link provided is dead.the assertion is false, the decree in your article saying otherwise. Additionally in guinea, the ministry of planning is separate from the ministry of economy and finance [38]
Reason 2 is not in dispute and does not establish notability in my view. Take out the fact he's the son of a president, it's not notable.
Reason 3,5: these are the same allegations/sources that were posted in your original article recycled through various languages, they all seem to refer back to this sunday times article [39]. A bit of digging shows that the alleged contract can be downloaded at [40] it shows 2 ministers as signatories as does the original sunday times article
Reason 4: cite the sunday times referencing the original article signed by 2 ministers. rendering this false.

11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)~

Thank you for your feedback Collins. I have now corrected the link to Reason 1. It clearly states (original in French) "Ministry of Economy, Finance and Planning" on pages 4 and 21. I concede using the term signatory was ambiguous in my statements above - the sentence in the published article is also misleading. Thank you for the research. English is my second language, after French, please forgive me. I have always, and continue to, welcome input on any of my contributions. The point I was trying to make is that his involvement in several deals involving the Guinean government has been widely reported on and is globally newsworthy. It may not weigh into the official Wikipedia guidelines: but his Wikipedia profile was viewed around 25 times on average every day since its creation (discounting the large number of hits it has received more recently since we begun this discussion). To me this indicates that this person is notable and the people of the world are interested in him. I agree the content of his page should be drafted very carefully and from reliable sources. Others seem to be incapable of looking beyond the fact that he is President's son. A fact which I am NOT hinging any of my statements of notability on. This discussion alone has illustrated that there is notable information out there. OscarK878 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Oscar, 1. "This discussion alone has illustrated that there is notable information out there" ==> EXISTENCE IS NO PROOF OF NOTABILITY. 2. Pageview stats are a common notability fallacy.T Additionally, the notability of an event ( "deals") does not imply the notability of people who may partake in it as your thesis seems to imply here. Stretching your argument, this character appears nowhere on the only things that seem verifiable in these articles : the signed contracts.I couldn't find a single credible instance of an interview, profile of this individual in any language on any source (reputable or not). Let's face it: the ONLY REASON this is here is BECAUSE he is the son a president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsGen12 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no other profile or interview exists for this person spurs me on to build this page as a collection of the information that is publically available about him and does exist. Clearly you and I directly disagree about whether this person is “notable enough” (or not) to have a page on Wikipedia. Rather than us making the same points over and over (and you mentioning that he is the president’s son, again) let’s get input from the more experienced neutral Wikipedia editors and get this discussion resolved. Thank you for your time OscarK878 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partially merge into Alpha Condé (specifically the background and personal life subsection) — Aside from being the son of the Guinean President (which in itself is not sufficient, as per a longstanding community consensus that notability is not inherited), the only real claim towards notability Mohammed may possess is that he is the official translator for his father (presumably French-English). From my understanding, the only two categories he could conceivably fall under would be either WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:POLITICIAN. For the former, there is very little in the way of significance on his part, as his work is largely limited to assisting communication between his father and South African President Jacob Zuma. As for the latter, although he holds an important position assisting the highest office of his country, he is not a prolific public figure, and his nation is not a major player on the international circuit (someone with a similar role in the U.S. or Iran might meet the criteria, but not in Guinea). I also suggest redirecting the page after the content has been merged (assuming of course that is the consensus). Kurtis (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your interest: I have updated the Mohammed Conde page with content I deem to be relevant to this discussion. I hope you find the content to be balanced, well referenced, unbiased and that it supports the notability discussion. I welcome any feedback. Thank you OscarK878 (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits undone. Seems intent on building an attack page in violation of BLP policies. CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CollinsGen12, according Wikipedia’s article for deletion policy: “You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).” The fact that a discussion is taking place is not a valid reason for removing any content from the page in question. My edits were reported on this page as per the guidelines.

According to Wikipedia definition of an attack page: it is a page “that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject”. This article does not meet that description and the content has been written in an objective manner. The fact that some of the content is of a negative context does not constitute the person is being “attacked”. According the Wikipedia’s Cristicism guildelines: “Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia. When incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner.”

The content I added adheres to the three core BLP policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) – You have rightfully contested the neutrality of the sourcing for the ‘Way Mark Infotech Procurement Deal’ section and I agree this section cannot be included with its current sourcing, this does not give you the right to delete other balanced and well sourced content. Every element of an edit should be considered on its own merit according to Wiki policy.
Verifiability (V) - The content is backed up by multiple sources.
No original research (NOR) - I have included media reports, no original research.

I have tried to be open about my edits, take advice and criticism on board, hoping we may be able to reason like adults. Clearly not, as you are removing legitimate content indiscriminately. I will now proceed to re-instate the sections I feel should be included in the article and create a section on the Talk page page for each section of content to allow discussion. I welcome your discussion and input: based on Wikipedia policy issues, rather than your personal motivations or views. This post will be copied into the Talk page as any issues regarding BLP should be discussed there and this page dedicated to the notability discussion. Thank you for your time OscarK878 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YourI will just repaste here a comment to you from user JamesBWatson. It looks as though your account exists largely, if not entirely, to carry out a campaign to "expose" certain people and businesses that you disapprove of. However, Wikipedia does not exist as a platform for this kind of activity, and using it for this sort of purpose is likely to bring you into conflict with thee policy that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Even if the criticisms you raise are valid, writing an article the main focus of which is making those criticisms is likely to give undue weight to one aspect of the subject of the article. If an editor seems to be persistently trying to edit to support a particular point of view, they may even be blocked from editing. Also, any page which seems to exist only to disparage its subject may be summarily deleted without warning, in accordance with the policy on speedy deletion. Even such articles as Adolf Hitler are not written in ways which do nothing but attack their subjects. You may find it helpful to look at the pages Wikipedia:Advocacy and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 12:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsGen12 (talk • contribs)

This message posted above is clearly visible on my Talk page. I have intentionally not removed this message as it has been part of my Wikipedia learning process and it has driven me to be super open about everything and familiarise myself with the Wikipedia policies. For completeness let me add my response to JamesBWatson’s message: “Thank you both for the feedback. Looking back over my contributions I agree some of it has not been objectively written and I apologise for this. I will try not to let my emotions get involved when editing Wikipedia and to remain as objective as possible when updating pages. I will work on re-writing these pieces and look forward to discussing any issues with you. Thanks for your help.”

Dear CollinsGen12, are you trying to turn this into an attack on me? Rather than the discussion of notability it is intended to be? OscarK878 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established.Righteousskills (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has always been an exception for the immediate family of heads of states, due to the general public interest and the consequent amount of material that is available. In this case, there certainly does seem to be enough material. this appears in essence to be a debate about the article contents. Personally. I think the content in question should be included in some manner, but not necessarily in the way that Oscar would write it. I am not myself aware of the particular state of things in Guinea. but I think at least some of the sourcing is adequate. It is absolutely uncalled for to remove an article because of a disagreement about the contents.This belongs not here, but the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any source information and the ones cited look more like websites rather than Wikipedia reliable sources. The internet allows anyone to be a publisher of news/information and Wikipedia uses WP:RS to reduce the lentgh articles would reach if all info from the internet were allowed in. Wikipedia also uses WP:RS to take advantage of decisions made by Wikipedia reliable sources to include or exclude coverage of a topic. A topic needs to received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article. If you expect to see an article on this survice AfD, you need to limit the content of the Wikipedia article to only information that people reading and editing the article can check that each bit of information comes from a reliable source. When you use webpages with out considering whether they meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, people will object. On a different note, the name Mohammed Condé is common and I found information such as "After serving his nine month sentence Mohammed Conde, 30, was detained and faced being kicked out of the UK. But his deportation to his home country of Sierra Leone, West Africa, was eventually cancelled."[41]. "Bobi, Ivory Coast, Dec 24, 2009 (AFP) - From the shade of a makeshift shed, Mohammed Conde watches his workers turn over the red soil with shovels and pickaxes."[42]. "Kibumba Kasiala, Ntambwe Nkombe and Mohammed Conde were arrested after officers found two French and one Belgian passport.[43]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG – I welcome any contributions and have been open to criticism on my edits through my time on Wikipedia – which I think I have worked on and improved through educating myself in the Wiki policies. Thank you for your comments.
@Uzma Gamal – When I joined Wiki I passionately dived in head first. I have since taken the time to learn more about the Wiki policies and you may notice that the recent content I added (or at least tried to) is balanced and (as much as possible) from sources listed as "recognised media in Guinea outlets": [44]. I welcome any input on a better list of trusted Guinean sources. Other sources in my content that has been removed include the Sunday Times and reputable South Africa media outlets: News24 and Mail & Guardian. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarK878 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OscarK, This is not personal, it's about violations of standards set for BLPs: NPOV and Verifiability and Notability. I did my best to find reputable sources to back your editing without success on this particular person. That raises red flags as to how much rewriting can be done to "save your edits". Notability is an issue raised as an "original sin" argument by many on this board. Uzma Gamal raises the points that I've been trying to get across to you: writings on the net are not to be taken at face value irrespective of volume or location.Especially as they relate to people. BLP standards note that "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." In this case, Guinea is covered by a large number of credible news organisations AFP, RFI, REUTERS, VOA, BBC, VOA, AP... I tried a search for this individual on those services, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE ORGANISATIONS HAS A WORD ON HIM OR LINK HIM TO THE "CONTROVERSIES"AND THAT INCLUDE THE SUNDAY TIMES ARTICLE THAT SEEMS TO HAVE STARTED YOUR POSTINGS. This is in fact stunning as one has to believe that the son of a president would engage in the unsavory activities described by your "sources" as it ranges from Mining Corruption to Election Corruption to Environmental crimes etc...and not be picked up even a single time by these services whose credibility is not in question. This raises notability issues but more seriously it raises the issue of how credible are the sources that you are using.

CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As ascertained from the sources utilized within the article, Mr. Condé has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources. Assuming the sources are reliable, this bio meets our notability standard. --Pink Bull 21:30, 9 September 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) 14:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Martial Arts[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article by an SPA about a non-notable martial arts system. There is nothing in the article to show this system meets the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a single reliable source. Concur with Papaursa this fails WP:MANOTE. Jun Kayama 07:02, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources and has no claims to show this art is notable (WP:MANOTE). Mdtemp (talk) 20:33, 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 delete. The arguments for keep are reasonable but the consensus tends toward deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Young[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion back in 2010, and was "no-consensused", on the grounds of weak keep !votes from an IP and the article's creator. Given more time one would expect additional information to have become available if this person was truly notable, but that seems to have not been the case, and the concerns that led to the original nomination still stand: that while this person may well be a good person fighting for a good cause, he doesn't appear to meet the notability standards for an article. The organisation he founded may be possibly be notable, but notability is not inherited, and the only significant thing that he has done outside of the organisation is a single protest. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not notable. His claims to fame seem to be based on letters-to-the-editor and blog comments, plus a "small protest" that seemed to consist of him holding up a sign and writing a letter to the editor. Pretty much nothing in Reliable Sources. Even the items in the Federal Way Mirror, which probably is a Reliable Source for news coverage, are not news items; they consist of opinion columns (one of them written by Young himself) and letters-to-the-editor (most written by Young himself). --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 30 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) 13:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure if the organization Gay in Federal Way or its founder, Tyler Young, are notable in WP terms. Let's look:

"Being Gay in Federal Way - Out life in Federal Way not quite like Seattle," by James Whitely in Seattle Gay News counts as one... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS REPORT on KOMO-TV is certainly substantial, published coverage of the topic on a so-called reliable source... Carrite (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that seems to be the good stuff. Is that "multiple"? Piece is the work of a single purpose account, quite possibly the subject of the article. That's a big minus. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the above two cited sources. Some people like to see three good sources; others raise the bar for self-promotion. I'm inclusionist by nature for borderline subjects such as this; WP is better of with it than without it, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per [45], [46]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two sources are hyperlocal, and they are both about the same thing, namely that one individual said nasty things to the subject in a letter to the editor; is this really enough for notability? Really?? --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are both on the group, but not on a specific event related to the group. Whether the piece is on the founder with the group name as a redirect, or the group with the founder name as a redirect, is neither here nor there. That they are local sources is irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Local coverage only" has been considered very relevant in the past. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources almost always trumps locality under GNG. Whether two good sources count as "multiple" here is a reasonable question. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just the opposite. That a source is very local is in many but not all cases a reason for considering it indiscriminate and therefore not a RS. No number of nonRSs = an RS. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, the reliablity of a source isn't based on how local it is, but it can be a basis of notability. For instance, WP:CLUB says Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. - while that is, of coure, for orgs and not people, it's a reasonable benchmark. If you haven't been covered outside of your local area, it's likely you're not notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but this one falls considerably short of WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete I don't have the time right now to dig around and see what other sources may exist but I think per Northamerica1000, they may have just inched over notability threshold. If no other improvements are made however, I can see this being renominated if Young or his group don't get more coverage in media sources. I also wonder if he is in some suburb where local press is simply not available online but has gone into more depth, or like in many cities, there are alternative newspress that would be considered reliable but do not cross-publish some or any content online. Insomesia (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very borderline notability at best and primarily promotional. The bulk of the article is devoted to him expressing his views. When a promotional article like this is also about something that would at the very most be barely notable, its a good reason for rejection. I don;'t think it's fixable because there wouldn't be anything much left, but if it is kept, I'll give it a try by removing the quotes. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 7 September 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 Flush. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butt Funnel[edit]

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

Contested prod. Although I'll be the first to admit that Wikipedia sorely needs an article entitled "Butt Funnel", notability isn't established by the references provided, and this band does not come close to meeting WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- I will find more references and add them to the page. Butt Funnel was a band with quite a large following in Madison, Wisconsin. Their final show drew hundreds of people. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkdeadite (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find enough coverage to convince me that an article is justified here, although I would be happy to reconsider if anyone can find some.--Michig (talk) 16:35, 24 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) 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. The former should have high inclusion standards and should be our main focus in deletion debates; the latter is unequaled on planet Earth due to its expansiveness. It is clear that this parody "German" band from Madison, Wisconsin was bigger than a bread box in their local scene, as innumerable show listings, show reviews, and YouTube videos attest. Clears the low-bar GNG for matters of popular culture. Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it, which should always be our main concern. For what it's worth, it appears that the band broke up in 2012, so this is not overtly promotional. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A band doesn't get a free pass by virtue of only being a band, rather than something more "serious". Show listings, show reviews, and YouTube videos may be evidence that the band existed, but little else. They certainly don't indicate notability. If a band is trying to claim notability purely on a regional level, they need to do more than be "bigger than a bread box" on their local scene - they need to be dominant, and I don't see that either. They are just one band among many. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In practice bands do pretty much get a free pass, for better or worse — which is to say that it isn't one of the topics subjected to deletionist AFD ransacking, like WP's formerly excellent and now shitty coverage of fraternities and Trotskyist sects has been. More common sense, less rule-worship would make WP a better place, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No free ride for bands with funny names which fail WP:MUSIC and WP:N. And THAT is common sense. Edison (talk) 00:53, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spyt.co[edit]

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

New service ("founded and created on 22nd August 2012"), article cites no independent sources or other indications of notability. HaeB (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE THAT I ADDED A CITATION TO THE PAGE, IF MORE NEEDED, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LET ME KNOW VIA POSTING HERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.47.127 (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - No third-party coverage. This is just yet another URL shortener and it was created just one week ago. The only citation comes from the website of its (non-notable) parent company. jonkerz ♠talk 20:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage and non notable.
Delete - No significant web or news hits by any third party reliable sources. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:24, 3 September 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)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

José_Carlos_Castillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/José Carlos Castillo

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and the league he plays in is not found on WP:FPL TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have represented country at international level and be a legitimate top player in Mexican Leagues.http://www.goal.com/en-india/people/guatemala/57257/jos%C3%A9-carlos-castillo/national. Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a Guatemalan international, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1.plays in FPL 2. He is full international, this article just needs improving. Seasider91 (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has been capped at international level. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - senior international player; article needs improving to meet GNG, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep – a senior international footballer definitely passes WP:NFOOTY. Needs improving, though. – Kosm1 fent 16:00, 1 September 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 delete !votes, no rationale in the nomination for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shantou_Jinshan_Middle_School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shantou Jinshan Middle School

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

TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the title "Middle School" indicates an elementary school in American terms, this piece states that it includes grades 10-12. Photo near the bottom on the school's web site HERE does seem to indicate the attendance of high school aged students. Although the content is imperfect and essentially unsourced, it seems factual and we should be loathe to delete on that basis. We should keep according to long-established consensus at AFD to retain material on high schools. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Because there is absolutely no rationale for deletion in the nomination, and also per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point, I missed the fact that this is a defective nomination to boot... Carrite (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - not only is there no rationale for deletion, but high schools are kept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 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 speedily deleted per G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Bahalim[edit]

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

Non-notable autobio. Makes claim of significance, so CSD not appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be copied from Abdullah Kadwani. Sr82 (talk) 15:08, 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) —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech G25[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. A non notable product. One of thousands that have no redeeming interest in an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 16 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) 19:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Strong Keep - This topic ~~appears to meet/~~ passes WP:GNG per these sources (and two more in my comment below in this discussion), which appear to be independent, reliable sources with editorial integrity:

Stuff.co.nz article
ITEspresso.es article
Novinky.cz article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can use WP:GNG to justify the existence of 100s of 1000s of articles but that does not mean we should keep them. AfDs are used to shape what the community want and I, for one, want an encyclopaedia - not a product catalogue! Sure, there are products that are notable but lets keep it to those the are really notable. Ok, that means making a judgement - which is why we are here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a print encyclopedia. Please read Wiki is not paper in entirety. Attempts to change longstanding Wikipedia guidelines and policies through separate AfD discussions will not enact any meaningful change. You should consider starting discussions on guideline and policy pages if you're in disagreement with them. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience policy development has stagnated (at least for notability). It is difficult to get any new policies or guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am "leaning" towards Northamerica1000's "leaning keep"; however, would this not be better as a merge into the Logitech article and a simple redirect? I think there are plenty of reliable and independent sources; however, I do not think it is that popular or interesting enough that people would see this as needing its own article. Just my 2 cents. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into the Logitech article would give undue balance to one of thousands of products that the company makes. Lets not forget that WP is an encyclopaedia and not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:43, 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 01:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Logitech G25 Racing Wheel, or similar. If this was a mouse or keyboard I'd vote delete, but there's a much narrower market for steering wheel controllers and I think this qualifies as both notable and encyclopedic as a result. (Alan Liefting's point above is well-taken; I don't think a merge is appropriate for the reason supplied.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should delete - this falls under the topic of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory - this is just a product whoses existence can be verified. A few product reviews do not (in my opinion) confer notability - they are not 'independent of topic'. It looks like several other pages, eg those products found in Template:Logitech are not actually notable. Might be a good idea to list all those, or alternatively -do nothing and let the computer peripheral related cruft pile up..Oranjblud (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How are the sources in my !vote above not independent of the topic? None of the websites in my !vote appear to associated with Logitech whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIG picture comment. What happens when there are more article than what the editors can adequately maintain? It means the vandals will be able to get an upper hand and articles will go out of date. Maybe there is a practical upper limit to the number of articles that we can maintain? I could go on but this is the wrong forum. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:36, 30 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I found a better target for a possible merge, which I think could do with some discussion: GT Force#G25 Racing Wheel. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A straight redir is all that is needed. A merge would give the G25 undue balance. I am not a big fan of all this product info in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A merge would give the G25 undue balance." - please, explain why you believe this. WP:PRODUCT implies a Merge is the preference (the target is a separate question). As for "I am not a big fan of all this product info in WP." by that logic, all the books, games and films should also be removed huhh? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:BALANCE and logical fallacy. (I mean't to say "I am not a big fan of all this sort of product info in WP." By "this sort" it should be assumed that I am referring to a subset of what can be defined as a product.) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe Odie's comments in the first AfD are a strong argument to keep. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the comment from the previous AfD listed above by User:Exit2DOS2000, two more reliable sources have been added to the article:

Klett, Steve (December 2006). "G25 Racing Wheel." Maximum PC Magazine.
Logitech G25 Racing Wheel review | Ars Technica

These, combined with the three sources in my !vote above, equal five reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about this topic. Deletion of the article at this point would be ridiculous, and against WP:GNG. Revised my !vote above accordingly. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that WP:GNG is only a guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References (from a range of international sources) seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't agree that keeping this article would harm Wikipedia: pages like this tend not to be a draw for vandals, and don't need much maintenance (and in any case that isn't grounds for deletion). If you want to stop vandals you should delete Mitt Romney and One Direction. The only time this page is likely to trouble anyone is when it's AfDed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Harm" is an interesting word in this context. I would argue that WP would better off if articles about products was limited to only those that are highly notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge How about merging all Logitech racing wheels into one article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcooljoe (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about limiting WP articles to REALLY notable products? I would help with spam and prevent conferring a commercial advantage of one manufacturer over another. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your use of the word "really" in this context is an ambiguous weasel word that doesn't convey your notion very accurately. Perhaps consider starting a discussion on the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talk page. Comments at this discussion page won't change the guidelines there! Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Product reviews in independent sources are exactly what does best confirm notability of a product. "independent of subject" means that the subject of the article (or in this case, the manufacturer of the subject of the article) isn't the publisher or the author. Any proposed reference which is truly independent of the subject in the sense of not being about the subject or not discussing it substantially would be irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 7 September 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 Anubhav Sinha#Career. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benaras Media Works[edit]

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

No references/sources. Apparently an advertisement. Promotes another not so notable person. Harsh (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Reliable source coverage limited to passing mentions. This is an advertisement for a just-launched production house working on its first film. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Anubhav Sinha#Career. While Benaras Media Works lacks notability for a separate article, it can be spoken of in context within the article on its founder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anubhav Sinha#Career per Schmidt's reasoning. Zujua (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyocera Unimerco[edit]

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

Appears to fail general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you elaborate on this, please? Would citing additional/other sources help?Umjkb (talk) 11:50, 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]

Yes - more sources would establish notability. I would treat the history of Unimerco in the same article, as it appears to be the same enterprise, just with a slightly different name after acquisition - this is common practice for companies.Oranjblud (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company ~~just about~~ notable, in particular under previous name 'Unimerco' was worthy of new reporting in trade journals, sale of company was also notable. See archived news. [47] eg reuters -Actually quite notable. I've removed the redlinks that won't be notable. (won't fix though).Oranjblud (talk) 14:21, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:51, 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 weak keep. I'm pretty close to no consensus here - the sources provided show that popular Android apps appear to be a notable topic, maybe not for an explicit ranking. But that hasn't received much discussion. Needing to be updated isn't a grounds for deletion, and the arguments so are wholly unconvincing. Basically the same is true of any list about something that continues to the present. Renaming should be considered at the page as an editorial decision. Wily D 06:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Since I was asked, note that WP:NOTYELLOW says we shouldn't include "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations"; i.e., random intersections where the intersection is of no important "List of blonde astronomers", "list of marxist chefs", etc. Note that in this case the sources (at least some) are specific to Android Apps, not apps in general, which is unsurprising as the platform an application runs on is generally relevant to that application. It isn't the case that we're doing the categorisation by platform, the sources are. Wily D 09:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most popular Android apps by number of downloads[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment - As people have said, this is more a violation of WP:NOTYELLOW than of WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there was any other more comprehensive list for android applications, I might say to delete or merge this, but this page just about meets list requirements: it collects together android applications, which is a natural grouping of things; the topic of best-selling apps has received media coverage[48][49][50][51][52][53]; the entries are generally notable (even though not all have articles just now, most are widely reviewed and new releases of Google Maps, Facebook Messenger, etc, get coverage in tech media); the criteria for list membership are clear (although there are issues about whether to include both free and paid, whether to include most-reviewed, etc). I don't see why this is promotional, any more than having a list of best-selling books, top-grossing films, etc, although there may be other grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unmaintainable and thus potentially misleading list, the topic is not encyclopedic (too time-sensitive). Violates WP:NOTYELLOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Rename to List of most downloaded Android applications jonkerz ♠talk 19:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC) - I do not think WP:NOTPROMOTION or WP:NOTYELLOW applies here; the promotional nature of this list is a by-product of what it is intended to do: list the most downloaded Andoid apps -- something I think is a notable subject. We have list for the best-selling PS2 games, best-selling album, highest-grossing films and many more. The problem with maintainability is somewhat bypassed by dividing the entries into "100 million installs or more" and "50 million installs or more" and not trying to list the exact numbers. Saying we can't have this list at all because it is hard to maintain is a little bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water. jonkerz ♠talk 22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of similar lists doesn't prove that any of them is warranted, and specifically says nothing about this one. The very concept of "Most popular X by Y" violates WP:NOTYELLOW, and the maintainability problems (at any given time the list is incomplete) are going to make the encyclopedic purpose of this list (if any) unreachable, leaving only promotional aspect. Sorry, but there is no baby in this water. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Apologies for the length of this comment] The title of this page should really be something like List of most downloaded Android applications, similar to:

This is not invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, this is illustrating that NOTYELLOW cannot be used indiscriminately against all "List of most..." articles. List of most expensive paintings is not a Yellow Pages for paintings. It is a notable and encyclopedic subject, and should therefore be kept.

Do you think that List of most downloaded mobile applications is a notable subject? I do, and by judging the results from searching for "most downloaded apps", it is a notable subject. If we can establish that it is, then splitting that list into List of most downloaded Android applications and List of most downloaded iOS applications comes naturally. That is what happened to List of best-selling video games which was split into multiple lists, such as List of best-selling PlayStation 2 video games. jonkerz ♠talk 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all these topics are notable (in context of WP:GNG), but all of these are excluded per WP:NOTYELLOW. Your argument is indeed WP:OTHERSTUFF (or WP:INN, which is essentially the same, though focuses on notability), as the fact of those articles' existence indeed says nothing about their compatibility with WP:NOTYELLOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of most downloaded Android applications per jonkerz well thoughtout comments. However, I'm having trouble with the sourcing. The sourcing in the article is not independent of the subject, so the topic fails WP:GNG if you look only at the sourcing in the article. Looking outside the article to see whether any reliable source cares about the topic, I wasn't able to find an WP:GNG sources directly addressing the topic. However, I found Android Marketplace Tops 10 Billion App Downloads, Most Downloaded Android Real Estate Search App Featured at International Developer Event, Angry Birds for Android downloaded over 30 million times, 10 billion applications downloaded from the Android Market, Survey finds Android users more likely to be app freeloaders, No end to pursuit of appiness These show a general interest in Android app downloads, but not in a ranking by number of downloads. I tried finding reliable source articles that include some of the apps listed under "100 million installs or more" in the Wikipedia article. If there were such an article, the writer probably would have provided their ranking in downloads. I didn't find such an article that include a download ranking. In a search for an article with Tiny Flashlight, Angry Birds, and Fruit Ninja, I found only Be warned - there's no such thing as a free app, which didn't rank the apps. Wikipedia should not be the originator of any topic. However, it seems that Wikipedia is the originator of the topic, "List of most downloaded Android applications." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:23, 30 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need a trivial list like this that will require constant updating. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 10:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Renaming does sound like a better option than deleting. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 14:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider a title change. This is parallel to other long-accepted articles. How else are we to write about the subject? This is more objective than, say List of significant android apps."That something will require frequent updating is not a reason for deletion, or any popular contemporary subject would have to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "How else are we to write about the subject?" That is not our task – plenty of news media out there are trying to do so this or that way. We are expected to write on subjects with long-term notability, and this kind of list (buzzword-based, instantly outdated, based on arbitrary thresholds, recentist in essence) is incompatible with this task. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:17, 7 September 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 University of Arizona. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Wildcat[edit]

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

A non-profit organization run by students at the University of Arizona. While they have been a recognized club at the college for a good long time, and they certainly are a noble cause, they do not appear to pass the notability requirements for groups and organizations. I am unable to find any reliable third party sources discussing the organization, and any hits I have found are either first party (ie, the official site) or referring not to this group, but to a battle during the Civil War that has no relation. Rorshacma (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up Comment - I have managed to find one news article about the organization that was not just a UofA college paper here, however not only is it a singular source, and thus does not fulfil the requirements of multiple sources, but it is a from a paper that only services the Tuscon region, making it purely local coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Wildcat certainly has more local relevance (Tucson, AZ) than national. Over the years, the organization has been covered by local media, both newspaper and radio. I agree that this coverage is tough to find online - with the exception of that provided by the U of A student newspaper (arguably the most relevant for this organization). The radio coverage and much of the newspaper coverage since 1965 would be in archives that are not easily accessed online. Assume for a moment that Camp Wildcat was covered well by current, local, online sources (there aren't many in this small market). Would it still fail the notability requirements if there is no national coverage? Thanks. --Kevinjscott (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, Wikipedia's policies on the Notability of Organizations states that for non-commercial organizations, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.", so I'm not sure if the local coverage you are speaking of would be enough. Likewise, while I did see the U of A student newspaper's articles on the club, my feeling was that the officially sanctioned U of A newspaper writing about an officially sanctioned U of A organization not only was purely local, but could almost be considered a first party source. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 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) 07:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not sufficiently explained or established in article.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:20, 15 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} 00:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found references: Arizona Daily Star October 22, 2005, U-WIRE August 25, 2006, US Federal News April 30, 2008, U-WIRE June 11, 2008. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those links aren't sufficient: they're all from local press, and 3 are from local student press. See Rorshacma's comment above about notability of organisations. More seriously, the link text doesn't reflect the actual sources: I assume this is a mistake and not an attempt to mislead us. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 30 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, Wily D 08:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Arizona. Not independently notable; sources are all local. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Colapeninsula - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't understand your "keep" !vote; Colapeninsula !voted to merge. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Arizona#Student life; does not appear to have achieved significant coverage from independent sources as required for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no content worth merging besides the name on a list of student organizations. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 7 September 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Congress[edit]

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

This is an ongoing doctoral project by a student at Temple University. While I wish him the best of luck on his thesis, this article does not meet WP:WEB or the general notability guideline. There is some outside coverage in what appear to be personal blogs. szyslak (t) 08:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Szyslak. No, it's a political party. It started as a thesis, and then it grew teeth. Sharp teeth. When are and when aren't blogs permitted citations?

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are_weblogs reliable sources?--JayJasper (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--

Settdigger (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

I grant you, this party is real small potatoes. But it's received outside coverage.

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for WP's standards of "reliability" regarding sources.--JayJasper (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Settdigger (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:WEBSITE. The references in the article are very lightweight (one is definitely a blog, another appears to be a blog, and a third is The Temple News which is a weekly newspaper of a university). The article has no encyclopedic information regarding the website's achievements, impact or historical significance. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnuniq for making suggestions for helpful additions and evincing a desire to scrap the entire page in the same breath. I've added some per your suggestions. Your blanket statement that it does not satisfy Wikipedia' notability guidelines is amusing -- let's talk about it. Settdigger (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Congress has been featured on National Public Radio's Newsworks Tonight, in a TEDx talk, and on WHIP Student Radio, among other places. See: http://directcongress.org/news/ Direct Congress is significant because it is the first American initiative to create an online voting party that sponsors real candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aet250 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC) — Aet250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations do not seem to meet WP:RS criteria. They are primarily blogs & forums plus a college newspaper from a school that apparently has a close connection with the subject. Fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Userfy'. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for this article to be created. Presently there are few reliable sources that cover the subject in an in depth manor that would be consistent with significant coverage requirements set forth by WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There is the PBS and college newspaper sources, but it is my humble opinion that more coverage is needed than just those sources, to meet notability requirements. In the mean time, if the primary editor wants, the articlespace can be userfied so that continued work can happen until more sources can be found to support notability. At that time, the deletion can be repealed, and the case can be made again that the subject of this article is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No objection to userfying the content, actually would encourage it. The subject shows potential for notability, but does not appear to meet the threshold just yet.--JayJasper (talk) 20:54, 4 September 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 has been located Wily D 06:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chowk.com[edit]

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

Delete Unknown organisation and may be internet marketing activity to pull views against WP:ORGSIG has not also been covered in any secoundary source and is against WP:CORPDEPTH and is also marketing the articles inside there own page stating top articles at chowk.com is also a ballant advertisment as per Wikipedia:NPOV and also is a self published source and also against the basic WP:GNG guidlines of wiki Shrikanthv (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't contain any independent reliable sources to verifiy notability as required by WP:GNG. Minor note, Shrikanthv: articles are basically never deleted for NPOV problems, as those can almost always be fixed by editing (the main exception being WP:POVFORK). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable, and one of the oldest South Asian internet magazines that has featured articles by several notable people. I know for a fact that the well-known scientist Pervez Hoodbhoy has written columns for Chowk, back since 1997. And so has Bilal Musharraf, who is the son of former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf; see the following BBC article from October 1999: Bilal Musharraf's article 'He had no Choice!' has been published on www.chowk.com, an internet magazine which devotes itself to Pakistani affairs. These are some old and notable examples I know, there are many more notable people who have written at Chowk, which makes this blog/site satisfy notability in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that Pervez Hoodbhoy has written can only be validated by self published in their own website ! without any secoudary or other sources confirming this . Please read the BBC Article carefully it says that the website claimed that the article " may " have been written by the said person and is not definitive about it . (this also throws light on notablitity and truth about the website, as it is spreading false information with pretext of using notable names) BBC confirming this . Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix the POV problems. Thee is enough evidence for significance. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage: [54]. Other coverage = [55] + sources already in the article. Meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:35, 7 September 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. Nominator indef blocked for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa (non-admin closure) Tothwolf (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SlashNET[edit]

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

~~Completely lacks any significant coverage. Mythpage88 (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This survived AfD once before, and now it's been covered in a book, and is a top 40 (or top 25) network, depending on who one consults. Further sources are certainly possible, so deletion is not the obvious choice. A look at WP:BEFORE might have prevented this nomination. --Lexein (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A look at WP:BEFORE did not prevent this nomination. Not every IRC network is notable. Just because it's in the top 40, or even the top 25, does not make it notable by any means. Coverage is needed. It's been covered in a book, yes, but two pages of coverage is not significant coverage, which is needed to assert notability. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are sources about IRC, such books and magazines, published around that period (1998-2003) which are not available in online, searchable form, and WP:V doesn't mandate online availability, nor that verification be easy, but I'm not going to beat this point to death. I have made the request to one editor User:Tothwolf I know who has asserted that he has some of those sources. I'm hoping he comes through. In the meantime, gah. Sometimes seven days just seems wrong for obviously arduous-to-source articles. There is a certain amount of AGF which I feel would be appropriate, in acknowledgement of that difficulty. I cannot wait for the day that the Wayback Machine itself can be directly searched, I tell you. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - When that day comes, you may be able to demonstrate notability. Until that time, merely asserting that there are sources is not enough. In addition, significant coverage is needed, not passing references in books. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Mythpage88 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of LiteralKa [56]. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:55, 5 September 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) 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Hill Community Music Centre[edit]

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

I'm sure this community music centre did noble things but there is nothing to suggest it meets WP:ORG. coverage is very limited and lacking indepth. [57]. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 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 debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hey, I love the idea - an "anarchically" managed, free rehearsal/performance venue - but it only existed for seven years, and it doesn't seem to have garnered much attention then or since. Fails WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 30 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} 07:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it may have been known as the Clifton Hill Community Music Centre by some people for some of the time but, as the article explains, it was run anarchically and did not have a stable identity or formal title. Dolphin (t) 11:41, 5 September 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. Wide support for the idea that available sources far exceeded WP:GNG (also SNOW) j⚛e decker ^talk 02:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Pakistan[edit]

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

Just a BBC documentary film on Pakistan, I do not see how this satisfies WP:NF or why it needs a stub article of its own. The documentary has zero academic coverage. Mar4d (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article needs work, yes, but so what?

This exposé/documentary, which reveals Pakistan's alleged links to enemy forces in Afghanistan, is significant insofar as it forced Pakistan to ban BBC World News owing to its “anti-Pakistan” content. And you say it's not notable enough?
google search gives more than 100,000 hits.
Are you being sarcastic? Mrt 3366 ^{(Talk page?)} ^{(New section?)} 07:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And not surprisingly, how many of those "100,000 hits" are about the documentary? It has zero coverage in academic sources. Mar4d (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is up to you to discern. But I would say, sufficiently many are about the secret pakistan documentary. Mrt 3366 ^{(Talk page?)} ^{(New section?)} 08:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A documentary broadcast 9 months ago is hardly likely to be covered in academic sources, which typically have a lead time of more than a year. Press coverage is however sufficent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has surely many sources. Clearly notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources (I've added some to article). Coverage of TV program[58][59][60][61]. Ratings[62]. Coverage of subsequent row over program[63][64][65][66][67][68] and CSM article previously cited. Also lots of info on BBC website if you want background info (credits, etc) to improve the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, when a state begins to ban and censor documentary's it is an obviously noteworthy thing to have an article on. Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep and allow continued improvements per WP:NRVE. I note that WP:BEFORE shows that the topic met WP:GNG and WP:NF before being nominated for deleition... and simply needed work. And to the nominator, film topics NEVER need "academic coverage" in order to be ascertainable as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep – Per WP:NRVE and because the topic passes WP:GNG. Examples include: [69], [70], [71].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 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 G11 by Amatulic. NAC—S Marshall T/C

Gohar_Wala[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gohar Wala

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

Non-notable place and no sources provided. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 06:28, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic groups by population[edit]

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

The purpose of this article is to rank the world's ethnic groups by population. Unfortunately, the list is an orgy in original research, humorous at times but never encyclopedic. The topic itself is not without interest, but the problem is that a list of this kind could never be sourced, and would be definition always be original research. I'll list some of the main problems

1. While one can easily define nationality (by one's passport), the population of a country (by censuses) or even native language (less precise but still easy to define), one cannot define ethnicity in the same clear-cut way. While a Swede born in Sweden to two Swedish parents, four Swedish grandparents and eight Swedish great-grandparents is likely to be an ethnic Swede, what ethnicity is an American born in the US with eight great grandparents who were, say, English, German, Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Jewish and Chinese? In short, there are established, universally accepted ways to define nationality, there are no universally accepted ways to define ethnicity
2. Because of the lack of any data on ethnicity, a list like this will never be able to build on a source. This is evident in the current article, where different sources are used for different ethnicities. Such a practice is not serious, as it allows for wide measurement and interpretation differences. This makes it impossible to compile a list, as the data is not comparable
3. A quick look at the different ethnicities reveals a very uneven treatment. For some ethnicities, it seems that only those born in the country and speaking the language are counted. For other ethnicities, it's evident that even fourth or fifth generation emigrants who mostly do not speak the language are counted.

I could list more problems, but I perceive these to be the most serious. Since there is no agreed way to define ethnicity, there are no data on ethnicity around the world, no sources for the articles to build on and no chance of achieving comparable data, a list of this kind will always be original research, at least until the day when there is massive DNA testing and ethnicities defined on those tests. If that day comes, the list can be recreated. As that day is not coming in the near future, I move that the list be deleted. Jeppiz (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this a duplicate of Lists of ethnic groups? Although that page has a lot of problems too, and there are only population figures for some groups. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right and that's another reason I find this unsourced article redundant. Wikipedia in many languages have a list of different ethnic groups, such as the one you linked to above. Such a list is not problematic, and for some ethnicities one can even find pretty accurate population estimations. I have no problems with an article of that kind, but one that claims to be able to count and numerically rank all ethnicities in the world is simply not serious. So I think Lists of ethnic groups should be kept, while List of ethnic groups by population should be deleted.

Keep The nomination claims that this could never be sourced but, in just a short time, I located a good source for the topic: Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook. Warden (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thrust you did not read the book you claim to be a good source? If you did, you would have found that it supports my argument. For some ethnicities, it does give some population estimates for some countries. For other ethnicities, and for other countries, it simply talks about "there is also a very large immigrant population." How do you propose "very large population" should be represented numerically. Such cases abound, in countries where ethnicities are not recorded, or otherwise unknown, the book simply says that there is "a very large population", "a large population" or "a small population". That is perfectly in line with my argument, that the different census methods in different countries, lack of censuses in other countries, and different definitions between countries make it impossible to count and rank the ethnicities of the world. The book you found supports that argument.Jeppiz (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most statistics about the real world are estimates and approximations. For example, measuring the length of a river is a complex matter, as its shape is a fractal and its course is not fixed. We still have list of rivers by length and such information is commonly found in encyclopedia and reference works. Perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, and this is another aspect I already mentioned in my nomination. The important difference is that you CAN measure the length of rives, but there is no accepted way to measure ethnicity. Several hundred million people are of mixed ethnicity. If every individual were counted, what would be the ethnicity of the American whose great grandparents who were, say, English, German, Irish, Italian, French, Greek, Jewish and Chinese?

If you think that ethnicity can be measured, please tell me how. And if there is a source that give numerical estimations for the ethnicities of the world (instead of just saying "very large population" as in the book you found), please direct us to it. I don't have anything against the subject of the article as such, I would even think it would be interesting if a measurement of ethnicity existed and if there were a source we could use. As long as we don't have either, how can you possibly source a list like this?Jeppiz (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have dozens of articles on ethnic groups, such as an article on Han Chinese, an article on Russians, an article on Germans etc. All those articles include an infobox detailing the size of the particular group, with references to source it. If it's possible to include the sizes in those articles, it must be possible to do the same in a list. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your comment, you miss the point. First of all, we don't have more than very rough estimates for any ethnicity, and for many we don't even have that. Second, and this is crucial a list needs to build on a single source. How do you know that the way ethnicity calculated in the source for Han Chinese is the same way that ethnicity is counted for Germans, and how do you know that the source for French doesn't use a third way to determine and calculate ethnicity. If we do what you suggest and use the sources in the various articles on ethnicities to make a list, we're guilty of a rather extreme form of original research.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What the question boils down to, and what I perhaps failed to make clear in the nomination, is this: Where is the source for the ranking. Yes, we can look at the article about Han Chinese and find a source about their estimated number, and we can look at the article about Germans and find a different source for their estimated number, then a third source with an estimate for the French in the French article. But a ranking? Perhaps we can find a source saying that Han Chinese make up the largest ethnicity, but where are the source saying that Bengali is the second largest? The source that Germans are the third largest? The source that Russians are the fourth largest? That's what this article does, it makes claims about which ethnicity is the largest, second largest, third largest and so on. I haven't found any source for that, and we can most certainly not use the sources in the various articles on different ethnicities. Those sources make no claim about whether a certain group is larger of bigger than another, and they were not written to be compared in that way. Compiling a ranking based on them is original research through and through.Jeppiz (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point. I think that there is relative certainty that the Han Chinese and Bengali are the first and second largest groups, respectively, but agree that for a variety of reasons, such as population changes and some things you touched on above, there probably aren't citations to be found to establish ranks for the others. Rather than deleting the whole page, I think a better solution is either to do away with ranking on the list altogether while leaving it default-sorted by population, or just note deficiencies in being able to accurately rank this sort of thing as a disclaimer at the top and keep the ranks for convenience.
- I think that it is convenient and appropriate to have a list of the world's largest ethnic groups in one place to be able to refer to. Merging this with the much more comprehensive list you mentioned might be cumbersome for those who are just interested in what is in itself a very noteworthy topic.
- Keep in mind also that, although there is no common standard for what an ethnic group is, there are commonly accepted notions about what defines specific ethnic groups, which usually revolve around government-, popular-, scholarly- or self-identification, and endogamy. If it is good enough for credible organizations to take the time to base estimates on, it is probably good enough for this list. It is probably the best you are going to find. Nanib (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or significantly change - When looking over the list I noticed several of the items aren't even ethnicities ("American" is a nationality, not an ethnicity, for example). On top of that, it is poorly sourced, per nom and others. If not deleted, it needs to be significantly improved. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, delete, then redirect to Lists of ethnic groups per Wikipedia:Content forking - The truth/one source required arguments are not persuasive. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. That's it. The issue here seems to be which reliable sources to use to 1. determine the popultion number to list and 2. determine what is and is not an ethnic group. The article "Lists of ethnic groups" already has some population information and it would be better for all interested editors to meet on the talk page of "Lists of ethnic groups" to figure out the sourcing issue rather than having two talk pages. The main article "Lists of ethnic groups" needs to be improved before subsections of it are ready for WP:SPINOFF. As for a spinoff, List of ethnic groups by population merely represents one column from a table. By the same logic, we can have a separate list article for each column in the lists now in List of ethnic groups by population and in "Lists of ethnic groups." The talk page of Lists of ethnic groups is a best place to figure this all out. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:01, 30 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are too many judgment calls involved that prevent a list like this from being meaningful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the second largest ethnic group listed is "American", which is not an ethnic group but a nationality or a citizenship status, then it is clear that the whole venture is too flawed to save. It is impossible to come up with a shared or standardized definition that covers all these groups, or any reliable population estimates for most of them.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fork of ethnic groups, and as pointed out above too unreliable and unexplained to be useful. For example, the United Kingdom is listed as having significant numbers of many of the ethnic groups listed in the first table. True up to a point, but the total population of the UK is only 63 million. I have no idea what is meant when it is claimed that the UK has a significant number of 'American people' because the largest grouping of people in the UK from the Americas are from the Caribbean - in what sense do they share an ethnicity with, say, the people of Nebraska or Newfoundland rather than, say, west Africa from which many of their ancestors came or English people amongst whom they have now made a home? There are people born in the USA who now live in the UK, and many of them may well identify as 'Americans' whilst very possibly holding UK citizenship (a very British approach some in the USA appear to find odd), but I have never heard it suggested that 'Americans' are a significant ethnic group in the UK, especially as many will have some UK ancestry anyway. And so on. --AJHingston (talk) 08:45, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb of the Elf King[edit]

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

Non-notable book. PROD was removed by creating author. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A self-published novel through CreateSpace with no discernable notability and no reliable sources. Ubelowme _U ^Me 05:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found either an HTML copy of the book series (if it wasn't an excerpt), or the Kindle version. There appear to be no reviews, and from what I can gather, this is a pretty new book. It's not clear to me if there is anything specific about Ebook notability, but this doesn't even seem to meet WP:GNG. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't anything specific as far as e-books go. They're subject to the same notability standards as paper books under WP:NBOOK. The only big difference is that books released in non-paper format usually have a harder time getting reliable sources to cover them, especially if they're self-published.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable, self-published book that has received no coverage in any reliable sources. This just isn't notable and is unlikely to become so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 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 Mark Arsten (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Cabrera (Spanish dubbing actor)[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this dub artist. As such, I don't see evidence that he reaches the general notability guideline. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. 01:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 01:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 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 01:48, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can-Am Packaging Equipment Corporation[edit]

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

I've Googled enough that there are a few sources but they don't really provide strong credible notability - the majority of content online about this organization is based on advertising. I believe it fails WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 03:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Trade Fair KOSOVA[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Zoupan 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Zoupan 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Zoupan 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Zoupan 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced since creation. Either so small it fails WP:ORG or possibly nonexistent (I have found no sources or mentions of this fair). Zoupan 15:11, 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 01:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 29 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) 03:13, 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist (Lil Wayne song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song from an unreleased album, only one reliable source claims the existence of said song. Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:N. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 18:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS, not to mention there's very little there to begin with anyways. (And that quote is absolutely atrocious too...) Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 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 01:46, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability here. Lacks independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Lil Wayne. I shall admit that I do not know anything about this singer, but as the article itself is only a very very brief article, it could quite easily be merged with the article on the singer. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the article Lil Wayne discography, I see that the song was not mentioned there. This makes me think that it quite definitely is not a very notable song by this singer. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:20, 4 September 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) 03:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futuro Futuro[edit]

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

no assertion of notability, advert, COI, bad fair use image, SPAM magnet for link from extractor hood article Widefox (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. 02:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 02:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 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 01:45, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see what the COI issues are, but the article reads like an advert and has no WP:IRS. It seems to be sourced to a hotch-potch of design websites. I can't see any WP:IRS online, therefore it doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 21:50, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simian (software)[edit]

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

I can't find any in-depth analysis of this google-built software in reliable sources, to satisfy the WP:GNG. All of the information in reliable sources appears to be non-independent (ie: published by google). Them From Space 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 02:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I believe these sources do cover the subject in enough detail. "Weak" beacuse two of these three are not doubtlessly reliable (though I would consider them reliable in this content), and because the coverage is related to the single event. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:08, 19 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 01:45, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 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 merge to Sergei Mavrodi. Further discussion is unlikely to reach a better solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMM-2011[edit]

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

I'm nominating this for deletion. It's probably the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's clearly a shill and out to sell whatever product this is supposed to be, nevermind the generally awful translation and that it's sprinkled with random emotes. Wikipedia really doesn't need this. --93.200.25.68 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor tagged the article for AfD and left a nominating statement on the article talk page [72]. I have copied it above and completed the nominating process on the IP editor's behalf. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject notability seems out of question. Article needs improvement, not deletion. --SPGremlin (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— SPGremlin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dramatically trim and merge with subject's bio The nominator is wrong on some accounts, particularly that this article is "out to sell [something]" because it's clearly about a Ponzi scheme that has been busted and well-publicized. The subject seems notable but we don't need an article about both the Ponzi scheme and its perpetrator. But there is a lot of material that needs to be trimmed from this article if it's kept or merged as there appears to be quite a bit of OR and a few POV issues as well. ElKevbo (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yeah needs better prose and not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin the generic vote above is a spree of 7 keep !votes in 10 minutes by this editor. LibStar (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sergei Mavrodi. We don't need two separate articles about the same scam. "MMM-2011" seems like a much less likely search term than the name of the perpetrator. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 7 September 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. This one is borderline, but the consensus is leaning towards delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Townsin[edit]

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

Non-notable author of non-notable books. Only one of the three references (the Goldsmith Gazette) has any kind of WP:SIGCOV, but it's a primary source. The Toronto Sun doesn't mention him at all, just a CD where he was a producer. Of his seven books, five are self-published, as is the CD. Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, or WP:GNG. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 02:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I found one more book review: A mouse, kitten, a traveling Santa. Not much there either, sadly. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now cites four independent reviews of his books published by reliable media. It should be enough to meet WP:AUTHOR, No. 3. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete (Removing the weak as I look more into it and realize how limited of a notability claim there really is) Working in the wine industry in Washington state, I am very familiar with the BC wine industry and I've heard of Troy before and seen him at BC events (though I've never personally met him). He is a bit of a "local celebrity" in the BC wine industry because of his local radio show and he does a lot of events for local wineries. The key word here is local and his influence doesn't extend beyond the small BC wine industry--not across the border in Washington and not even in Canada's other major wine regions in Ontario. Even his radio show segment doesn't get much play beyond Vancouver Island. Looking at available reliable sources on Ablegrape (a search engine geared specifically for wine reliable sources) shows very little independent, third party sources beyond local BC winery blogs and websites that offer any worthwhile WP:SIGCOV to help establish notability. My sentiment is "weak" because, again, he is pretty much a fixture at local BC wine events. But ultimately I fall on delete because I don't think just being a local wine fixture for a small wine industry is much of a claim for notability. Truth be told, every wine region has several "Troy Townsins" of their own doing local radio, podcasts, guest judging, self published books/blogs, etc but very, very few of them (even from major wine regions like Napa Valley) will ever have the kind of notability that should merit a Wikipedia article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 23:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research, Agne. He is noted as an author of children's books, not a wine critic (at least according to the sources cited in the article). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would call him more of a wine writer/commentator than a critic since he is pretty much all about spreading awareness of and promoting British Columbia wine, particularly the vineyards on Vancouver Island. Typically wine critics, like Robert Parker, James Suckling and Tom Stevenson, etc are a little more objective and not necessarily tied so intimately towards just promoting a single, local wine industry.

Honestly, his claim of notability as a wine personality is the strongest claim he has (and as I noted above, it is a rather weak claim itself). All his children books are self published by the independent publishing company that he and his wife runs which only exist so far to promotes their own projects. That is a far cry from satisfying the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. According to World Cat, the only books published by Whitecap are Cooking with the wines of Washington and Cooking with the wines of Oregon. I did see on one of the publisher pages that he'd won awards. If we can find RS for those, we could then decide on their notability conveyance. To me the coverage just does not meet the mark needed for notability. I don't see that the self pub books are of any help as they are viewed as not even satisfying significance. The books do not seem to me to meet the requirements set forth in WP:BOOK Dloh cierekim 17:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:Author. The coverage is not sufficiently in depth as the articles I can see deal with other subjects as well and the Highbeam is behind a paywall. The children's books are self-published. The other stuff does not have sufficient impact. Dloh cierekim 18:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added or WP:PROF, or WP:GNG. Dloh cierekim 18:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publishing has nothing to do with notability, and "awards" are not needed to meet WP:GNG. Yes, the Highbeam ref is behind a paywall, but it doesn't mean it is inaccessible, you are free to ask editors listed at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Approved to check the content. In a comment above, Agnes writes that "his claim of notability as a wine personality is the strongest claim" in the article, but the strongest claims are — in my opinion — those backed up by solid and reliable references. The sources currently present in the article refer to an author of children's books and CDs. The article has 8 citations, of which refs. No 1, 3, 5, 7 are substantial reviews of his works. The others are not that bad (they contain valuable information independent on the author). I value any verifiable information enriching this project and I can't see any benefits for our readers in deleting this kind of information. The article is expandable and has potential, even though it is a borderline case, as Frankie says below. Of course, it is just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll agree that it is borderline, but his work has been reviewed by many different sources. To add to those already noted, there's [73] [74] [75] and even an AMG write-up for the album [76] — Frankie (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. None of the sources, including the suggested ones are sufficient to assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 6 September 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 Merged and left redirect. Article is duplicate of a higher quality and more appropriately titled article, Paul Warner (judge). —Eustress ^talk 14:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Warner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Subject is currently a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Utah, however, the article is outdated and does not mention the fact. However, that fact does not establish notability for the subject as Magistrate Judges are not inherently notable, nor does any of his previous positions establish notability. Nor does he have any accomplishments or cases that would establish notability. Delete. Safiel (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough coverage in independent sources to support notability. Fails WP:BLP. Delete. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not like the non-standard form of this nomination followed by the identical non-standard form of the first comment. Factchecker25 is a new account started Aug. 23, 2012 and this is their very first AFD visit, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The original author of the piece was not notified - I was, given that I helped that user with their userspace draft of this article way the hell back in 2008. I have notified that editor of this debate. In October 2010, someone else put together an article at Paul Warner (judge) that, near as I can tell, has the same subject as this article. It's also much more extensive, and more extensively sourced. If something were to be done, I'd suggest merging/redirecting this article to that one. Not being up to date is not a reason to delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:50, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Jelic (coach)[edit]

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

The article almost qualifies for BLP PROD since the references provided in the article are either dead or make no mention of a Milan Jelic. His most serious claim of notability is that he played for FK Vojvodina (it's not clear that the other teams listed are fully professional) but I couldn't verify that claim. It's also noted that he was the head coach of FK Borac Novi Sad but again, it's not clear that this is a professional team and it is at best a marginal professional team playing in the Vojvodina League West which is part of the fourth tier of Serbian football. There's a complete absence of coverage in English sources online but of course most sources, if they exist, will not even be in the Latin script. Searching for "Милан Јелић" is useless because there's a much more famous Milan Jelić. However "ФК Борац" " Милан Јелић" (FK Borac + Milan Jelic) didn't turn up any obvious hits except for the fact that a football stadium is named after Dr. Milan Jelić (the other guy). A search for "ФК Војводина" " Милан Јелић" (FK Vojvodina + Milan Jelic) also comes up empty. Pichpich (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an advert, no evidence of notability, appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability unverified. There is no indication of significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:GNG, and unless we can confirm that he played for Vojvodina, the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration (album)[edit]

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

Not enough verifiable information. There's just a few iTunes sources which reveal the artist had released some songs but nothing to attribute the songs to a particular album. The songs in the recorded list do not come from reliable sources, there's no confirmed release date and a search of the internet struggles to provide reliable sources for the artist even working on a new album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER - no confirmed release date or track listing. Existing coverage seems minimal; not enough to warrant an individual article at this time, as it does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article should be keep because it talks about mario's new album which is coming soon Rayrayzone (talk)
Delete per nom and Gongshow: No track listing, no release date, and not enough verified information about the album to warrant a stand-alone article. Information about this unreleased album should remain in its section at the artist's article for now. Cliff Smith 02:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~The article may not have no track lising or release date but there's other articles have no track listing or release date either so what's the differents Rayrayzone (talk)

note that other stuff existing is not a valid reason for why this article should be kept. The artist hasn't confirmed a release date, a track listing or any discernable information about the release. I've struck the second "keep" vote from rayrayzone as you've already voted keep once. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note to any watching admin, User:Rayrayzone tried to remove my comment here in this diff. I've restored it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Put down the WP:HAMMER! Zac 15:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the comments above. — Tomica (talk) 16:36, 5 September 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) 02:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Good Real Estate[edit]

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

A speedy on this as A7 (no indication of importance) & G11 (entirely promotional) was contest on the basis that there was at least one good ref for notability. Myself, I consider the two articles to be entirely based on the company's PR, as routine local coverage, and not to show anything that is actually important. I also think with no indication of financial significance in the article, and the refs reporting donations of only $15,000, the importance is so trivial that the article is essentially promotional for the brokerage. I can't see how to rewrite it because I don't think there's anything significant to write about. I think it would be better to have a community decision on this one DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who nom'd it for {{db-corp}} and {{db-spam}} in the first place, and as I (also) don't see a claim of significance/notability. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the grounds of notability. I'm not sure there is much to be done with this article, more than the feasible work that has already been done. There is not enough force from authoritative sources to keep this one afloat. Now, I think the initial claims about Certified B are credible indications of significance (the bar here is low), and I don't agree that this is blatant spam. But still I think it is too soon for this company to have its place in this encyclopedia, and I advocate deletion. Perhaps this can exist another day. NTox · talk 01:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this wasn't at AFD, I would have speedied it as non-notable and promotional in tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is a fantastic idea, but we aren't here to promote this. Aside from that, there's also the fact that this seems to be based in a push to get this going nationwide - in which case, there's hints of WP:LOCAL and WP:TOOSOON. Notability, in short, can be established later, and I think it will, but on account of the Too Soon clause, I'm going with delete. I have no prejudice to recreation if it can establish notability later. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 1 September 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) 02:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Oglesby[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur athlete Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--haven't formed position yet as I skim through some hits during my customary google search . Seemed to garner modest coverage during his playing days as noted [here], [here], and [here]. I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG. I'll continue to look to see if it meets any WP:SPORTS stipulations. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after re-reading through WP:NSPORTS, I see nothing in either the American football section or the college amateur athlete section that moves him past WP:ROUTINE, if he were a quarterback or other significant offensive playmaker, perhaps he'd have established more local coverage, but as a lineman, I see nothing. So unfortunately I would say delete. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON, and coverage has been routine, as noted above. Fails WP:GNG as well on that basis.--Batard0 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few college offensive linemen meet the notability standards for inclusion in Wikipeida. I don't see this subject as an exception. If he makes a pro team and plays, that's a different story.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable former college football lineman who was not selected in the NFL Draft and was released during the NFL preseason after signing as an undrafted free agent. Is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON, and must satisfy the more difficult requirements of WP:GNG. A Google News Archive restricted search for "Josh Oglesby" reveals a total of only 27 articles]. Weirdly, over half of the 27 hits are for an Iowa Hawkeyes basketball player and a Virginia Tech running back of the same name. The remaining coverage for the subject Oglesby varies from truly trivial to routine post-game mentions and transactional coverage. The most substantive coverage of the subject is by his college athletic department, which is not independent of the subject per the requirements for establishing notability under WP:GNG. Google search for "Josh Oglesby" reveals numerous hits but current news and website coverage is of a routine transactional nature covering his signing as an undrafted free agent and subsequent release. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 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.