Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 August 5 August >

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 prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk That Talk: Summer Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Talk That Talk: Summer Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the second time the article is created, the first time it was under the name 2012 Summer Tour. The reason I am nominating the article for deletion is that this isn't a tour. Rihanna official website, Twitter account or third-party sources never labeled this as a tour. This is just a bunch of random concerts on which Rihanna performs to promote Talk That Talk and as like that a certain information can be included in the album page article. For what tour is see further the Loud Tour. — Tomica (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 04:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. It's random events; not a tour. Statυs (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This "tour" is only an invention... VítoR™ Talk That Shit 02:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Who had the useless idea of turning these dates into a tour? This article shouldn't exist. --Agusx12 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I would have gone for a speedy, I really don't know which criterion will apply here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to Talk That Talk. Seems like a series of promotional activities that can added/merged into the promotions section of Talk That Talk rather than having a stand-alone article for itself. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:01, 11 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) TheSpecialUser TSU 14:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Occupy movement protest locations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Occupy movement protest locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Anything useful can be written in prose as if it were an encyclopedia article, such as the parent topic of Occupy movement, where useful information is already discussed in the Occupy movement#Chronology of events section. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:23, 5 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. There seems to be a consensus that these articles are in poor shape, but no consensus about how to deal with that. The delete/merge !voters (primarily) argue that the article is in such poor shape that a deletion would be a better choice than than leaving the article in this state, which is an acceptable argument for deletion. The keep !voters, on the other hand, (primarily) contend that the topic of the article is acceptable based on our list guidelines, and (with one exception) believe that the issues are solvable by regular editing, rather than deletion. In this case, I feel that I would be overstepping my rights to choose which side has the best solution here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tea Party protests, 2009[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Tea Party protests, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm also nominating the 2010 page:

List of Tea Party protests, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing has changed since it was originally nominated in 2009 and it's still covered in maintenance tags. We don't have a list of x protests by any other group on Wikipedia (except for List of Occupy movement protest locations which I have also nominated for deletion) because they aren't encyclopedic. There needs to be a merging of both articles into the main Tea Party movement article and a prose summary of the most notable protests and a description of their occurrence in 2009-2010 added to the Tea Party movement#History section. Otherwise, we're dealing with original research—editors making lists of protests they personally think are notable.Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In the last AFD discussion, the 'keep' decision included the following requirement: "What remains is the need for an improvement effort to better summarize the events and remove the plethora of external links and individual charaterizations that give the impression of POV, linkfarming and OR."
Nobody has stepped up to make these changes, and as is the page is unacceptable. Deletion reasons: WP:Linkfarm, questionable WP:Notability of many items (see also WP:Weight), and protest descriptions that fail WP:NPOV. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect, as suggested by the proposing editor of this AfD. The verified content can be merged to Tea Party movement#History as suggested in a summarized manor, in either prose or an embedded list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is a useful navigational aid. As it currently sits it is a link farm, however, so somebody really does need to go through and get those green links out of the body and into the footnotes where they belong. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN:" A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The Tea Party protests have obviously been discussed as a group by reliable sources. The fact that this article is in abysmal shape is not a reason to delete it. If the shape it's in offends the nominator or other editors here, they should fix it, not try to goad others into fixing it by bringing it to AFD. The fact that most of the items on the list are not in themselves notable is also not a reason for deletion: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" (WP:LISTN again). The fact that there aren't many other lists of protests is a complete red herring and not based in policy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:notable per LISTN. Let's improve this--not delete it--you may not realize it now, but we're looking at a future Featured List. – Lionel (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Could be added to the Tea Party page. 90moredays (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... Especially on political matters (and double especially potentially controversial ones with POV issues), it's not acceptable to indefinitely leave an article in such disarray as it suggests a lack of notability and/or resources. Moreover, anything that hints of a bias POV being left unchecked needs to be handled same way we manage BLPs without sources; they cannot be left standing as they diminish the quality of The Project. That it "feels" useful or is informational is moot. That its parent subject is notable is moot. These things are not in question. Those feeling strongly to keep are open to work on the article until discussion here is concluded and I'd encourage a closing admin to consider this with perhaps a little more weight than usual. Not opposed to the article being restored in the future if someone demonstrated the ability to improve it. I say this with common sense in mind more than pointing to specific policy but will stand that it should be treated as a un- or weakly-sourced BLP would be. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 03:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is a unique source documenting the progress of the Tea Party. It can't be helped to be a little POV because only an insider would go to the trouble of putting it together, but still it would be a valuable starting point to anyone conducting research in the field. Let's face it, nobody is going to fix this list. But this does not mean that it is so problematic. Anyone can see that is was probably put together by a PR person and discount it as such. The fact that we don't have more lists like this one does not mean we should not have them. Imagine if we had something as detalied as this for the anti-globalization and the Vietnam war protest! That would be so cool! →Yaniv256 talk contribs 04:25, 8 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) 23:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Nyuiadzi[edit]

Serge Nyuiadzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As the AfD tag has been repeatedly removed from the article by IP editors, I have semi-protected the article for the duration of this AfD assuming no relistings of course. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article about a footballers that hasn't played in a fully professional league, or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Recreate when he plays in a fully pro league. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:59, 7 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) 20:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761[edit]

Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created in violation of a topic ban. The subject matter is a non-notable, recently published book of revisionist history. Aside from the usual book reviews and PR blurb etc there is nothing to indicate why this book, out of the many thousands published each year, has an encyclopedic significance. It is not written by an academic but rather by one of the many amateur historians of India and is thus unlikely to attract attention from academia in the future. Sitush (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This book on a Indian history topic is written by a retired Indian navy surgeon, the work of an avocation rather than a vocation, and published by a little known press. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the book is reviewed by scholarly or notable periodicals. But, although the author in an interview bemoans the lack of English language books on its topic, the Third Battle of Panipat, there is no English language review of the book, not even in a newspaper, let alone in a periodical. The only review (we are told by Milind01 (talk · contribs) who has lately been editing the page) is in a Marathi language newspaper. I don't understand Marathi, but the review seems like a fairly short one. In other words, the book is not notable enough to make the cut. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Not every book is notable enought to require an encyclopaedia entry. I would expect a book to be by a reputable academic historian before we allowed an article on it. WE might possibly add a further reading note about the book to Third Battle of Panipat. I suspect that this is a historcial subject, where there are various POVs, according to the author's political viewpoint. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not redirect? After all they are cheap. This article can be redirected to Battle of Panipat (1761). (I am gonna do that on almost all AfDs now.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid a redirect is not a solution. A redirect accords notability to non-notable book not only by making it a part of Wikipedia, but also by boosting its rank in Google searches. Wikipedia cannot be complicit in such a commercial linkage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wish every admin thought this way. If interested your comment at Wikipedia_talk:INCINE#Redirected would be good. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain : This is a comment on notability and an argument to retain the entry. The book has an ISBN, has been reviewed by a neutral reviewer in a reputed newspaper[1] and is listed in the Library of Congress USA [2]. The book has 26 pages of References for the events noted in the book and a bibliography[3] that runs to nearly sixty two books. It is therefore a serious work of research on this battle and likely to be referred by academia in the present and the future. In addtion the book has a Index, a glossary, a timeline, genealogies and an introduction to the over 100 characters in the book. It has been included in the long list of the only book award for books published in India - the Economist Crossword Book Award. The second revised edition of the book has been published within one year of the first edition. Deletion is the last resort [[1]] and this does not quite fall in that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milind01 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 July 2012‎
The long list has over a hundred non-fictional English-language books published in India during the last year! Do the remaining (over a 99) books have Wikipedia pages? That newspaper is a Marathi-language newspaper I've already referred to above. Is there a review of the book in an English-language newspaper or periodical? Also, as an editor, who, interestingly, appeared on Wikipedia a week ago, around the time the creator of the article, Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs) was blocked, you are not very credible yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have now removed the statement in the article about the book making the "longlist," because, it turns out, the "longlist," in this case, is simply a list of books that were entered for the prize by the publisher or author. These books have not been read by the judges. See my remarks below.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Milind01, but you are basically reciting stats concerning the format of the book, as once existed in the article. I see no relevance and note in response to your "It is therefore a serious work of research on this battle and likely to be referred by academia in the present and the future." that (a) use in the present is unconfirmed and (b) use in the future falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : The commentator above has raised concerns earlier about this page that are being addressed in subsequent edits/remarks. However as per wiki guidelines (above) commenting on other users (rather than the topic under discussion) can be considered disruptive editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DE. A new user takes time to develop credibility, but that is not a ground to contest his edits. A 'long list' of 100 books in an year in a nation of 1.2 billion is not unacceptable. Over 18000 books in English were published in India in one year (in 2004) [4]. Marathi is an important language in India and the subject of the book is relevant to Marathi media more than any other, which is one reason why a review for an English book may have appeared in a Marathi paper. Each of the other 99 books that may or may not be eligible to be part of wiki have to be considered on a case by case basis if they appear over here.Milind01
Before you wikilawyer your way through adding manifestly false content to Wikipedia, let me suggest that the longlist, in this particular instance, is simply the list of entries received from publishers or authors. It does not involve any pruning or recognition as a result of critical attention of judges. Read the second paragraph here. A total of 329 entries were received. The longlist consists of 137 fictional entries, 104 non-fictional entries, 29 books of translation, and 59 childrens books. Well what is: 137 + 104 + 29 + 59? You guessed it. All it means is that this book was entered for the prize either by its publisher or its author. What is the big deal in that?! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This point may please be withdrawn from the 'Retain' remarks.Milind01 —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. The book doesn't seem to have been reviewed by any source (none of the references are reviews), let alone a reliable one. If and when the book becomes notable, an article can easily be created. --regentspark (comment) 12:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep (see bellow), the Marathi review is reliable (published by Maharashtra Times). I found another substantial review by The Indian Express. The DNA interview is also closely related to the book. I think the subject meets WP:GNG and I can't see any benefits in deleting this kind of verifiable information on historical research in India. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither of those are reviews. There is a huge difference between a review of the quality of material in a book by a regular reviewer or a scholar and a fluff piece that merely interviews the author (this, for example is what a review looks like). And, there is no evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that this book has "verifiable information on historical research". --regentspark (comment) 19:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, this is a valid argument, but it is undisputable that the author and his book have been noted by multiple reliable media, the Times of India labelled Mr Kulkarni as a 'critically acclaimed author'. I can't believe that he is nobody in his country and I presented the evidence, articles by important Indian media (of course, I don't want to compare with Charles Dickens). Perhaps the article could be redirected and refocused on the author. No hard feelings on this, at the AfD, I like to represent 'the other side of the opinion spectrum'. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete (as I voted above) -- the fact that a book has been reviewed does not make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BKCRIT, No. 1, Peter. You are not right. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still speedy delete The book is not notable, not just ordinarily non-notable, but irredeemably non-notable. More than a year after publication it has not been reviewed in any English-language newspaper in India, let alone elsewhere or in an internationally-recognized journal. The characterization of the soft-ball interview with the author in the Indian Express (now a right-wing newspaper in India sympathetic to Hindu nationalistic revisionist views) as a "review," by user:Vejvandick, is blatantly false. No critical judgments are made, no analysis carried out. (The "longlist," as I've already indicated is simply a list of all books entered for the prize by the publisher or author. No big deal in that.) A redirect, too, as I've already indicated, is simply not in the cards. A redirect (to say Third Battle of Panipat), nonetheless, significantly improves a book's Google search rank. Wikipedia cannot be complicit in such commercial handouts to authors. Finally, to give you the scale of the injustice being contemplated by deeming this book worthy of a page, consider this: In the FA India, none of the major histories of India used as references, (see India#References), written by some of the world's best-known historians, has a Wikipedia page of its own. I'll be darned if we will be according that honor to an unknown book written by an unknown amateur historian in a page created by an known tendentious editor in contempt of his very well known topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, gyus, no need to !vote twice. It is not allowed, as far as I know, and could be confusing for the closing admin/editor. Personal disagreements and political POVs of our editors should not be projected to the AfD discussions. The Indian Express may be nationalistic or revisionist or whatever, but it still represents a part of public opinion in India. The fact that the page was created by a 'known tendentious editor' has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. User:Vejvandick??? I hope it is an unintentional mistake. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, it was an inadvertent spelling mistake. Please accept my apologies. My eyesight is no longer what it used to be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irredeemably non-notable?? How do you know that? Are you Nostradamus? :) ... and why the aggressive attitude? I comment at hundreds (maybe thousands) of unrelated AfDs and I have no personal interest here. All I want is to lay all cards on the table and judge subjects carefully. Thanks for respecting that. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be commenting at other AfDs, but your comments here are misleading. Getting a mention in an Indian newspaper, especially a soft-ball social news interview, is not that notable or for that matter reliable both with respect to the author and the book. With the explosion in newspapers in India, especially on the web, this is even more true. There is also an echo chamber effect. A news item published on one site is then repeated (with minimal paraphrasing) on other sites, the work of website administrators, not journalists. In fact, there have been moves afoot on WT:INDIA to not automatically regard Indian newspapers as reliable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know a bit about how today's online news and media work and I share your concerns (especially the echo chamber effect of the so-called independent media). However, the above (and below) mentioned sources are not repeated and have different authors: दिवाकर देशपांडे (Diwakar Deshpande according to G-translator), Kartikeya Ramanathan and Bhagyashree Kulthe. I would agree that this is a borderline case and I wouldn't object deletion, although WP:GNG would allow the existence of the article, at least in my opinion. Fowler, please, do not be offended, but I have the strange feeling that you don't like the content of the book or the opinions of its author. I'm not familiar with the circumstances and the surroundings of this case or with the historical context, but I think our personal dislikes should stay away from AfD. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book has a forward by Ninad Bedekar, another amateur historian (and tour guide, who apparently took the resemblance of his name to the fabled tour guide too seriously)—"executive president" of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a Hindu nationalist organization—whose Wikipedia page too is the handiwork of Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs). Whether or not you are right about my feelings, still, there are many such books published in India every year. Consider in contrast, Burton Stein's History of India. This book, widely used worldwide, doesn't have a Wikipedia page; however, look at its Google books links. Not all links relate to his History of India, but many do, over a thousand in my estimation. We have a situation here where a tendentious editor keeps creating obscure pages of ideological subjects (sometimes in contempt of his topic ban), an editor who has been around, here on Wikipedia, long enough to know how to source on paper (and sometimes disingenuously). I believe in such a situation, we shouldn't accord the page the benefit of the doubt that we would normally do to other new creations; such pages, I believe, should be governed by a Wiki Precautionary principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a book meets the notability criteria, it can be included here, no matter how many books is published in India every year or how many notable books is covered by Wikipedia. The Stein's History of India is certainly more notable than this book and deserves an article here, but the comparison cannot serve as an argument for deletion of another article. I don't know who is User:Yogesh Khandke, but I've noticed that some editors involved in previous (largely negative) interactions with Yogesh Khandke have somehow found this AfD and !voted to delete the page. It is strange, but I don't care too much. I see sources and I ponder if it is possible to compile an article. I'm trying to save any possibly useful and verifiable information. Nothing more and nothing less. I've proposed a solution below. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then let us agree to disagree. In my reckoning, 1) the book has one Marathi language review (the content of which no one knows anything about), 2) there are two English-language interviews with the author (in the Indian Express and DNA) that are sufficiently similar to each other, to not, in my view, qualify as independent sources, and 3) since the author says in one interview, "I have published it through my own company Mula Mutha Publishers," the book is self-published. That level of coverage is not notable either for the book or its author. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Uday Kulkarni or Uday S Kulkarni per the discussion above. The author is the main subject of reliable sources found so far:
The sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are? Can you tell us what the Maharashtra Times review says? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Marathi but it is clear from G-translator that the article discusses the book. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One review isn't sufficient to meet our criteria at either WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (books) (and of course we haven't yet been told what it says. A comment by the author doesn't go to the notability of the book. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  • 1)See General notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability: 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. The article satisfies all the criteria viz. (a) Significant coverage (b) Reliable (c)Sources and they are "not required to be in English." (d) it satisfies the "presumed" clause as the article doesn't violate "what Wikipedia is not" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The book has been described as acclaimed and the author "critically aclaimed" by national Indian newspapers. The book has been reviewed in a Marathi newspaper, Marathi has over 70 million speakers, more than most other languages in the world
  • 2)The book has been discussed one after it has been released, which makes itself notable, its notability is not temporary.
  • 3)There is no need for a English language review to establish notablity, per the notablity criteria as stated above.
  • 4)Notablity is not related to academic acceptance, but general notability.
  • 5)The book was used on Wikipedia as a source, here
  • 6)"Sitush" describes the book as "The subject matter is a non-notable, recently published book of revisionist history." how does he know that the book is "revisionist history", has he read the book? What gives him the right to make this wild speculation, "Revisionist history": The reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. How does the topic ban work against the article? What kind of madness is this? His rant against the book should be ignored.Looks like he wants to settle some personal scores with the editor of the article.
  • 7) Notability is established by numerous references to the book in the media.--sarvajna (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnakar.kulkarni, the entire article section to which you link is unsourced. Even if this book had been used as a source, that would not confer any great status upon it. We should use reliable sources, sure, but this does not mean that because we use them they are be reliable, or indeed notable. The rest of your points appear already to have been dealt with by others above, although you really are scraping the barrel of logic when you say "The book has been reviewed in a Marathi newspaper, Marathi has over 70 million speakers, more than most other languages in the world" - what has one newspaper got to do with the number of Marathi speakers? Do they all read it? And if 56 million people in the UK speak English (the population, approximately) then your 70 million figure is going to be truly dwarfed by the English-speaking populace. I just do not see the relevance. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush you should get your math right, you say that 56 million is greater than 70. I agree that English speaking populace is far greater than Marathi speaking populace if that is what you meant my point was that Marathi is not a language spoken by some small set of people in some remote corner of the world, so a review of the book in a Marathi news paper is noteworthy thing.--sarvajna (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is "sources", plural. Secondly, it depends on the newspaper (and the reviewer). A review in just any American newspaper wouldn't automatically be enough. What can you tell us about the newspaper? About the review? And you still need more than one review. And you need to show the review was independent. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were "sources" present check the history, Maharashtra Times is part of Times of India group that publishes the world's most widely circulated English language newspaper, not sure what makes you feel that the review was independent? --sarvajna (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First let's take the references: ref [2] suggests that the author wrote the book in passing, while quoting him on an unrelated matter, [3] is clearly not a book review or anything that we'd consider significant coverage but more importantly, it doesn't support the statement of "book on Indian history", rather, it supports the author's claim that it's a book "based on history", there's a big difference between the two. There might be a case to treat this as fiction or history, but when we can not even get a reliable source to discuss the topical nature of the book, it clearly fails the significant coverage test. And more importantly, for an English language book, we would and should expect English language reviews. Just like for Marathi or Tamil books we expect their reviews in Marathi or Tamil. The fact that there is extensive coverage and reviews of English language books in The Hindu, ToI, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, etc, should be indication enough on the reception is for such books. Anyone is welcome to go to their local library and check the book reviews section from The Hindu (every Tuesdays) that includes at least five English language new-arrivals a week, and three to five vernacular new-arrivals. —SpacemanSpiff 03:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you are right about the ref [2], but it can be used to show that the author and book got mention, ref [3] is not a review its an interview of the author that gives important details of the book. Please note Wikipedia:Notability states that the sources are not required to be in English.--sarvajna (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that a source is required in English, so please don't misquote me. I have clearly stated that I find it extremely suspect that the only book review for an English language book that we can collectively find, is in Marathi, which directly speaks to the relevance and notability of the book. —SpacemanSpiff 09:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Maharashtra Times is a good source --sarvajna (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comments

See translation of Maharshtra Times review available on my talk page:

  • The review rubbishes Spaceman's imagination regarding whether the book is history or fiction, it is a work of history based on primary historical sources like bakhars
  • It refers to Ninad Bedekar as a history scholar whom Fowler in his characteristic Indo-phobic style calls all kinds of names.
  • It also proves false Fowler's and Sitush's speculation that the "book is revisionist history" they are mis-leading editors here by wanton lies and for attacking living persons.
  • We haven't been able to find an English language review yet, but the Marathi language review is considered good by Wikipedia see wp:GNG, wp:Notability and most important
  • the book passes Wikipedia:BKCRIT#Criteria "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." We have had a review, an interview, and many reports, all in perfectly reliable, non-trivial sources.
  • Spaceman I change my mind about the Mandva reference, it shows that the author and the book are notable enough to be mentioned in an article written one year after the release of the book.
  • Spaceman you are simply wasting time and confusing readers, what do you mean by "here might be a case to treat this as fiction or history, but when we can not even get a reliable source to discuss the topical nature of the book, it clearly fails the significant coverage test"? The article had eight references before they were culled I don't know why?
  • It also passes Wikipedia:BKCRIT#Threshold_standards --sarvajna (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nothing more than bovine excrement. A non-credible reference can not be used to classify something as history, period. If you can not identify reliability or credibility of sources required for an encyclopaedia, you shouldn't be trying to "rubbish" comments here. Just like you can find many sources that attest to Devaneya Pavanar's works as linguistic theory, but that doesn't make it linguistic scholarship, it's still fringe. Of course, that doesn't stop anything from being on Wikipedia, we are apparently more accepting of ridiculousness than our policies allow. A medical doctor is not a historian, neither is a mechanical engineer, unless they are accepted as such by peer reviewed publications. Pseudohistory is quite different from history. —SpacemanSpiff 03:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The book has received fair coverage in media. Three independent newspapers writing about it, reviewing it or interviewing author about the book, is sufficient for WP:GNG. Every book does not have to be Devdas or A Brief History of Time. And as to some editor's views that the book is rubbish and non-credible and what not, let third-party sources call it so. You don't get to decide that. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third party sources? Where are they? I'm afraid a self-published English-language book ostensibly about an Indian history topic by a retired Indian navy surgeon who is still in private medical practice, a work of avocation, with no review yet in any of the hundreds of English-language newspapers in India, and with a forward written by Ninad Bedekar, the "Executive President" of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad a notorious Hindu nationalist organization—who two years ago succeeded with the Maratha-Hindu-nationalist organization, Shiv Sena to have Jame Laine's academic monograph, Shivaji: Hindu king in Islamic India (Oxford University Press) banned in their state, until India's Supreme court lifted the ban, but not before Shiv Sena goons had ransacked the collections of a major research institute in Poona where Laine had worked—seems like POV-pushing of obscure ideological material. With discretionary sanctions now in place in India-related topics, I hope such relentless POV-pushing will not be allowed to stand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did any of the newspapers which wrote about the book share these views of yours? Of how the author and the foreword writer are not notable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers? In the plural? There is only one that discusses the book, but it is written in Marathi. The two English language newspapers mentioned do not constitute independent secondary sources. They have softball interviews with the author, lacking any critical commentary, in which very brief questions are asked and the author then drones on about his grandfather's love of history and the like. That is not a secondary source. It is a primary source, whose author, moreover—the interviewee—is also the author of the book. Besides, the interviews are sufficiently alike to not constitute independent sources. You tell me, where is the "sufficient critical commentary" (required per WP:Notability (books)) in this interview? The interviewer is very careful to say nothing himself (or herself)! Pretty remarkable really. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same with the second English-language interview, which is really the same interview, but not written in a Q&A format. Can you find a single sentence there of critical commentary (by the interviewer or newspaper)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sarvajna has already pointed out that non-English medium of a review is not a valid reason to not consider it. Do you want every editor to point it out to you or will you understand it this time? The subject is related to Maharashtra and hence the review in Marathi language is good enough. Had it been in any Scandinavian language one must consider it. Three newspapers, independent in the sense that they are owned by different companies, decided to write about the book. What they wrote, if it lacked what usual American or Japanese reviewers write, does not matter. The fact that three newspapers decided to print makes it pass WP:GNG. Every book doesn't have to be a Man Booker nominee. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in the case of a book, WP:Notability (books) takes precedence over General Notability Guidelines. It requires "sufficient critical commentary," in the source. Where is the critical commentary in the two English-language interviews? Find me one sentence of critical commentary in either source. That means there is only one source the Marathi language article about which we know nothing about. In the absence of a reliable translation, there is not much we can do with that, and in any case, it wouldn't satisfy "multiple non-trivial published works" required. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm! In few AfDs well-established editors have argued that if GNG passes, other specific notability related guidelines need not pass. Passing GNG means that there are people outside Wiki who care to write about the subject as readers care to read. I sort of agree(/d) with them. I know i can't give examples of other stuff as a reason to keep this article. But i always try to apply uniformity throughout and if something is going in hell or heaven, others also should follow. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in this case, I don't see the article satisfying GNG. We need significant , reliable and independent coverage. Let's take a look at the sources. The TOI source merely mentions that Kulkarni is the author of the book. That is definitely not significant. The DNA source is an interview with the author and quotes his own words. Definitely not independent. The only possible candidate is the Maharashtra Times one and that's in Marathi. Even if it were significant, reliable and independent, the existence of one source doesn't satisfy the "Multiple sources are generally expected" criterion. Perhaps a mention of the book can be included in the author's own page but nothing beyond that. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is DNA's interview not independent? It is not self-publicity, it is not self-published, it is not advertisement, it is not on subject's website, it is not autobiography, it is not press-release. Are you saying it is a press-release for being released from a newspaper press? Same is the case with Indian Express' article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple independent reliable sources disagree with "bovine excrement" coming from Spaceman, so the admin would have to decide whom to trust more "published sources" or SpacemanSpiff. The book is notable as defined by Wikipedia standards, Ninad Bedekar's opinion as a historian as remarked by Fowler seems to have weight when it came to deceiding whether a book could be published or not, which makes him notable enough, and so his foreword does add to the weight of "Solstice..." Is it a Wikipedia policy that those associated with VHP would be blanked out from it? Fowler again trips on facts as usual, he seems to have a weakness for fairy tales which I hope is soon noticed by those in charge, as, an encyclopaedia is about facts, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute was vandalised by the Sambhaji Brigade an anti-Hindu outfit completely distinct and with a political philosophy opposite to the Shiv Sena.[5] Fowler is a menance to building an encyclopaedia, the sooner it is noticed the better. --sarvajna (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider striking out some of your comments above. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and stop wasting community time When a topic has dedicated cheerleaders as we see in this discussion, I believe we're entitled to assume that whatever sources are out there have been lovingly added to the article. Except for the one in a script which my ignorance prevents me from naming, which source I of course can't read, there's nothing, and no matter what the last one says it wouldn't be enough. EEng (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As EEng has eloquently explained, there are plenty of supporters for the topic of the article, yet evidence for WP:N remains elusive. The article fails WP:NBOOK—no multiple independent non-trivial reviews on the subject, no literary award, no significant contribution, not used for education, and non-notable author. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the book fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of in-depth reviews or other significant coverage in reliable independent sources (plural). There have been poor arguments advanced on both sides of this debate. Despite my respect for Sitush and that editor's outstanding work to maintain high standards on articles pertaining to India, there is no requirement that a book be written by an "academic" rather than an "amateur historian" in order to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Books widely considered garbage by serious scholars can be notable and the subject of Wikipedia articles. Chariots of the Gods? is just the first of many examples that come to mind. Mein Kampf also comes to mind, painfully. The test is whether the book has received significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. We have only one review of this book in another language and don't really know what it says. I readily accept coverage in reliable sources in other languages as part of establishing notability, but a single vague source that no one here can yet characterize accurately is insufficient. We have passing mentions in English that don't provide significant coverage and must therefore be disregarded. I endorse the conclusions of EEng and Johnuniq. Let's end this and delete this article. Editors interested in improving our coverage of Indian topics should write articles about those other notable books about India mentioned above that don't yet have Wikipedia articles and should. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Cullen. Based on my experience, I was trying to pre-empt what I thought would be an almost-inevitable argument for retention. And, indeed, someone did raise the point of academic acceptance. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen, sarvajna has provided the translation of that single-vague-source on his talk page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:44, 7 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) Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian football clubs in European competitions[edit]

Hungarian football clubs in European competitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uni-directionally infinite list of sports statistics; seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BenTels (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.  Gongshow Talk 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not infintie or indiscriminate, as it is both finite and discriminate. Obviously notable for a team to compete in a European tornament (see English clubs in European football, for example). Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The way I understand it, the idea behind the list is to list all Hungarian football clubs that participate(d) in any European competitions by year from 1955 onwards until either Hungary ceases to exist or time stops. Hence unidirectionally infinite. Whether or not that is indiscriminate I guess is a point of view. -- BenTels (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same could be said for any list, such as List of Presidents of the United States (at this time, we have no reason to assume that the presidency will be dissolved nor that the United States will cease to exist), so are you saying that we should delete List of Presidents of the United States as well? </facetious> – PeeJay 10:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: No, but then I do not consider List of Presidents of the United States to be indiscriminate; it is an addendum to President of the United States, which has the weight of being a (very) notable topic. This list is tracking a sports statistic. Note that it is not an addendum to an article about a club or anything like that -- it is just a standalone sports statistic listing.
          Please note that I am not objecting to the length of the article. My problem is that it is a sports statistic, which to me seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- BenTels (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • But this article isn't indiscriminate at all. Teams have to qualify to take part in European competition. Granted, they do this every year, but it's still not easy to become one of the top teams in any country and thereby qualify for continental competition. – PeeJay 15:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • And if the article were about a specific team, I'd say such a list would be a fair addition as a listing of their achievements. But it isn't. This list (and let's be honest, this is not an article but a list pretending to be an article) is just a tracking of a sports statistic, nothing more. It's not part of a notable topic, it isn't a notable topic itself, it's just a sports statistic listing. -- BenTels (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator's rationale for deleting this article is invalid. The article definitely needs improving in terms of format, layout and sourcing, but it is not deletable. – PeeJay 10:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs improving, not deleting - the English equivalent article is a good format to copy. GiantSnowman 11:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - invalid nomination. This article actually needs improving, especially with format, layout and sourcing. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE as noted above, and I can't find anything wrong with this article except that it needs some improvements. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator's rational is invalid here. It needs a lot of work, especially sourcing and format, but that is really not an issue. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:58, 10 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) TheSpecialUser TSU 14:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Dubourdieu[edit]

Denis Dubourdieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a businessman and professor of oenology who does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:ACADEMIC, criterion 5 (named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" or equivalent at a major institution of higher education and research). Head of a multi-disciplinary center at the University of Bordeaux where academics and experts from 2 French national institutes work together to advance the state-of-the-art in viticulture and oenology. Tthaas (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess you're not familiar with the French academic system: French public universities don't have "named chairs" or "distinguished professors"... And an IFR is just a loose collaboration between local institutes that have some interests in common, to set up some shared platforms or organize a seminar series. It's not a "physical entity", so to say. Being director of one of those is not a huge deal and certainly does not come close to satisfying PROF#5. And the fact that there are people from different universities/national institutes working at the institutes that are part of the IFR is nothing exceptional either, this is the rule in France (my own institute has people from 2 different Bordeaux universities, CNRS, and INSERM...). I'm not saying Dubourdieu is not notable, just saying that the things you list don't imply notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:24, 4 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. Without prejudice towards the future creation of the type of article Stuart mentions below. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign policy think tanks[edit]

Foreign policy think tanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be an attempt at a list of foreign policy think tanks in the world; seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BenTels (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a place for a list of Foreign policy think thanks, either those found to be notable (see Category:Foreign_policy_and_strategy_think_tanks) or those a recognised acceditation of some sane type. There is no place for this random list and it would be more work to change this list into either of the others than to just delete it and start again. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 5 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 to delete following relisting; also a likely hoax. The Bushranger One ping only 23:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles David Parent[edit]

Charles David Parent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage of this person in multiple reliable sources per WP:N, or any independent verification that he is the only registered master tattoo artist in Canada. Was originally BLP-prodded, but the tag was removed although the article had no reliable sources mentioning him. ... discospinster talk 20:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only Charles David Parent from WP:RS is someone who pled guilty in a Canadian court for fraud here of over $5,000. Its not this person. --Artene50 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 July 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) 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The SPA involved in the article has presumably added all helpful sources i.e. zero of them. Can one of you AfD adepts also nominate List of tattoo artists? I never can get the templates and links right. EEng (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, there are no reliable sources provided and a search reveals nothing at all. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as the "Canadian Federation of Body Art Professionals" and Mr. Parent himself may well have created the "British Columbia Body Art Association" -- at least, he is its current president and I can find no evidence that it existed before 2010, and that only by the copyright date of the website. One of the claims in the article, that he "authored" an Act before the BC legislature, is … I'll say remarkably unlikely. The BC government's website makes no mention of the "Body Art Act" and I found no evidence that it is "before" the legislature. Legislation before the British Columbia legislature is drafted by government workers at the request of the party in power, like other North American jurisdictions. Ubelowme U Me 16:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work -- I guessed as much but didn't have the energy to follow up. It always amazes me how certain kinds of people think they can wander into a situation (in this case Wikipedia) and just assume they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Did Parent really think no one would notice? Why do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? EEng (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to figure out just who determines what a "registered" Master Tattoo Artist is, but there are at least two other people claiming that status in Canada if you leave out the word "registered". It also seems likely to me that the list of shops in various locations is merely a coincidence in names since the various websites for other tattoo shops with names like "Mad Tatter" don't mention Mr. Parent's name. There is no record on the cited university's website of Mr. Parent's name, let alone his having graduated with the degrees cited, but I can't say that that is definitive; I was unable to find a comprehensive list of alumni. After all this, though, I am prepared to believe that the news story about the fraudster cited above here is more than a coincidence in names; both individuals live in Surrey, B.C. Ubelowme U Me 03:35, 6 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) 15:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Venganza del Otro[edit]

La Venganza del Otro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, possibly non-existent TV show; article originally created as part of a pattern of spamming for TV shows allegedly being made in the U.S. for Honduran television, by accounts with the same names as the shows, but editing each other (so to speak). None of them is sourced in any way. Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find reliable sources which verify the existence of this putative program. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:15, 4 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) 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lamborghini. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lamborghini Madura[edit]

Lamborghini Madura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N because the article is stitched together from a handful of brief news roundup and blog mentions. Many of the sources are just regurgitation of each other, for example, Car and Driver is just a rehash of Popular Science which is just a rehash Car Advice. PopSci is the longest of these short blurbs, at a mere 255 words. The standard for WP:N is sustained, in-depth coverage of the subject, not WP:ROUTINE mention based on press releases and rumor. The article also violates WP:CRYSTAL, which says "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." The convention for WikiProject Automobiles, WP:WPAC, says, "If an article is created about a speculative vehicle, it is to be either deleted or redirected to an article whose subject is most relevant to the redirect's subject." Note that the renderings of this speculative car show blacked out windows because the interior is only hypothetical, and they aren't even sure if it's going to be 10 or 12 cylinders, meaning no actual engineering work has been done, and they aren't sure if they will maybe make this four or five years in the future. Note that not all concept cars necessarily fail notability, but this one does. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per proposer's argument. The Madura also doesn't seem to have been shown anywhere; it probably doesn't exist outside of a computer at a Munich university. I would support the deletion of Lamborghini Ankonian as well, for similar reasons. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - As this seems nothing more than a proposal, not even a serious concept, I'm not quite desirous as this should be kept. That said, though, perhaps Lamborghini should gain a "#Concept_cars" section for simple mentions of things like this, allowing redirects which will (a) allow for the information to be retained in a suitable fashion, and (b) avoid future cases where somebody says "oooh, a redlink - I'll fill it!" - The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of agree with this. That way the information from this article isn't lost. It seems to be notable information but its too soon to have an article on its own. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per proposer's argument. This isn't a concept car, just a design study. If it had made it to a motor show, then I would agree to merging a synopsis of this design into a concept cars section in the Lamborghini article, but I am unable to find any ref that suggests a member of the general public has ever seen this car. Warren (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The nominator hasn't left much to say. It seems more like an essay about an amateur design. But given mentions in some sources, I think a redirect is a good option here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lamborghini page. Too soon to have an article of its own but has some notable information in it. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. (CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.) A straight copy-paste of the old article, with a couple of bits removed, but nothing whatever added to address the deletion reasons in the last AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humble Tip[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Humble Tip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article deleted in 2011. This artist does not seem to meet notability guidelines in WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per speedy GNG SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NiftyHost[edit]

NiftyHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company appears to fail the general notability guideline and other basic thresholds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Googling with the search term "niftyhost" on Google Books, Google News, and Google News archives yielded no results. CtP (t • c) 18:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is responsible for hosting hundreds of independent users on its free services, and it's certainly important to them, and that's no small amount of people. The forums have more than 1,200 users with multiple posts, so they must care as well. --Flotwig (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but did you check to make sure that it meets Wikipedia's notability standards? If NiftyHost hasn't been the subject of independent, reliable coverage, then it would not be considered appropriate for it to have its own article on Wikipedia. CtP (t • c) 18:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very widely-covered, you are correct. Many people do use it though which is the reason why it should not be deleted. --Flotwig (talk) 18:11, 4 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) 21:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kohan[edit]

Samuel Kohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Also the article seems more intent at pushing his business practice than at being a real bio. BenTels (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My Google search indicates that this person simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. I was unable to find any significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that this bio satisfies the general notability guidelines. It has (1) “significant coverage”, “reliable”, “sources”, “Independent of the subject”. Specifically, a third party reporter, Carrie Ghose, from the Columbus Business First, verified Samuel Kohan by referring to him as “a Philadelphia-based consultant with Neva Inc” and quoted Samuel Kohan “I’m suspicious that these [hospital and cardiologists relations] will be successful marriages in the long run” in her article http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2011/11/04/independent-minded-cardiologists.html which is about the consequences of the Affordable Health Care law. Considering that a third party reliable news source, Columbus Business First, found Samuel Kohan to be an expert in the Affordable Health Care by naming him and quoting his prediction on the consequences of the law the bio is notable and should not be deleted. --Oceangreenn (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bio needs more information about this person and citations rather than deletion. He does not need to be popular or famous, but notable. He was noted by an independent reporter as a notable expert on healthcare.--BMWcomputer (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My problem with the article as it stands right now (I'm writing this after the article has been edited to remove the semi-advertorial), is that I simply cannot tell whether Kohan is notable or not. Sure, he's been interviewed as a consultant to health care. But the thing is, consultants get interviewed all the time because journalists need another opinion for their article of the time and consultants are always available (guess what I used to do for a living...). And consultants write books about their subject from time to time as well. Based on what I can see right now and what I can pick up in basic searches, I cannot tell whether Kohan is a recognized expert in his field or just one consultant among many. That is not to say that I am absolutely correct -- if someone with a better view of the field knows him to be an expert, then so be it. But I don't see it right now. -- BenTels (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see you point. There are tens of thousands of healthcare consultants, but how many really get named and quoted on business journals as consultants on important national debates? By the way, a consultant is an expert. (definition of consultant: "Experienced professional who provides expert knowledge" businessdictionary.com) It is not clear to me why we are dismissive or find the above referenced news source as insuffficient for notability purposes. How many news papers or online news reference is required to pass the threshold of notability? If this news website names this person as a consultant why can't we accept him as a consultant who has been noted and relied upon on a significant national debate/issue. It appears to me that you may want to see a famous or popular consultant which is not a requirement in here, but notability is. A person who writes a book and gives interviews to reporter(s) as an expert on a subject matter is notable. That is why they interviewed him not the others.--BMWcomputer (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: How many get quoted? Any who happen to be around when a reporter is looking for a quote? Or whichever one gets sent to do the interview when an editor makes a call to a hospital or the consulting firm and asks to talk to someone for a point of view in an upcoming article? It could very well be that the consultant in question is a noted expert, or it could be that he is just one of many who happen to know a bit about the industry -- consulting firms employ both. Also (but this is not really pertinent to this article specifically), don't overestimate consultants -- they can be industry experts, but also people who are just learning (consulting firms have pyramids as well; not every consultant is an actual expert, he can also be a junior). In any case, my point was that it is not immediately obvious to me that this consultant is particularly notable within his industry. And no, I don't agree that writing a book or being interviewed confers notability. WP:ACADEMIC sets a standard of having made a significant contribution to ones field -- I cannot tell whether or not he has. Perhaps he has, perhaps his book is considered a standard text in the field... or maybe not. I just don't know. As for being interviewed, sure, he was interviewed as a consultant in the field. But there are lots. Was he interviewed because he is an enormous expert in his field, or is he just the guy the interviewer happened to get in touch with? I don't know. Again, if someone with a better view of the field says he is notable, then that is perfectly fine with me. But right now I just cannot tell that he is. -- BenTels (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The bizjournals reference is just an in-passing mention, with no useful info on Kohan. I searched the Web of Science for publications, using 1975 as the cutoff date (that still leaves in several articles that are from different persons names "kohan S"). Despite the probable overestimation, I find 33 papers that are cited a grand total of 353 times, none more than 50, with an h-index of 10. Does not meet WP:PROF, nor do I see how this satisfies WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article meets the conditions of WP:BIO. I see it as a general bio that needs more citations for clarification and verification. I don't see it falling under WP:ACADEMIC. However, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources".id. The subject of the article may not be in the Web of Science but that does not mean he is not notable in the world of ideas, and I am not sure if the reference to him in the news article was "trivial". Being an enormous expert can be helpful in notability, but not being enormous does not take away notability. As a doctoral journalism student I have a special interest in the Affordable Care Act and Kohan's prediction of its affects on cardiologists in the United States, as reported, makes him noteworthy.--BMWcomputer (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regarding meeting the conditions of WP:BIO: Samuel Kohan is not the subject of the cited references and google at least does not provide immediately obvious references of which he is the subject. To the best of my knowledge he has not won any awards or honors, although (again) someone else may know better here. And it is, so far, not clear that he has made any historically enduring contribution to his field (once again, someone else might be able to provide better insight). In what way do you feel he meets the criteria set in WP:BIO?
      Regarding being notable despite not being on WoS and so on: you are correct, he may very well in point of actual fact be notable in his field. Not being well-known is not a criterion (lord knows for example Joachim Martin Falbe is not) nor is being mentioned on WoS. But for the purposes of Wikipedia, that notability must be evident from something. An argument of notability based on the fact that you just know he is notable is not sufficient. Think of it this way (as a journalism doctoral student): if someone you had never seen stopped you in the middle of the street and told you that Mitt Romney is ineligible for the presidency because, having been born on Mars, he is not a natural-born citizen, would you run with that story or would you want to have some strong supporting sources first? The same idea applies here. However, there may be a simple way to solve this: you are a journalism doctoral student with an interest in the subject -- you sound exactly like the kind of person with the wherewithal and the knowledge of the field required to come up with better sources regarding Samuel Kohan. -- BenTels (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I agree with your premise as you put it. I didn’t suggest the article is whole. I suggested additional verifications and citations should be considered instead of deletion. As a journalist I tend to respect and give weigh to another journalist’s report rather than relying on search engines. Here a fellow journalist for whatever reason selected this individual for her article. I don’t see her as anyone with a crazy idea approaching me on the street about Mitt Romney, as you described.--BMWcomputer (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Ehhh... Yeah... Just to make sure we don't have another misunderstanding brewing here... I wasn't trying to say that this journalist is bouncing off the walls. The point I was trying to make is that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, everybody has to be able to see what notability is based on. This journalist may have seen something in Kohan, but right now the community cannot see it. -- BenTels (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The "book" he has written appears to be a self-published E-book available for the Kindle or by on-demand printing through LuLu. There are no signs of independent editorial control or fact-checking, and I have been unable to find any published reviews of the book in reliable, independent sources. The book and the blog posts he's written are worthless for establishing notability on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deletion G11, A7 (No indication of importance)--BMWcomputer (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay... That was unexpected... -- BenTels (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. WP:PROF also looks out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some random comments of a non-notable person is all what this article contains. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC (for lack of significant impact on a field as demonstrated by sources) or WP:BIO (for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources). Google News Archive found literally nothing; the article provides a single, one-sentence quote from him in the Columbus Business Journal. (The article made it appear to be two references, but they are one and the same, and I consolidated them.) He also does not meet WP:AUTHOR; he has written a single book which was self-published last month.[6] The article (and the internet itself) is almost completely lacking in biographical detail, but I gather that he is not a physician (although the article leaves one with the impression that he is a cardiologist); he is a medical practice administrator [7] with a consulting practice. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Alex Jones (radio host). The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

InfoWars Nightly News[edit]

InfoWars Nightly News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a television show that does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Very little available on Google in the way of reliable sources (lots of stuff directly linked to the show though). Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place, but I don't see notability right now. BenTels (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK[edit]

Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested on the grounds that it should be taken to AfD for wider discussion - please see here. I don't think that this book is notable - it appears to fail WP:NBOOK due to lack of coverage - and if the community is not minded to delete, I'd happily accept a redirect, as suggested on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 16:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A brief search reveals at least one review[8], suit filed over the book[9][10], and suit settled.[11] It does appear to be mentioned in other conspiracy-related books, however, some of these are self-published and I don't have a good feel for the extent of coverage.[12] Location (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good work by Tokyogirl79 on improving the article. I have removed three of the sources that were redundant with other sources already in the article, but I think there are enough to pass WP:GNG. Location (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. By reading the review, the book provides different standpoints with non biased political ways of presenting the topics, under a non mainstream route of commercial texts. --Opus88888 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how does that make it notable? GiantSnowman 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was difficult looking for sources considering that the hubbub over the book occurred back before the internet was as easily accessible as it is now, but I managed to find and source the article to where it passes notability guidelines. The book has been heavily mentioned in the news and other sources. It's not as widely noticed as many of the other books out there, but it passes. (On a side note, I have to agree with GiantSnowman that we don't keep articles because they provide different viewpoints and/or isn't biased in any way. We have to show that it's notable per Wikipedia's guidelines!)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done Tokyogirl, a classic article save involving some hard work. Now clearly passes notability guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn - indeed, good work on improving the article and evidencing notability. GiantSnowman 13:42, 10 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 02:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Simeski[edit]

Filip Simeski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP of a student claiming to have participated in international olympiads. Looks non-notable. No reliable secondary sources found. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Seems to be an autobiography. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but gently, please. Apparently very talented young person who, perhaps, doesn't understand how his accomplishments fit into the wider scheme of things. I've left him an explanatory note [13] re autobios. EEng (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly case of WP:COI. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:12, 10 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) 20:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swapna Chor[edit]

Swapna Chor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable comic book. Could not find any secondary sources. Anbu121 (talk me) 14:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Unfortunately that's a link to a merchant site that merely shows that the comic exists and is available for sale. I don't think anyone is really arguing that the comic does or doesn't exist, just that it isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. You'd have to show independent and secondary sources that talk about the comic such as a review of the comic in a newspaper. Be aware though, that not all reviews are equal and that reviews on sites like Amazon or blog reviews by non-notable people aren't considered to be sources that show notability. I recommend WP:NBOOK as a guideline for what a comic would need to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With the above being said, I wasn't able to find any independent and reliable sources that show that this newly released comic has any notability. It looks like it was released fairly recently (in 2012 at least) and hasn't received any coverage beyond the merchant site and a few primary sources. I'm open to the idea that sources could exist in Hindi that I was unable to find and if they can be shown to both exist and be reliable, I'm willing to change my mind. I just don't think that there are any, not just yet anyway. This looks to be a smaller title as far as the world of comics go, which unfortunately means that it won't get as much coverage as the bigger and flashier comics go.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete— per Tokyogirl79. I too am sensitive to the possibility that there may be non-English sources; let's see them if so. Also, there could be transliteration problems. However, unless those reasons or others are preventing proper search, I am unable to find independent sources that discuss this comic.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indian media is very nascent. Non-English sources are extremely elusive to find. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject does not have enough sources to boast of an article. Secret of success (talk) 16:46, 5 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 16:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Globe[edit]

Green Globe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they are just trying to spam their site. Not notable. Mesoderm (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The initiative may well be notable but the for-profit company that's implementing it doesn't appear to have caught anyone's attention. It seems as though they'd like to piggyback onto the United Nations and use Wikipedia to advertise, at least as it reads to me. Ubelowme U Me 16:00, 13 July 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) 01:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is written like an advert, and there are no references listed to assert the notability of the company itself.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:57, 11 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) TheSpecialUser TSU 14:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Grinspoon Foundation[edit]

Harold Grinspoon Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization does not seem to meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG. BenTels (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the organization is mentioned extensively in numerous reliable sources including one as prominent as the New York Times Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be an influential charitable organisation with international reach. JFW | T@lk 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability=In-depth coverage in secondary sources. This passes that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the organization's flagship program, PJ Library has recieved extension

coverage by notable journalists and publications. The Harold Grinspoon Organization

and its PJ Library and Grinspoon Institute for Jewish Philanthropy programs have

achieved feature press coverage in such publications as: Boston Globe: "1 Quiet Donor, 2 Million Books" (Feb. 28, 2010)

Chicago Tribune: "Book service delivers Jewish message" (May 07, 2010)


Huffington Post: "Jewish Literacy: PJ Library Delivers 3 Million Books To Children " (June 7, 2012)

New York Times: "Aiming to Spread Judaism One Book at a Time" (June 24, 2011)

San Francisco Chronicle: "PJ Library Sends Kids Jewish-Themed Books" (April 13, 2012)

USA Today: "At Passover and All Year, Creative Jews Update Traditions" (April 18, 2011)

Wall Street Journal: "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704433904576213023080874928.html Aiming to

Sprucing Up Overnight Summer Camps for Children]" (March 21, 2011)

These WP:RS sources qualify the Harold Grinspoon for WP:V.

Wikileeksoup (talk), 10 August 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 10 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 16:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Cavalli[edit]

Molly Cavalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to fail WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. The actress in question has been nominated once in a number of AVN categories, but has not won yet. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. BenTels (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see sourcing that that would demonstrate notability under GNG, just a couple reprinted press releases. Agree that the award nom doesn't meet PORNBIO. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The strongest claim to notability is WP:FILMMAKER and she comes up short there. Her work needs to be acknowledged by more sources than AVN. She fails PORNBIO with just a scene nomination. Also fails GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Society of Automation[edit]

International Society of Automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: The ISA is a notable organization per WP:ORG, with plenty of sources (also under their old name). -- BenTels (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:NONPROFIT, scope of organization is international, size of the organization is large (75 staff; 30-40k members from various sources); age is longish (65+ years). Within standard-setting bodies, I note that its list of standards lists dozens just under "new and notable" and "bestselling" and almost all of them are also ANSI standards. --Lquilter (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Unless you can find a better text to replace it (and I find it hard to believe you will) please do not delete this item. Since 1978 I am a member and leader of this Society. I don't remember ever seen a more adequate article about what ISA is and do. If Wikipedia cares for quality content, deleting this kind of content does not help to improve it's contents or is usefull to it's readers, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.168.127.88 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This organization has existed for over 50 years and still has an active community of members. The because it is often represented by the acronym a Wikipedia article serves to describe the organization to those outside of the engineering and technical arena where it is well know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsneddon (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes both the criteria of WP:NONPROFIT. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Al Kabbani[edit]

Sultan Al Kabbani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Emirati footballer who has played youth internationals, but has not played for a professional club or in a senior FIFA or Olympic international match. Article appears to fail Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, or in the alternative WP:ANYBIO Shirt58 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whilst he has played in the senior UAE squad at the 1996 Asian cup he fails WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the match reports from the Asian Cup, you'll see he didn't play any matches in that tournament. Also, notability extends only as far reliable sources do. If we can't confirm that he's played in a fully pro league, we shouldn't be using as grounds for inclusion, even if we don't know for sure that he hasn't. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you're reasoning got me convinced. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:50, 10 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 procedurally closed without a result. There is evidence of major problems with user conduct surrounding this AfD and the Stephanie Adams article, to the point that the integrity of this AfD discussion has been irreparably compromised. There are also allegations of significant off-wiki misconduct by one or more editors who have participated in this discussion. As such, I am closing this AfD without a result so the entire situation can be investigated. Anyone with evidence concerning off-wiki misconduct by editors on this article or AfD should please forward it to the Arbitration Committee. If editors without any connection, either positive or negative, with the article subject wish to pursue deletion of this article, they can do so later on after the current concerns are resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Below is the previous AfD discussion for reference WP:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams (2nd nomination)

  • Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 Notability is borderline. All Playboy playmates were once considered notable. This is now not the case. The literary career of the subject is questionable with respect to notability. There are no RS that discuss any of the works other than to mention they exist. The subject’s lawsuit with NYCPD isn't notable. The only thing I can see that contributes to notability is the subject is the first playmate to "come out" as a lesbian. Furthermore this article has been a battleground for six years due to the subject’s relentless socking and badgering of WMF volunteer staff to make this article a promotional vanity page. Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep the article." Here are a few reasons why the article should exist some of them as mentioned by Fasttime68 itself.

1) The literary career of the subject is not questionable. All her literary subjects possess valid ISBN numbers. 2) The subject's lawsuit with NYCPD included a large amount of money. 3) First playmate to "come out" as a lesbian. (Not much relevant however against the above two mentioned points)--Editorkabaap (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid argument your keep vote might have is point #3. There are thousands, if not millions of authors that unlike Adams who have actually had people buy and (gasp) read their works that aren’t notable per Wikipedia. And there are thousands if not millions of people who have been involved in legal action. And as you say, point #3 isn’t relevant against the others. So what are we left with?
By "literary subjects" I guess you mean books. As I think I have already pointed out in the talk page, ISBNs do not confer anything to books other than ease of description and location. The most negligible of material can have an ISBN (and some excellent recent books lack an ISBN). -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It annoys the fuck out of me that we are supposed to have a third debate here when some overzealous administrator has excised the previous debate histories from view. Please restore them. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the recreation asserts clear WP:Notability - She has been more than just a playmate - has a publishing company , written book and was involved in a notable legal case- Youreallycan 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the legal case is notable then why have an article on the individual and not on the legal case? Her books don't seem to help towards her notability (and apparently self-published if it is through her own publishing company). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - Until previous debate histories are restored. Notability is not temporary Carrite (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh, the versions are there in the history... Carrite (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'll wheel out some of my prose from the last debate: "Comment - My understanding is that the original page was started by the subject and an edit war ensued over its alleged promotional intent, relating to the subject's website, not her Playboy appearance. During the scuffle 3RR was violated by the subject and the chief critic and both seem to have been issued indefinite blocks as a result. In the meantime, the article took on a life of its own, which caused the subject to become quite irate. That's neither here nor there from my perspective, but there are those who feel WP should accommodate the desires of BLP subjects as best we're able. My point is that Playboy centerfold objects are not inherently notable, that the main case for encyclopedia-worthiness beyond that, relating to purported "First Lesbian Centerfold" status has been belied by her current heterosexual engagement, and that if one disregards these things, one is left with a non-notable blog author who has written a couple non-notable books, failing GNG. The easiest way to clean up what is clearly a festering BLP problem is to blow this biography away — on the basis of principle, not the whims of the subject. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)" — Redirection to the list of Playmates for the appropriate year would also be logical. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will get out of the way to ease consensus. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  WP:N doesn't care about centerfolds, lesbians, or lawsuits.  What WP:N notices is that a topic attracts sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time.  The nomination asserts that "The subject’s lawsuit with NYCPD isn't notable."  This is a confusion, because we are not here to discuss whether the lawsuit should have a standalone article.  What the lawsuit provides is many reliable sources that address the topic in detail, thus the lawsuit contributes to wp:notability.  This topic passes WP:GNG as per the sources already listed in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject, beside being a centerfold, has maintained a successful modeling career, a successful writing career, a successful career as a celebrity, has appeared in a number of films/videos, has appeared at large functions as a speaker, and has an article currently supported by 28 references. She has also made the news through two court cases. Other references are available to further expand the article. Origins and previous history of the article are not relevant to the current discussion of notability. Pkeets (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not we accept your opinion that Adam’s career choices could be defined as successful (and should we care to examine further we would need sources back up that dubious assertion) , it is completely irrelevant to as the notability of the subject. Success or failure doesn’t factor. While I haven’t looked, I would be surprised not to find a number of BLP articles where consensus would agree that the subject had failed utterly at one or all career choices -- but was still notable nonetheless. What is the subject’s notability? According to the lead the subject “… is American model and author. She was the November 1992 Playboy Playmate”. What do the sources say about these aspects? Do they say anything of substance that indicates notability? The one source that actually talks about Adam in any meaningful detail is the one subject that Adam’s sock and meat puppets are trying to suppress. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The kicker in my post above is the inclusion of "celebrity career." Poor career choices tend to increase celebrity. Regardless that you might feel that a celebrity person is unworthy of attention, they remain of interest to the public. That's just the nature of celebrity. Pkeets (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Now if only we can stop this perennial fight over the content of the article itself... Dismas|(talk) 23:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and topic ban Fasttimes68 - This nomination is entirely unnecessary. The article was fairly recently re-written (by me) after a widely-reported lawsuit conclusion, with improved references and expanded information. I'm not sure how much of that remains, since there seems to be a constant low-level war to remove as much information as possible. Fasttimes68 has made off-wiki attacks against the subject of this BLP and continues to be a disruptive presence here. I am quite sure that the difficulties with this article would evaporate if they were topic banned. Enough is enough. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The accusation that I ran an attack site is a flat out lie, which DC has repeated several times without evidence. Put up or shut up time DC. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a lie at all - you wrote an attack article against the subject - I read it myself - its been deleted now but I read it and Delicious Carbuncle is no liar. - Youreallycan 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are both liars then. I never ran an attack site. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Liar liar pants on fire - Youreallycan 04:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calls for a topic ban for Fasttimes68 are not new; we've had them in AN/I archive 717, AN/I archive 744, and AN/I archive 758. As far as I can be bothered to read, these have never been approved. If you want to make the suggestion again, then WP:AN/I might be a more suitable place. But I for one wouldn't be persuaded by a repetition of the old charge (about a blog entry in the past) plus the alleged lack of need for an AfD. ¶ Fasttimes68 continues to be a disruptive presence here. Brusquely telling another editor to look through the talk page archives when these had been "courtesy blanked" (and would be interminable even if restored) was not constructive. And this AfD is annoying, because every AfD is annoying. (Particularly to the [re]creator of the article in question -- even if this recreator actually invited an AfD, whether or not he was muttering "Make my day" as he wrote the invitation.) I see nothing else. ¶ I am quite sure that the difficulties with this article would evaporate if [Fasttimes68] were topic banned. I am not. The history of the article and the talk page shows plenty of Fasttimes68-irrelevant silliness. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some info for those concerned. Mention has been made of past problems in the talk page. This material isn't particularly easy to see, as the talk archive has been "courtesy blanked". However, you can see it here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. WP:AFD starts: Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. The nomination doesn't ask for deletion; it asks for redirection. Undoubtedly a "bold" conversion of this article into a redirect would cause a ton of bricks to fall on the converter. Therefore AfD seems a sensible route: people can argue openly and later can be seen to have done so. Or is it? The last time this was done for this article, the result was The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November. Pretty clear, yet I don't see any sign of agreement having been reached to reverse this when AniMate resuscitated the article (minus its history) for Delicious carbuncle to work on and re-create. No doubt both AniMate and Carbuncle meant well, and I'm not overly upset if the result of one AfD was simply ignored (as it seems). But before people participate in yet another AfD, they might like to know (and I would like to know) whether there's any point in doing so. So: (1) Is this AfD the right place to discussed a proposed conversion into a redirect? (2) If so, and if this AfD is allowed to reach a result, will the result be regarded as meaningful (a change to it requiring DRV or similar), or can it later be overturned by one or two editors who wish to overturn it? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, the article history goes back to 2005, so I'm not sure I understand your "(minus its history)" comment. As for the redirect result, it was redirected. I chose to rewrite the article not because I feel that this is such a vitally important topic, but because redirecting made the problems move to edit wars over inclusion of Adams in list articles. There was a temporary peace, until Fasttimes68 decided to start editing the article and being obstructive on the talk page again. Given all of the astonishingly trivial bios on WP, this one receives far more attention than it deserves, and that attention appears to be motivated by animus toward the subject, not by any serious concerns about what is in the article. Whether or not this ends in a keep, a redirect, or a delete, or is moved to another forum, the fact that Fasttimes68 is the one proposing it is concerning to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article history (bar just two edits that I'm aware of) certainly does exist. I was under the impression that only the latest (pre-AfD) edit was restored to the temporary page in your userspace, that the older edits were restored after your version was moved back to article space, and that you therefore didn't have access to them. I may be wrong about this (I'm not sure how I might check this, but anyway don't much want to do so). I'll assume that I am wrong (for one thing, your memory is likely to be more vivid than mine). Sorry about the mistake. ¶ A look in the current talk page shows that deletion, or an AfD, was something at least contemplated (and not dismissed) by Milowent, Enric Naval, the Rambling Man, and, rather clearly: If someone thinks that notability is still an issue, then they are welcome to start an AfD [...], made on 23 April by some fellow called Delicious carbuncle. The history of the article bears this out: article moved to article space on 21 April; edit summaries till 23 April (for edits by Fasttimes68, but also others) showing concern about the legitimacy of the restored article. Much later (02:58, 4 August), but 11 hours before the AfD was started, Milowent wrote why don't we delete this whole article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the question, one editor can overturn a merge or redirect AfD result, and can do so three days after the AfD is closed.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Christians - Norway.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suffering from caffeine deficiency, but rightly or wrongly it seems to me that one redirect was turned into a different redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, I suggest that you (and other editors) read the discussion at Talk:Stephanie_Adams#April_2012_article_recreation discussion (paying close attention to my comments to Fasttimes68 in April). This was discussed at some length then. When I suggested that someone could start and AfD, I likely meant a good-faith deletion nomination, not Fasttimes68. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article - Although I'm probably not as experienced as some of the other contributors, here is my opinion, for what it's worth. The subject, to me is a notable one. As previously mentioned, she had a celebrity profile as a playboy bunny, which was increased by her coming out as a lesbian, at the time the first in the magazine's history. She subsequently had a high profile law suit against the NYPD that took six years to finish, when to court and that resulted in jury award of damages far in excess of what even her attorney had requested. The details of the case were reported both in the US and in the UK. Her career has also included publishing books, for which reputable sources appear. The literary merits of these would seem to be slightly beside the point (IMHO), as they are just one part of a larger article. In addition, as I mentioned previously, the New Jersey guardianship case does merit inclusion, as it was case linking in to her childhood when her guardian became her ward. As a reader, this struck me as quite interesting and worth reading about. Finally, from reading the comments and some of the history, I get the impression that the motivation of one contributor - Fasttimes68 - seems to be based on the subject of the article, rather than the merits of the material. Fbell74 (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has confirmed they have been paid for their work here: [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just now reverted deletion of the comment by Fbell74 immediately above. The edit summary for its deletion read Undid revision 505836793 by Fbell74 (talk) editor is a paid meatpuppet of indef sock. Fbell74 was not blocked at the time, and was not blocked as of mere seconds ago. If any contributor here appears to be a puppet of a blocked editor, get that user blocked as a puppet before even thinking of deleting the contribution. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[15] I'll file an SPI within 24 hrs. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Good find in "freelancer.com" (a new name to me). But yes, you file your charges (wherever seems most appropriate), they're acted upon by people who are uninvolved here, and then (if the conclusion is damning) somebody may delete the contribution. But this somebody probably shouldn't be you. (In the meantime, provision here of a link to this, with a scrupulously neutral and polite comment, would I think be acceptable.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, and I would suggest to not revert his comment but strike it or collapse it in a box, as these are more proper actions in such cases. Cavarrone (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this comment in the 'Consensus' section but am reposting as it seems appropriate - In reference to my comment, I can only reiterate what I said above [Consensus section], which is that the sources I found supported my comments regarding including the New Jersey guardianship case, the lawsuit against NYPD and her involvement with LGBT issues. The opinions I expressed were my own. If the source material had not be present I would not have made the comments.Fbell74 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Nom is suggesting to redirect, not delete, so this wasn't a valid AfD anyway.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning: certain opinions may be paid for. Here (WebCite) is "Custom Project for Archangelseven - Wikipedia - Stephanie Adams", which (if I understand correctly) is being (or was) undertaken by "fbell74" (a name that also appears both above and here) for "Archangelseven". fbell74 isn't merely adding encyclopedic information; he's also adding opinion. See "Work in Progress | Custom Project Aug 3 2012 20:51:15" within this page (WebCite): We would like to offer you more than the $20 you were due. We only ask that you make one or two comments, if needed, in the talkpage the next coming days. It might not be necessary, but if you can add in the talk page that you feel your edit and addition about the NJ guardianship should remain, that would suffice. Concensus thus far is that it be added, as long as you include that you agree. For the additonal $10, that is all we need. ("Account of archangelseven has been closed"; I hope that the payment is forthcoming.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed BLP violation and personal atackFasttimes68 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make personal attacks about the subject of the article --Guerillero | My Talk 06:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paid to comment -- lol, I'm totally *not* shocked about shenanigans like this around this article. The pattern has been obvious for a long time.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Up here in the northern hemisphere, it's too warm for snow. I'm still undecided. WP:BASIC has been cited above; here's what it sayshowever, WP:BASIC is merely one section within Wikipedia:Notability (people), the start of which says after footnote-stripping: Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. If this is so, then noteworthiness rather than notedness is the key. For SA, the former isn't obvious to me. WP:GNG has also been cited, and this does emphasize notedness. But it also wants detailed coverage, and although much is alluded to for SA, little is available. It seems to me that she's borderline: you could reasonably make a case for an article or a redirect (to the equivalent of a short article). The article has been chronically troublesome, and the very recent evidence of paid edits (see above) does nothing to suggest that those days are past. I'd like to see more open-minded, intelligent commentary before a close. -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) ..... corrected (via strikethrough and underlining) per Cavarrone (below) Hoary (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to correct you, but this is what WP:BASIC says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Nothing more, nothing less. Cavarrone (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are right. Thank you and apologies for my carelessness. Go to the top of that same page, however, and you'll see that it says what I said it says. -- Hoary (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep She is notable and can meat WP:BLP and WP:GNG. She has many works, and a well-known writer that has many books and articles in many websites and journals, she have even a novel and her own publishing company. I guess the exceptional attention her article receives from Wikipedia editors also reflects this --aad_Dira (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 - I came across this AfD after noticing suspicious editing activities by a contributor. However, the only thing that has changed since the previous AfD was that Adams finally won a lawsuit that has been ongoing since 2006. The debate over her very borderline notability and possible COI have already been had in the AfD discussion in late 2011. The WP:IRS about her pre-2006 activities seem very tenuous. To recreate a contentious article based on a WP:ONEEVENT lawsuit seems completely wrong to me. To be honest, it is also churlish to criticise the nominator for bringing this to AfD, since they were told to do this by the article's supporters after trying on several occasions in April 2012 to re-redirect it. Hope that makes sense! Sionk (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why are we doing this again? She has extensive news coverage for various reasons and incidents, with a fair amount of it about her specifically and not because of an incident, such as the Curve Magazine coverage. She passes WP:N, simple as that. SilverserenC 11:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think someone who nominates an article for deletion, while at the same time removing content which may give evidence for the subject's notability, probably should get a block. Cla68 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would of course need more discussion.  I agree that this suggests a wp:battleground attempt to "win".  But another way to look at this is from the viewpoint of consensus–removing material might be considered to be acknowledgment by the nominator that the nomination lacks merit on its own strengths.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that notability is more than established. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Afd is another step in an harassment campaign against the subject. Unfortunately I am away from my computer for th week; but if someone could block fasttimes under BLP sanctions that would be great. If you do block please inform ARBCOM as they are looking into the matter more widely. -Errant (chat!) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article already contains the required significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November. The previous AfD (on which also see these comments from the top) resulted in "redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#November"; and while the subsequent re-creation of the article was well intended it seems unfortunate. ¶ The subject seems to have had two careers and several other claims to notedness. The first career was (is?) modeling. Its peak seems to have been appearance as a "Playmate", which WP no longer regards as sufficient for an article. She certainly appeared elsewhere, and this has been mentioned in RSes. However, I don't think it has ever been discussed. The second career has been that of a writer. Her list of books is impressively long, and again they have been mentioned, but again they don't seem to have been discussed. They're self-published or come from vanity publishers: in itself, not damning, of course, but unlike books from (say) Farrar Straus Giroux or Secker & Warburg, their mere existence is not impressive. How, then, have they been received? I don't see commentary, and not a single book by her is known to Worldcat, so libraries don't seem interested. ¶ Outside her careers, there was some tabloidy excitement about her being lesbian, and then a bit more about her no longer being lesbian; and she's been in lawsuits, the most recent of which went very much in her favor. But these are merely incidental; and indeed it's arguable that the former is unencyclopedic. ¶ I'm willing to believe that I'm missing something. As I look through what's above, I note Silverseren's comment She has extensive news coverage for various reasons and incidents, with a fair amount of it about her specifically and not because of an incident, such as the Curve Magazine coverage. But as far as I know, the "Curve Magazine coverage" means just this: a short and very humdrum interview. ¶ It may be said that although no item mentioned above is particularly noteworthy, each is a bit noteworthy and they add up to noteworthiness. Fair enough. But reread what was said (and not denied) in the previous AfD about the chronic troublesomeness of this article (just one gem for your delectation). If this were all old, all would be well. But people don't seem to assume this. After the last AfD, OTRS trouble wasn't merely expected but actually anticipated. And bizarre practices continue: just three days ago, "Archangelseven" was offering cash for the insertion of opinion in the article's talk page: see "Work in Progress | Custom Project Aug 3 2012 20:51:15" within this page (WebCite). -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: My primary purpose of this vote! is because the subject or people affiliated with her have edited this article time and time again over the years to make it look better, and some other folks try to put in other sketchy stuff. Its just not worthwhile to overturn the result of the last AfD, in my view.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG is unquestionably met based on the reliable and independent sources (all 28 0fthem). I can see from this discussion that there are issues with NPOV from some editors who appear to simply want to get this article deleted or add information that is negative towards Ms. Adams. This is simply an abuse of Wikipedia and the reason why it can be difficult to edit articles (as they cause them to get "fully protected"). I would definitely recommend a topic ban unless someone else already has --‎Jetijonez Fire! 15:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no longer any delete votes as Carrite has struck out his vote. As such this is now an obvious speedy keep.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the subject is allegedly paying for keep votes does not concern you?--Milowent • hasspoken 17:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would have some relevance if anyone was actually voting to delete the page. I would also have to assume a lot of bad faith to dismiss every keep vote based on such an allegation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also several 'votes' for re-redirecting. Though it seems the majority are content with resurrecting the article on a pretext... Sionk (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles get recreated all the time after deletion or being redirected at AfD. The current content of the article [16] is much better than at some times in the past, but I worry about it staying that way.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm totally uninvolved in this, so I have no axes to grind or agendas to push, but from everything that has been said so far it seems the subject's notability is well established. Prioryman (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This does not pass WP:GNG. The books are not notable nor make the subject notable. The lawsuit is again nothing special - many people have gotton money following police brutality and the fact of coming out does not hold water - it looks like just another publicity stunt. I think that this article is not only not notable - but down right disruptive. BO | Talk 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing isn't the fault of the article. Pkeets (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West coastal megalopolis[edit]

West coastal megalopolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A simple "Google search" returns no appropriate results. This Megalopolis must be an imaginative one. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Keeley (composer)[edit]

Robert Keeley (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find and significant coverage in any reliable sources. He apparently released only one album Songs, Chimes, & Dances that I was unable to find a single review of. J04n(talk page) 13:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; releasing one album to almost no critical acclaim isn't sufficient to pass NMUSIC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which reach WP:GNG, and I agree there's no claim under WP:NMUSIC. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This composer has not produced any music that can pass the WP:MUSICBIO. Although some of his works could pass notability the article doesn't seem to mention their names/titles. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bagri language. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bawri language[edit]

Bawri language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small scale language, not recognised by the national government of India. Could be considered non notable but not suited for CSD. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 13:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 13:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

espected wikipedian bawri language is spoken by bawri sikhs.these arer considered backward accoding to Indian laws.since this community is illitrate and small thats why this language is not so common.you can find only its details articles related to Sri ganganagar district.as wikipedian it is my duty to put light on this language.later i will add more detail regarding this language.some people have told their language in indian census2012. Shemaroo (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Shoots Children's Centre[edit]

New Shoots Children's Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was dePRODed but the references are manly to primary sources and websites that either do not add to claims of notability, or are not about the subject. Little more than a standard directory entry (advert) and in similar tone, it fails to meet criteria WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two reference relates to the curriculum in New Zealand, and are not specific to this firm's centres, others are either primary to the firm's own website or that of their architect, so not independent, the remainder are directory listings written in the we-voice. None of these amounts to reliable sources providing evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. Mattlore (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Persiraja Banda Aceh. The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suporter Kutaraja Untuk Lantak Laju[edit]

Suporter Kutaraja Untuk Lantak Laju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no references establishing notability of this club of supporters of an Indonesian football club. Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:45, 28 July 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, Rcsprinter (gas) @ 11:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:45, 5 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 02:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belobogism[edit]

Belobogism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-referenced article lacking GHits or GNews hits to support premise. Perhaps a WP:OR based article. reddogsix (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an apparent hoax. Google search on Belobogism shows only 8 results, all from Wiki sites. No reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as this AfD is still new, I have taken the liberty of bundling into it two related articles, by the same author, which clearly stand or fall with the main one. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Book of Belobogism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pierwodnica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Made up stuff that should have been speedy deleted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I couldn't find anything on Belobogism that was independent of wikipedia and 2 items for Pierwodnica, neither of which was in English.~~----
I did find information, though, about mythological Belobog, an article that has been tagged as a copy and paste article, but is constructed better and more coherent.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belobog not belobogism. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY snowball delete. No need help to kook pollute internet with the help of wikipedia mirrors. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreating should reliable sources become available in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Patiala[edit]

Prince of Patiala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. No reliable sources yet on GHits or GNews. In addition, it seems self-promotional, as the career & discography parts of the article have nothing at all to do with the upcoming film and more to do with Maan's career. GregJackP Boomer! 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... it does seem this article was written by a Babbu Maan fan with no real knowledge of what is required for format, style, and sourcing for films. A poster found on a blog site actually contains more information than does the article itself. We have producer Darshan Singh Grewel, choreographer Saroj Kahn, producton studio Ishqpura (Khantmanpur), and most everything else being done by Babbu. What it also states (unverifiably) is the the film will be "hitting cinemas soon".... but what someone has added to the Babbu Maan article is that this is a 2014 film project. Oops. Fails WP:NFF. Until filming begins and can actually be confirmed in reliable sources, this poorly written article is simply TOO SOON. Delete. Start over again in 18 months. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't much reliable coverage at the moment. After maybe two years and when principal photography is completed and more sources cover it, then the article can be recreated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:33, 5 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama–LSU football rivalry[edit]

Alabama–LSU football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is only a rivalry for one school, LSU. Alabama considers its games with Auburn and Tennessee as a much higher priority. Also, this series was mostly one-sided for much of its history, only gaining relevance since 2007 when Nick Saban, who once coached at LSU, took over at Alabama. DavidSteinle (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Alabama–LSU football rivalry[reply]

  • I'm not seeing a strong case made for a rivalry in the article. Beyond the three references all referring to one game in 2007, calling this a rivalry is synthesis. It's not even that easy to find reliable sources discussing "Saban Bowl", with most of the mentions being in amateur articles and blogs. There is CBS sports' mention in 2007, USA Today's mention in 2008, and these two from 2009 [17] and 2011 [18] but I can't tell if they're valid sources or not. Regardless, I see the Saban Bowl as the only real coverage of this so-called rivalry. Perhaps the article ought to be moved there and refactored. BigNate37(T) 15:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is actually enough news articles on Google to pass the WP:GNG (and also WP:NRIVALRY, which directly correlates to GNG). -- Luke (Talk) 20:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I spent a bit longer looking before saying anything further, but I'm still not able to find articles about a rivalry between Alabama and LSU. There are tons of articles that mention all four terms ('Alabama', 'LSU', 'football', and 'rivalry') sprinkled on various pages, but none that I saw discussed a rivalry between those two schools, excepting the stuff I mentioned before that is merely tangential mention of a rivalry, primarily focussing on the Saban Bowl. I guess what I'm saying is do you have some links to back up your claim? BigNate37(T) 21:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quick Google search shows many articles, from Bleacher Report, ESPN, The Times-Picayune, CNN, just to name a few. -- Luke (Talk) 13:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clear keep then. If you have something it's better to link it in the first place rather than assert its existence. I was being genuine when I said I looked twice and found little of value. BigNate37(T) 19:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep series apparently goes back to 1895. Even if current fans today don't consider it a rivalry, its obvious it has been in the past. Notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this AfD only involved the notability of the Alabama–LSU football series, this would be a clear keep and not a close call. However, the consensus policy of WP:CFB is that rivalry articles should only be created for series that are explicitly known as rivalries. Otherwise, content related to well-known college football series that do not satisfy the express "rivalry" requirement is incorporated into team articles and season articles, not spun off as stand-alone articles. (Note that we recently deleted the "Alabama–Florida football rivalry" article for exactly this reason, despite extensive in-depth media coverage.) In this particular case, because the Alabama–LSU series receives annual in-depth coverage nationally, the series has over 100 years of extremely well-documented history, and it has been known as a "rivalry" during several intervals in the past (if not currently) per Paul's comment above, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and well known rivalry. they just played in the National Championship game! ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:29, 9 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.

Miguel A. Sanchez-Rey[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • as the topic under discussion is already speedy deleted the discussion must be closed Seasider91 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 long teng cup[edit]

2012 long teng cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already existed a 2012 Long Teng Cup, this a duplicat!!! Xtian06 (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have put a speedy tag on the article as a duplicate of another article Seasider91 (talk) 14:43, 4 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 to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Andrada[edit]

Esteban Andrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 July 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) 05:03, 4 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 02:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yamadou Keita[edit]

Yamadou Keita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 July 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) 05:03, 4 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) 20:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Ali Tariq[edit]

Nawab Ali Tariq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this author. Language issues may be in play, additional sources welcomed as always. j⚛e deckertalk 03:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have long thought the same. The article itself only really describes philanthropy and social involvement of a fairly modest kind. I certainly respect that selflessness, but am not sure it is notable. Without references it is also impossible to verify. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm generally willing to give the benefit of the doubt on notability if there's enough sourcing, but without the sourcing.... --j⚛e deckertalk 18:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources found to indicate notability per WP:BIO. Besides as claimed by the author of the article, he is son of Nawab Ali Tariq, so there may be some WP:COI. --SMS Talk 13:13, 29 July 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) 05:00, 4 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 02:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa Foundation[edit]

Hermosa Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find sources for this foundation that would amount to WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Till 03:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's covered by Snopes as an urban legend. It also shows up here but that doesn't constitute significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no coverage of this anywhere except for Snopes and other sites that wouldn't show notability. This could probably be deleted under G3.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an urban legend. Wikipedia has many articles on urban legends (see Category:Urban legends). So the question is, does this particular urban legend have enough coverage in reliable sources to merit a page in Wikipedia? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - It doesn't have the significant coverage needed. The only reliable coverage I can find is the Snopes coverage and the book/article that I listed. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can second Whpq's assertion that there's no coverage. The most I found about this that even smacked of being remotely reliable was a news site that reposted the chain letter word for word without verifying anything in the letter or even commenting on it. Even then it wasn't exactly the type of site that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. There's just nothing out there to show that this hoax was ultimately notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does anyone know if Snopes.com is considered to be a reliable source? As far as reporting on urban legends, it may the premier site. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has a couple of discussions which are a bit inconclusive: Archive 25, and Archive 127. My own inclination would be that they are in as much as there is editorial control over the content and transparency in the research. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 8 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. This discussion did not attract a lot of attention, and I feel that most of the arguments were fairly weak. Therefore, I don't think that it would be disruptive to renominate the article. However, since the two keep voters seemed amenable to a merger, I believe that would be a better immediate way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenie Bus[edit]

Greenie Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable bus line in Cleveland. No evidence of notability at all. GrapedApe (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start AfDs that can be resolved with ordinary editing.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to do it yourself, if you believe that such sources exist, which they don't.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has primary sources, and the nomination has made no argument that the edit history needs to be deleted.  The topic is already covered in the encyclopedia, is a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap; so there is no case to delete the redirect.  Nor has the nomination provided any evidence that the topic is not notable, the proof by assertion in the nomination is a logical fallacy.  Nor as per WP:N is it necessary that a notable topic have secondary sources cited in the article.  So what we know is that there is no case for deletion of either the edit history or the redirect; and we don't have any evidence one way or the other as to whether this topic satisfies wp:notability.  None of the remaining options need an AfD discussion.  Editors working on the article can either find sources and add them, or merge, or redirect, or all three.  No time of AfD volunteers or administrators is needed.  And on top of that it appears that the nominator's contributions put more effort into accosting one of the volunteers at the AfD, than into developing an adequate understanding of the topic before presenting it for discussion to the community (for example, there is no refutation of merger as per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE).  And the only source listed in the article is a dead link.  I don't see how a nomination could assert that the topic has no evidence of notability while the only reference in the article remains unmarked as a dead link.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very avant garde view of what WP:GNG and about 9 years of solid project-wide consensus says. -GrapedApe (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two more proofs by assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are all impressed that you took Intro to Logic. But, the burden of proof is on you and anyone !voting for keep to show that the article satisfies WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem arguments are not a substitute for evidence, nor is a hypothesis about an editor's class schedule relevant to a current issue.  Dismissing the force of reason is unreasonable.  Using the editorial "we" is a logical fallacy that is an appeal to the emotion of the bandwagon effect.  WP:TPG says to comment on contributions, not contributors.  Two recent rulings from Arbcom equivalently affirm that contributions should comment on edits, not editors.  WP:BURDEN is a part of WP:V, nor does WP:BURDEN have a direct relation to WP:GNG.  Keep !votes have arguments other than WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep !votes" is an incorrect characterization, as there is only 1 !voter for keep, you, so far.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But since I wasn't referring to the number of !votes in this discussion, a suggestion that I did is a misrepresentation.  As per our article, "A [straw man] is...an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."  The antecedent argument, that keep !voters in this discussion must limit their arguments to "show that the article satisfies WP:GNG", remains without a basis in policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A new logical fallacy is the [argumentum ad numerum] based on a !vote count.  After a week, there are no policy-citing arguments that explain why this topic should be deleted under our policies.  The only opinion after a week to have mentioned a policy opines to return the decision-making for this topic to editorial control.  Indeed, looking at what links here shows that deleting this topic would leave a swath of destruction in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains that there is no need for an AfD discussion here.  These issues, including the issue of non-deletion non-notability, can be handled with ordinary editing.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then, prove your thesis and do it: fix the article to satisfy WP:GNG through ordinary editing..--GrapedApe (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"AfD is not cleanup" is not an argument to !keep.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a non-notable college campus shuttle bus service. Of no possible significance or importance outside of the area of University Circle in Cleveland, Ohio. For goodness' sake, are we going to start writing articles on local shuttle buses? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to find any significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This is from a recently-closed AfD, and seems relevant,

    The result was speedy close. The article merger process for duplicate articles does not involve either AFD or the administrator deletion tool in any way or at any stage. Neither does turning an article into a redirect (or vice versa). This is a mis-use of AFD for something that ordinary editors can enact and discuss on talk pages without any need for administrator involvement or tools. AFD has quite enough traffic as it is, without wasting participant time and effort on things that don't even need a deletion tool at all and that editors can do for themselves. Also note that notability is not addressed solely with deletion nominations, and there are plenty of venues (such as appropriate WikiProjects) for seeking third opinions on disputed mergers without abusing AFD for that purpose. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

    Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's extraordinarily irrelevant to this discussion. Thanks anyway.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The bus service is described in more than one book. The worst case is that we'd merge into a section of a larger article such as University_Circle#Public_Transportation. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Warden (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What books are those, because they're not referenced in the article.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I suggest a merger discussion continue on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Shaima Alawadi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Murder of Shaima Alawadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

it is now several months since the event and the coverage has all died down. We don't report all murders on WP, and this one fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am open to either deletion or merger to an appropriate article. Although there does not appear to be lasting notability, per WP:EFFECT, there is still passing mention of the event in articles such as these: (Muslim-Americans live in fear, frustration by Ali Al-Sadi, Islamophobia, Sikhophobia and Media Profiling by Simran Jeet Singh, and Media Malpractice by Mark Hemingway). In the continuing passing mentions of the event there appears to be a general continued mischaracterization of the event as a hate crime by the majority of the continuing mention of this event. I believe that there is significant coverage of the event, sufficient to pass WP:GNG, however at the same time, I don't believe (as previous stated) that the event passes EFFECT. That being said, this event maybe worth inclusion in a related subject, perhaps in a summarized manor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to appropriate article. After consideration, there is sufficient in-depth coverage (initially) of the event per WP:GNG, however as an event it does not appear to pass WP:EFFECT as no significant coverage regarding the event has been made in the months since the event. Additionally, as stated later in the article, the investigation later showed that it was falsely portrayed as a hate crime. That being said, unless there is a new section created in the article hate crime, which deals specifically about events that are false attributed as hate crimes, than that article does not appear to be an appropriate location for the redirect. Perhaps, the content can be summerized and a paragraph created in the article Islam in the United States#American Muslim life after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The content can read something like:

On March 21, 2012, in El Cajon, California, Shaima Alawadi was murdered, having been beaten to death in her home.[5] Next to her was a note which read "Go back to your country, you terrorist;"[6][7] and her death was compared to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.[8] In April 2012, the investigation of the death by the local police with the assistance from the FBI lead the police to not consider the death a hate crime, due to past events relating to Alawadi's family, which included the talk of divorce and the daughter's refusal to proceed with an arranged marriage.[9][10]

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This source says that there was a world-wide reaction, that "women from all over the world, and from different religions, races, and ethnicities, posted photos of themselves wearing a head cover or a hijab" and "many women around the world decided to wear a hijab for the whole month of April."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that source is reliable; however, even if it isbut does the brief reaction following the Murder of Shaima Alawadi have a lasting effect?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Events don't have to have a lasting effect if the effect of the one-event itself was big enough, like Balloon boy incident.  I haven't looked at this enough to know whether or not WP:EVENT is satisfied.  That article I found should be sufficient to show that the WP:GEOSCOPE was or is worldwide.  I also just now looked at the suggestion from the first AfD to merge to Islamophobic incidents#United States of America.  From what I've seen, that is a good place for this material.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, that does not appear to be a good redirect location, if as stated in the article that the event wasn't an action of Islamophobia than it shouldn't go there. However, it should be preserved in some form. Perhaps to the article regarding El Cajon, California, or elsewhere?
It maybe to soon, given that there has not yet been a finalized outcome of the case. For instance it may end up being a case of Domestic violence or Honor killing, or something else.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you've missed the point that I was seeing, people in the U.S. are well aware that the Oklahoma City bombing had no connection to Islam, yet the bombing is at the top of the list at the Islamophobia paragraph.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, because the event was not connected to Islam it should be removed from that article. Just because there was an error in current content, doesn't give justification for it being there.
If there is a section regarding falsely attributed events than the Oklahoma City federal building bombing and this event should be in such a section, otherwise I don't believe either should be included in the proposed target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I still feel there is enough news to write an article and the hate crime against Muslin women angle makes it notable. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is falsely attributed as a hate crime, as stated later in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG and user Richard-of-Earth great arguments.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was coverage in major media in the week or two following the event (e.g. [19][20][21][22][23][24]), however, I have concerns about WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT since there has been no coverage from similar sources after April. Location (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Ultimate X-Men characters. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magician (comics)[edit]

Magician (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor character, no out-of-universe information. Because there is none noteworthy: all the info at "Fictional character biography" and "Powers and abilities" is the plot of a single story arc using this character. It is not an ongoing character. Cambalachero (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 4 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 02:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MKS (album)[edit]

MKS (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is pretty much a copy of the Mutya Keisha Siobhan article with additional unsourced info about the 'album'. There's no confirmation, release date, track listing, etc. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Till 03:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They've finished the album and it will be released next year. [25][26][27] Unreal7 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Both of which do not account for notability. Till 01:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there even confirmation that's the title of the album? Statυs (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. Till 07:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and WP:NALBUMS. Information about this future album should remain at the artist's article until the title, track listing and release date have all been confirmed. Cliff Smith 18:52, 8 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 02:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Sigma Zeta[edit]

Beta Sigma Zeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable minor fraternity. Fails WP:GNG. Sourced only by WP:SELFPUB. GrapedApe (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any organization whose idea of "Greek" is typing things in using the Windows 3.1 Symbol font (as seen in File:Beta1999.jpg) seems rather unlikely to be any kind of sorority or fraternity in the traditional sense... I've seen versions of File:Beta1999.jpg for over a year, and I still can't tell whether it's a joke, a hoax, or merely terminally clueless. AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor fraternity of 6 chapters will rarely be notable, and there is no indication that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 1 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) 02:22, 4 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devas (band)[edit]

Devas (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources demonstrating notability. And no, a clutch of YouTube videos from the band's account does nothing in that direction. - Biruitorul Talk 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found some external notable sources and added them as well. For my future reference maybe someone can explain or give a link, I'm not sure if is possible somehow to add something from a national TV or radio as reference to Wikipedia as those do not have any online content? I added some youtube recordings for this article as reference but were contested? National Radio and TV are not valid sources for notability at all or should I do it in another manner? Thanks, MarutamTalk 12:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've added a blog post and a commercial sale page, neither of which are reliable sources. I suggest you read WP:RS to find out what kinds of sources are acceptable. Also maybe look around to see what proper band articles use as sources.
  • Regarding TV and radio, we generally rely on published text sources. Those would be most helpful for establishing notability. - Biruitorul Talk 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advices I checked those but is a lot of info to process it immediately, so I will probably need guys like you to correct me further as well while absorbing all that info ...:) I checked again the references that I added and it seems to me that this is not a blog but rather a news source, so please check it again. Here is their statement. I also checked the news sources for Romania on Wikipedia and there is only 1 working source that could give info about a band because the other 2 are one government source and the other one is a broken link. I think that Radar de Media should be added as well as source. Maybe this or this can prove it is not a blog and it should be added as news source?

About the other link, the reason of using it was because the commercial site is the official site of Edward Maya's recording company and it just proves the fact that Edward Maya worked together with Devas to produce a song. MarutamTalk 12:47, 17 July 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) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last two references added (Romania Online and Romania libera) are well known newspapers in Romania so these alone should be enough to confer notability. All the other references are not good enough for Wikipedia rules, but for many people those could be as well good references for notability. I think that the page should be kept. (195.189.150.77 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 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) 02:10, 4 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. Although the consensus is that this should not be kept as a stand-alone article, a clear target has not been agreed upon for a redirect, or whether this should be a dab page. I'm closing this as no concensus, but if discussion continues on the article's talk page, I am happy to help implement the consensual decision PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal calendar[edit]

Decimal calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - searching for sources brought up little besides original research; article history shows it apparently was created for original research which was deleted, now it just lists three calendars which have a very tenuous relationship with the subject. PROD was contested on the basis that it's "a reasonable dab page", which it is not. Nike (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete 100% original research for this term: never saw Egyptian calendar or romulus calendar were called "decimal". Google shows several modern proposals for decimal calendars, but they don't seem to be notable enough for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to French Republican Calendar. There are multiple reliable sources that describe the calendar adopted by the French during the French Revolution as a "decimal calendar" (The Discoverers (1985, Random House), Time and Shape of History (2007, Yale University Press), Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life (2012, Yale University Press). However, there are no other decimal calendars, so having an article separate from French Republican Calendar would be pointless.--SGCM (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation. I agree that it is not currently "a reasonable dab page", but it can very easily be converted to one. That seems to be the most useful outcome, rather than deleting the page altogether or redirecting to a single target meaning. --Waldir talk 12:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the Romulus and Egyptian calendars have not been described as decimal calendars by reliable sources. Only the French Revolution calendar has legitimately been labeled as a decimal calendar. A search for "Romulus" and "decimal calendar" on Google books brings up no results.--SGCM (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • convert to a dab or keep. This target needs to be kept around at least for navigating to the French Republican and Roman calendars. VanIsaacWScontribs 03:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who uses this target to navigate there? A redirect should be sufficient. --Nike (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to decimal time would be better than a redirect to French Republican Calendar. Time measurement includes days, months, and years as well as hours and minutes. Redirecting to French Republican Calendar might be confusing for people wanting general information on decimal time schemes (although there are certainly descriptions of the French scheme as a decimal calendar[28]). On the other hand, keeping this article would not the worst thing: there is also a decimal calendar used in some academic/medical contexts developed by J M Tanner[29][30][31]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are several recent proposals for decimal calendars. The question is whether they have got any recognition beyond their authors and friends? WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 30 July 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 02:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to dab—As Colapeninsula says, reliable sources also refer to a "decimal calendar" invented by James Mourilyan Tanner to measure the ages of research subjects, although Tanner himself doesn't seem to have used the phrase in the book they cite it to (I don't have a copy and had to rely on google books snippets to tell me that the phrase "decimal calendar" doesn't appear in the book). This google scholar search ("decimal calendar"+tanner) shows 12 hits (maybe a couple duplicates) where people refer to Tanner's system of measuring age as a "decimal calendar." There is no information on this in Tanner's article, although it seems that there should be. Anyway, this gives at least two reasonable entries for a dab page; the French calendar and this one. A dab page is indicated rather than an article because the French calendar and Tanner's calendar are different kinds of calendars. I think that the scholar search I linked to shows that "decimal calendar" is a plausible search term for at least one thing other than the French revolutionary calendar. I.E. per Colapeninsula's rationale but supporting a different outcome.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put any two words together and you're likely to get some hits, but is that enough to call it notable? It seems pretty obscure to me. --Nike (talk) 07:13, 4 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 01:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Seletskiy[edit]

Vyacheslav Seletskiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice contested PROD. Concerns were Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. and Fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTBALL as having not appeared in a fully professional league. PROD's were contested on the grounds that he has played in a fully pro league. However this is not confirmed by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the source (in Russian) - he played 13 games in the Russian Second Division for FC Dmitrov. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has existed for three years and the only sources about his time at FC Dimitrov appear to be statistics databases like Sportbox.ru. It's questionable whether the Russian third-tier is fully pro, and the article simply doesn't pass the GNG. It's not enough for an article right now. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, 13 games at third level league (though it's a fully-pro league, yes) is not enough to player to be notable (and not enough to pass Ru-Wiki footballers notability rule), but formally he passes WP:NFOOTBALL, though is likely to fail GNG. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, he was a second goalscorer at 2010 Latvian First League. In Virsliga according to Transfermarkt has only 6 games (though in Ru-Wiki top league players, even in not fully-pro leagues, are regarded to be notable). --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - formally passes WP:NFOOTBALL, with 13 matches at the Russian third tier. However, previous deletion discussion have concluded that playing at the third tier in Russia is not enough for notabilty, unless the subject passes WP:GNG - which is not the case here. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – 13 caps in Russia's third level, while they satisfy WP:NFOOTY, are not enough. Fails WP:GNG, which is the prevailing guideline. – Kosm1fent 03:34, 8 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 01:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Shakir (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohammed Shakir (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. A previous afd failed to reach consensus. Keep !voters claimed notability on the grounds that he had played in the Iraqi premier league a supposition not supported by WP:NSPORT, and on the grounds that he had played in the AFC Champions League and in the Olympics, claims that were unsupported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 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 01:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The COPING Project[edit]

The COPING Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no independent sources establishing the notability of this topic. - Biruitorul Talk 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way in which you have rejected the sources above imposes a far stricter and arbitrary standard than is supportable by the guidelines. The sources presented are valid and demonstrate the notability of the subject. Neelix (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all to either (a) the project itself (which is no independent) or (b) it's funding agency (which has a fincanial relationship with it). These are standard independence tests, clearly failed. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:26, 20 July 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) 00:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. This is a source that is completely independent of the project and its funding. So is this, which is not invalidated as a source by calling it an "activist site", and this, which is not a funding request as has been suggested. Here are more valid sources: [38], [39], [40], [41]. This article passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations. Neelix (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[42] doesn't work for me. All of the others mention the organisation by name, but do not "address the subject directly in detail" as is required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still a stretch. Call the Irish Penal Reform Trust what you will, but the fact that they've included a link to COPING as part of a long list of external links is not evidence of significant coverage. This and this are trivial mentions, recording that two beneficiaries of the project one spoke at a forum. This is also trivial, as well as being a blog post. I'm not sure we want to source something to the "Kids Visiting in Prison Newsletter" and anyway, this is not exactly a usable source. This is a press release, which we tend to avoid. The depth of coverage normally required just doesn't seem to be there. - Biruitorul Talk 14:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean that this source doesn't work for you? You haven't presented any reasons against using it. You haven't presented a reason against using this source either, other than that you don't like the name "Kids Visiting in Prison Newsletter". The depth of coverage that you are suggesting we require is beyond what we normally require. Neelix (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "Kids VIP Newsletter" a reliable source? We normally have sources of a rather higher quality and don't have to resort to some unknown charity's PR materials to try and justify an article's existence. - Biruitorul Talk 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kids Visiting in Prison is a registered charity; it is not unknown. These are valid, reliable sources. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Kids Visiting in Prison is a registered charity in no way implies that the "Kids Visiting in Prison Newsletter" is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There is no evidence of editorial oversight or anything that might give one confidence in this entity.
And, yes, Kids VIP is essentially unknown: the Google results speak for themselves. - Biruitorul Talk 17:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of the United Kingdom seems to trust them; I don't see any reason for us to do otherwise. And you're right, the Google results do speak for themselves 900 results looks pretty good to me. Neelix (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a registered charity in no way implies all materials one puts out are in line with WP:RS. And that's hardly an accurate characterization of the Google results: there are actually 34 unique hits, including such eminently reliable venues as Yahoo Answers, Singular City and Hosted by Who. If one performs a search that is actually meaningful — say, of major British newspapers, as I did — then one sees just how insignificant this entity is. - Biruitorul Talk 16:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A newsletter is not a reliable source. Notability and reliable sources are lacking and haven't been discovered. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:35, 28 July 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) 00:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyaar ki Pungi[edit]

Pyaar ki Pungi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indian song from Hindi film that claims no notability. (Just one liner plagiarism concern seems notable. But it already covered in the main film's article Agent Vinod. This fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of success (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying Keep or what? Its not going to be deleted anyways. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:24, 24 July 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 00:54, 28 July 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) 00:07, 4 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 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Deedar Hua[edit]

Tera Deedar Hua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claimed notability of this Hindi song. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 July 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 00:53, 28 July 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) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following three relistings. The Bushranger One ping only 19:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPACE[edit]

NPACE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable nonprofit organization for nursing continuing education. Only sources I can find are passing mentions of the organization as an approved provider of continuing education (one of hundreds in the US) or lists of links to similar organizations. EricEnfermero Howdy! 12:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment – Customized Find sources links below per the search criteria: "Nurse Practitioner Associates for Continuing Education"; it's yielding more results than the search results for the organization's acronym, and there's more source-searching options:
– Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
—Northamerica1000(talk) 13:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Relatively long-lived organization (nursing CE groups didn't get started until the 1970s AFAIK, so this would be among the first), and it publishes a peer-reviewed journal. --Lquilter (talk) 22:53, 28 July 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) 00:06, 4 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barenaked Ladies demo tapes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Barenaked Ladies demo tapes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bunching all their demo tapes into one article does not fix the fact that no secondary sources exist. The only sources here are all primary sources and a dodgy looking discography site. A search for these titles + Barenaked Ladies found only those infernal books that copy wikipedia articles. Last AFD failed to reach consensus, with no arguments from either side dealing in any way with policy, notability or availability of sources — just "Keep, it's notable" and "Delete, it's not notable". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are already other notable sources in this article, including a TV documentary on the band, and a VH1 special. What other sources would you need for the tapes to count as notable? If the previous AFD from a little over a month ago didn't receive a consensus, why would it now? Marqueesigns (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider the documentaries primary sources, since the references are from the band itself. Also, as for the latter, you just answered your own question. I redid it because the last AFD had no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Likely to turn out the same as the first AFD, and my opinion remains teh same so I shall lazily copy it. There is little coverage to establish that the body work encompassing their demo tapes is notable. The lone exception the Yellow Tape (I no longer have my copy alas) which really propelled them on their way to stardom, but that already has an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 23 July 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 00:45, 28 July 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) 00:05, 4 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gai-ob-fang[edit]

Gai-ob-fang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
Advanced search for: 
"Gai-ob-fang"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Advanced search for: 
"ไก่อบฟาง"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prod contested without explanation. No evidence that this chicken dish meets notability criteria. Found a YouTube video and a blog post and that's it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 13. Snotbot  t • c »  13:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem is that one has to search in Thai, not English. Another part of the problem is that there are lots of photographs and incidental mentions, but almost no documentation. Interestingly, the Bing Images search for the name in Thai turned up this. Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:42, 28 July 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) 00:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Beta Epsilon[edit]

Phi Beta Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 00:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 00:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable student club at 1 campus. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but it is a greek organization founded more than 100 years ago. There has to be sources somewhere --Guerillero | My Talk 13:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three listed in the article, but none are really independent. -- Selket Talk 17:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there "has to be sources somewhere", please add them to the article and prove it.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:40, 28 July 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) 00:04, 4 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EcoSim[edit]

EcoSim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At the moment the "sources" are :

  1. Gras, Robin; Devaurs D., Wozniak A., Aspinall A. (2009). "An individual-based evolving predator-prey ecosystem simulation using a Fuzzy Cognitive Map model of behavior". Artificial Life 15 (4): 423-463. DOI:10.1162/artl.2009.Gras.012.
  2. Nathalie, Osbore (November 2, 2011). "Nature by numbers: Simulated ecosystems provide answers to biological questions". International Science Grid this Week.
  3. Mallet, J. (1995). "A species definition for the modern synthesis". Trends in ecology and evolution 10: 294-299.
  4. Scott, Ryan; Gras R. (2012). "Comparing Distance-Based Phylogenetic Tree Construction Methods Using An Individual-Based Ecosystem Simulation, EcoSim". he Thirteenth International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems (Artificial Life 13): 105-110.
  5. Stephen, Fields (August 2, 2011). "New resources speed up ecosystem evolution simulations for computer scientist".
  6. Devaurs, D.; Gras R. (2010). "Species abundance patterns in an ecosystem simulation studied through Fisher’s logseries". Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 18: 100-123.
  7. Golestani, A.; Gras R. (2010). "Regularity analysis of an individual-based ecosystem simulation". Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 20: 043120.
  8. Mashayekhi, M.; Gras R. (2012). "Investigating the Effect of Spatial Distribution and Spatiotemporal Information on Speciation using Individual-Based Ecosystem Simulation". Journal of Computing 2: 98-103.
  9. Golestani, A.; Gras R., Cristescu M. (August 2012). "Speciation with gene flow in a heterogeneous virtual world: can physical obstacles accelerate speciation?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279 (1740): 3055-3064.

Sources #1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 aren't independant as they're all written or co-written by Robin Gras. Source #3 dates back to 1995 and can't therefore be used as EcoSim didn't exist at that time. Source #5 comes from Gras' own university and praises Gras' works but isn't centered on EcoSim itself. Source 2 only rephrases what's already said on Gras' & EcoSim's personal page and doesn't analyses anything. I'd therefore say that  : 1° notability is still to be proven ; 2° there's no sufficient material to write a neutral article. At the moment, it appears to be an original research. It seems like it's a bit to soon for an article on EcoSim on Wikipedia. Koui² (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sources contain high impact factor journals and have therefore gone through an in deep independent peer review process that evaluates the interest, significance and quality of the works presented. These references cover all the material presented in the Wikipedia article, therefore nothing in this material is original research. However, I have added two other references that are review papers on the domain that talk about EcoSim. It should be notice also that most of the others artificial life tool pages presented in Wikipedia contain much fewer or no references at all and they do not seem to have been considered as original researches or having a lack of notability. --Robingras —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The additional two sources (first one added being Mashayekhi, M.; Gras R. (2012). "Investigating the Effect of Spatial Distribution and Spatiotemporal Information on Speciation using Individual-Based Ecosystem Simulation". Journal of Computing 2: 98-103 and the other one being Golestani, A.; Gras R., Cristescu M. (August 2012). "Speciation with gene flow in a heterogeneous virtual world: can physical obstacles accelerate speciation?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279 (1740): 3055-3064) are also primary sources, as they've been written by EcoSim's creator himself. --Koui² (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the two new sources. The two new sources are: "An, Li (2011). Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models. Ecological Modelling 229: 25-36." and "McLane, Adam J.; Christina Semeniukb, Gregory J. McDermida, Danielle J. Marceau (2011). The role of agent-based models in wildlife ecology and management. Ecological Modelling 222: 1544–1556.". None of these papers has been written by someone working in the EcoSim project. Moreover, if you look at to the the Wikipedia policy about Primary Sources, it says: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I would like to know where is the misuse in the EcoSim page as nowhere there is interpretation of the sources. I would like also to know why it should have a difference in the way the EcoSim is treated compared to the other Artificial Life tools pages. --Robingras
Oops, sorry for not taking right new sources into account. So, regarding An, Li (2011) : this isn't a centered source. Concerning McLane et al. (2011), I couldn't access the whole article, but the abstract leads me to the conclusion that it may not be centered either. --Koui² (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strictly followed the definition given for the Secondary Sources in Wikipedia: "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." These two papers are review papers in the field. However could you please also take into account my other comments and answer them. I think I have given all that is recommended by the Wikipedia rules and much more than what is given for other articles. It should be nice also to have the opinion of several other people on the subject. --Robingras —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references meet requirements for establishing notability. They may not be adequate to source a balanced article. We fix unbalanced articles, we don't delete them. --Kvng (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 4 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 to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 19:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Wamp[edit]

Weston Wamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Political candidate notable for only WP:ONEEVENT. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet the criteria for notable politicians. Without that, the article must be judged on basic notability guidelines and there is nothing else to stand on except for being a "candidate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMMadManiac (talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 July 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 00:36, 28 July 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) 00:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:POLITICIAN says "Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", and he is not even a candidate for office yet, just a contender to become a candidate. Nothing else in the article even remotely begins to suggest notability. JamesBWatson (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Machinery Outlook[edit]

Machinery Outlook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long unreferenced article about industry publication with no clear notability Sadads (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 July 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 00:36, 28 July 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) 00:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Sitara[edit]

Roshan Sitara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to be about a non-notable TV series (plus some WP:NOTPLOT as well). BenTels (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 21 July 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 00:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguably appears to meet WP:TVSERIES. Complies with area coverage, fairly widely reported in moderate to considerable detail in tv-related media. Few or no completely independent sources. David_FLXD (Talk) Review me 18:44, 29 July 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) 23:58, 3 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.

Result was redirect to Benzino#Feud with Eminem, sourcing insufficient. Nikthestoned 10:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Benzino Presents: Die Another Day: Flawless Victory[edit]

Benzino Presents: Die Another Day: Flawless Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet guidelines for inclusion. Double checking against WP:BEFORE, could not find any matches through reliable publications using several different search combinations given the lengthy title. YMMV, but the only substantial results I could locate were Wikipedia mirrors. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Zero RS found in my searches. Cavarrone (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; RollingStone & MTV sources found - also reworded the article. Might still need a {{refimprove}} but does now meets GNG. Nikthestoned 12:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please elaborate as to how you feel this "now meets GNG" ? Of the 3 references now listed in the article, one fails to actually mention the subject at hand, while the latter two make passing references to the mix tape. If we were to base this article solely on those three sources there would be nothing to report (any vague commentary regarding Benzino disputes belong within the Benzino article). So please, can you explain in better detail how this article meets even the lowest hurdle for general notability guidelines? I don't believe it does. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:03, 27 July 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 00:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two sources that don't mention the tape do not help it pass GNG. The third is a trivial mention. "Huddy later found himself running alongside former Source magazine co-owner Ray Benzino and appeared on Benzino's 2003 anti-Eminem mixtape Die Another Day: Flawless Victory, as well as his album Arch Nemesis (2005)." is the mention in it's entirety. Does not help either. Tape lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:11, 30 July 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) 23:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slam (American band)[edit]

Slam (American band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A band that does not seem to pass the GNG. While one of the members of the band appears to be notable, this band, that he was briefly in, does not seem to have done anything to gain any notability of its own. From this article, and the very few mentions I found of the band elsewhere (most, if not all, of which are just copies of this article), the band never did anything except for record a few demo tracks. Without any reliable sources, this does not pass WP:NBAND Rorshacma (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps tellingly, the group is not mentioned in Jeff Scott Soto's article. I'm unable to find any significant coverage for this project in online sources; only a few passing mentions such as the one within this statement. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow Talk 08:12, 21 July 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 00:27, 28 July 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) 23:57, 3 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.
  1. ^ दिवाकर देशपांडे (30 July 2011). "पानिपत युद्धावर सूक्ष्म नजर". Maharashtra Times (India times). Retrieved 27 July 2012.
  2. ^ "Solstice at Panipat, 14 January 1761". http://catalog.loc.gov/: Library of Congress, Washington, USA. 2011. Retrieved 27 July 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |location= (help)
  3. ^ "Solstice at Panipat, 14 january 1761". Library of Congress. 2011. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
  4. ^ . Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year. Retrieved 27 July 2012. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ Warikoo, Niraj (March 25, 2012). "Muslim woman from Michigan beaten to death in California home". Detroit Free Press.
  6. ^ "Body of brutally beaten woman to be flown to Iraq". Associated Press. March 26, 2012.
  7. ^ Spagat, Elliot (March 26, 2012). "Chief: No conclusions in Iraqi-American death case". Associated Press.
  8. ^ Tartar, Andre (March 25, 2012). "Tragic Beating Death of Shaima Alawadi Feeds Into Trayvon Martin Race Debate". New York Magazine.
  9. ^ Davis, Kristina (April 4, 2012). "Records hint Iraqi woman's death not a hate crime". San Diego Union-Tribune.
  10. ^ Flaccus, Gillian; Watson, Julie (April 6, 2012). "Court Papers Shed New Light on Iraqi Beating Death". Associated Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_August_4&oldid=1142635865"