Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 January	19 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Xbox console[edit]

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

The article was redirected to Xbox per violation of WP:CRYSTAL as it is speculation and rumor. Indeed there was nothing much mentioned at CES. The name Xbox 720 is also just a speculative name dreamed up by people in the community and not even conformed by Microsoft so it cannot even be said to be a legitimate working title. User:Ryulong reverted it claiming there was enough info out there and that the name was a legitimate use and says it is not covered by WP:CRYSTAL. As one of the authors of the last point in CRYSTAL, it was my intent to specifically cover stuff like this and we chose the wording to help make it so it would cover things like these kind of rumors and speculations. ∞陣内 Jinnai 16:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While creating the AfD, the page was moved.∞陣内 Jinnai

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No argument advanced for deletion, and a merge discussion is ongoing at Talk:Upcoming Xbox console since January 10 (though the article was called Xbox 720 at that moment) — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- So you're saying violations of WP:NOT aren't grounds for deletion? Interesting theory.∞陣内 Jinnai 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of WP:NOT may lead to a variety of outcomes. By your own rationale, a redirect to Xbox was an appropriate outcome for this particular case. That redirect was reverted, and the matter is now being discussed elsewhere (standard WP:BRD). So, is there any reason why the content should be deleted, as opposed to merged and/or redirected? — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you want a speedy close of an AfD on something that appears to violate CRYSTAL. Opposing it is one thing, requesting a speedy closure is another. It was redirected because all of the content violates WP:CRYSTAL: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Now, are you invoking WP:IAR and saying this case is special somehow? If so, then explain your rationale.∞陣内 Jinnai 19:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep is concerned with the form of the AfD and not at all with the content. Unless it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, that an article violates a policy or guideline does not automatically imply that it should be kept or deleted, only that we discuss it, given that editors normally disagree on whether there is such violation. Of the possible outcomes, merging/redirecting is already being discussed (per WP:CRYSTAL, actually) so it would be really inappropriate for us to discuss it here. The only reason to carry on with the AfD at this point would be if deletion of the article history was also necessary — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same rational as the AFD I created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox TEN, which was essentially the same article but with a different media-speculation name. -- ferret (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I would further request any new article that starts with Xbox (and this article) be salted until such time as there is more evidence. These will likely come up again and again and there is a history to support the recreation of these kinds of articles.∞陣内 Jinnai 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xbox 360#Successor & salt - As per WP:CRYSTAL and the two previous AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox TEN & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 720.) Salvidrim! 22:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not forgetting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 3... 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is worth mentioning that the articles discussed in these deletion debates were substantially less-sourced than the current version. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is still a product annoucement with most of the info being based on speculation and rumor and the rest on only tangental info that could still change.∞陣内 Jinnai 20:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this article under the impression that the topic meets GNG. Even though the product has not been officially announced, it has generated significant and reliable coverage. Despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it seems that even if this product was never released, there exists plenty enough coverage to justify an article. However, I understand that this reasoning may not be widely held. Regardless, tidings all! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xbox 360, since this article is speculative and there is no concrete evidence to warrant its existence at this point. The news articles, as reliable as the sources are, are based around speculation and rumors, as well. An alternative, however, would be to create a page for the Xbox series, with a section to re-direct to there for the time being. DarthBotto_talk•cont 05:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since the current name, "Upcoming Xbox console" is a reasonable redirect term, if the article is deleted, the title should redirect to the successor section of the Xbox 360 article. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the same reasons the past ones were deleted. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON, etc. Merge any speculation by reliable sources to a "successor section" in the 360 article, and salt this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per discussion. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 23:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no reliable information available about this console because Microsoft has not made any comments at all about it. "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." - [WP:CRYSTAL] clearly this is just speculation and rumour, no matter what the sources are. Millermk90 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is nothing but vague speculation and therefore violates policy. A redirect would not be helpful. At some point, Microsoft will announce its next console and a proper page can be set up. Until then, any speculation can go on existing pages related to Microsoft's console business. Indrian (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It might not be the best idea to have both this AfD and a RM running concurrently about the same article. Salvidrim! 20:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not clear what has changed about this page since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 3, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 720, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox TEN (other than the title). Without official confirmation of this product, there is ample precedent for deletion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yesterday, IGN (a reliable source) had two articles regarding the next Xbox, based on rumours of it, here and here, saying it'll be six times more powerful than the 360 and that it'll be released in October or November 2013; but making an article based on rumours can be very difficult as it can have contradicting sources, because there was a source that said that the 720 and PS4 will both be announced in E3 2012, while another saying that it won't-SCB '92 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That's why CRYSTAL exists. Yes, there are exceptions, but they generally have substantial history of commentary behind them going back usually a decade or more.∞陣内 Jinnai 18:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly against WP:CRYSTAL. Also, delete as per previous precedents (see Osubuckeyeguy above). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacy H. Hunt[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not LinkedIn! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina University Residence Halls[edit]

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

Appears to be a completely typical series of dormitories. None are landmarks nor have any received historical designations. Not even any interesting architectural details to speak of. But, more importantly, no third party sources, as required by WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines. Nothing but primary sources available. As the nomintor mentions there is no indication of anything historic or architectural that might change that either. RadioFan (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. I can't see how these dorms can be in any way notable or encyclopedic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is a significant architectural history behind the dorms or an imporant historical event happenned here, delete the article. Mad Man American (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to East Carolina University -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confrontation at Concordia[edit]

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

Non-notable film; fails WP:NFILM absent significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. DePRODed with the comment that the Jewish Chronicle review demonstrated notability, but that wouldn't be true (it's still both a NFILM and a GNG fail) even if the Jewish Chronicle had reviewed the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage cited in the article to meet WP:GNG, although the existing version seems quote-heavy. Perhaps a discussion could be had about whether it would be editorially beneficial to merge the articles about both Confrontation at Concordia and its counterpart, Discordia (film) (an article that currently has almost no sources, although I did find a Variety review and a Toronto Star article about that film) into the existing article 2002 Netanyahu protest at Concordia University, adding more detail about both films. In any case, there's clearly sourced information of value in this article that should not be erased (nor its editing history eliminated), so deletion does not seem to me to be appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what in the article you believe to be significant coverage in reliable sources? I see two think tanks (unreliable sources), two primary-source documents (primary sources do not attest notability), a news article about the incident (but not about the film), and a routine-coverage story about a lecture by a professor that included a screening of the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two of references don't work for me. CAMERA isn't to be completely dismissed, but is problematic for all sorts of reasons. Plus the article seems to be more about the controversy surrounding the film than the film itself. On the other hand it was only tagged just before being nominated, so it could easily improve. For this reason I'll hold off offering a keep/delete opinion for a day or two and see what happens. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a couple better refs found Needs work to be more NPOV, shorter lead, and better referenced. Speaking as an inclusionist :-) CarolMooreDC 16:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And if they're not found? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film deals with a controversial and notable incident at a major Canadian university.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

So? The incident has its own article. Christmas is notable, but not every heartwarming direct-to-video Christmas film merits an article because of it. Your comment has absolutely no relation to our notability policy or to any other policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. easily meets both WP:GNG though numerous articles discussing it and the controversy surrounding it, as well as WP:NFLIM as the winner of a "best documentary" award at a notable film festival. I am in the process of adding more references (which are easily found, BTW, and the nominator does not seem to have made an attempt to do so), as well as a addressing some of the other points raised by Carol Moore (shortening lead, NPOV'ing etc...) 71.204.165.25 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me what some of these "numerous articles" are? WP:GNG/WP:N/WP:NFILM require (it's not optional) discussion in reliable sources, not partisan organizations like JCPA and CAMERA, and they require (also not optional) significant coverage (ie. not passing mentions like the Inroads article.) The film festival award also seems questionable since they accept submissions based on what people can pay rather than on quality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of those articles are a lengthy and detailed review in the Toronto Star, Canada's highest-circulation newspaper, by the TS's media critic, (convenience link used in the article:[1]). There's an equally detailed review in the Hamilton Spectator (unfortunately behind a paywall, but snippet available here:[2]). Even if we had nothing else, these two detailed reviews easily meet WP:GNG, as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". But of course, we have much more than these. We have an extremely detailed, scene-by-scene analysis as part of the CBSC's response to several complaints about the film (which again, even by themselves, are indication of notability), we have shorter references to the film in both Inroads and in Academics against Israel and the Jews (ISBN: 9652180572), in the Jewish Channel and on B'nai Brith's web page, and additional mention which are unfortunately dead links at this point, such as this one "Global TV under fire: Concordia conflict documentary heavily biased, students argue", Elise Hugus, June 10, 2003 http://thelink.concordia.ca/news/03/06/10/027212.shtml. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Hamilton Spectator piece is an op-ed by Aaron Mate, who appears in the film, and The Jewish Channel broadcast the film and obviously has an interest in promoting it. Coverage must be reliable, significant, and independent in order to attest notability (the "reliable" requirement also rules out student newspapers, like the Hugus piece - The Link isn't even the main campus paper - and B'nai Brith press releases - and of course the idea that we would even consider admitting JCPA's "Academics against Israel and the Jews" is laughable). The CBSC responses aren't good because they're primary sources, but if you can find a few secondary sources on the controversy (like for Jenin, Jenin), that could be enough. The Toronto Star piece (which I initially mistook for a publication of the site where it's hosted) is admissible, but it isn't enough alone. I also don't think that two sources would demonstrate encyclopedic notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are sadly confused about the difference between "reliable" and "partisan". There's nothing to preclude the latter from also being the former. You also don't seem to understand the meaning of "independent" in the context of establishing notability, for it is clear that both Mate and the JC, are independent of the film's director and producer. That you think it is "laughable" to include a book just because its publisher has a political agenda reinforces my initial suspicion that this is a bad-faith, politically motivated nomination. This suspicion is of course supported by the fact you did not similarly nominate for deletion the Discordia article, about a similar documentary about this same event, which has ZERO references in its article, (an "article" which is all of 42 words long, comprising two sentences), has not won any award, but takes a position more sympathetic to the violent rioters than this movie does. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's nice that you have infinite amounts of time on your hands to go about checking whether or not Wikipedia articles are about notable subjects, but I have not. As I've stated multiple times here and elsewhere, I have the article on "Discordia" open in my browser right now so that hopefully in the next week or so I will have time to look for references. What a silly, childish comment. As for your contention that being unwilling to admit sources with no reputation for fact-checking or editorial oversight is evidence of bad faith, it's lovely that you have your own personal opinions, but WP:RS and WP:V disagree with you. I'm also not sure how you could possibly interpret "independent" (WP:IS) in such a way that it excludes the cast of the film and entities who gain financially from the film. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see WP:CIV. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. SarahStierch (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- See my response to the above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response A similar documentary Discordia has its own Wikipedia page. Do you plan to remove this one too? Also, anti-Israel documentaries, such Jenin, Jenin, have their own Wikipedia pages.
  - BTW, your comments that "not every heartwarming direct-to-video Christmas film merits an article" is both irrelevant and a rather condecending. As for my comment that this film is notable, I was expressing my own opinion (shocking as it may be). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    - You argued that the film was notable because it was about a notable thing. That's not how our notability policy works. Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not personal feelings. As for the other films - I'll have to look for sources and see if they seem to be notable. I already had Discordia open in my browser because it was linked from this page, but hadn't had time to sift through the bad results yet to see if there was anything good; I'll check out Jenin, Jenin too. Not that that has anything to do with whether this film is notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikipedia:Notability (films): "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've pointed out, the film festival where this film won has actually been criticized for accepting submissions based on who can pay the exorbitant entry fee rather than on the quality of the film. It's described as a festival for bottom-feeders who can't get their films screened anywhere else, and apparently there are on average two films to every category so winning isn't any kind of achievement. This is not "major." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless of its questionable practices, NYIIFVF is a signifcant event. The NYIIFVF has operated since 1993, has its own distribution company (ITN Distribution), its own quartely magazine (IFQ, Independent Film Quarterly), and annually receives videos from over a dozen countries. The NYIIFVF has also received press coverage from (among others) CNN, New York Times, LA Times, NY Daily News, Wall Street Journal, and New York Post. Past festivals have included the work of Abel Ferrara, Andy Garcia, Calista Flockhart, Cameron Diaz, Christopher Walken, Daryl Hannah, Guy Pearce, George Clooney, Jennifer Aniston, Matthew Modine, Willem Dafoe etc.[3]. You may be correct that this festivial has too many categories [4], but that alone does not make it irrelevant or insignficant. It may not be the best run film festivial, and there are certainly a number of legitimate criticisms (e.g. [5] [6]) but it is certainly a "major" event, even if it is poorly organized.
    - Also, regarding the "exorbitant entry fee" that supposedly keeps out certain participants, the application form on the festival's website (for 2012 at least), states that the entry fee varies between $80 and $100 per film (and can be as low as $50 if you submit it early). I wouldn't describe a $80-$100 fee as "exorbitant."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    - You also have to pay to enter a film at Cannes [7]. Should we dismiss those awards as well? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm going by third-party reliable sources, not by the festival's promotional website and other materials created by the festival (eg. the call for entries on filmfestivals.com). As for your other claims, the fact that a source is notable doesn't make it reliable. It's true of printed sources and it's true of film festivals. A festival where you are, in essence, paying for an award is not a film festival where winning an award can make you notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, you have to pay to enter at Cannes and no-one could argue that winning the Palme d'Or wouldn't make a film notable. Are we to disregard any competition which charges an entry fee? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You can keep on repeating that strawman argument, but it won't make your argument look any better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question. Here it is again (slightly rephrased). Does the fact that a competition charges an entry fee mean that the awards it gives cannot be used as evidence of notability? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, but since no one is arguing that, you're wasting your time trying to knock it down. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps I misunderstood, but the comment A festival where you are, in essence, paying for an award is not a film festival where winning an award can make you notable makes it sound as though that is exactly what was being argued. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you believe that all films at Cannes or the Venice Film Festival win awards? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was aired multiple times on Global TV, Canada's second national network, has a long review in Toronto Star, and a number of shorter mentions as above. --GRuban (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, one review and "shorter mentions" don't satisfy WP:NFILM, nor does being aired on TV. Please try to read notability guidelines instead of making them up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't get upset, my stating the article should be kept isn't meant as a personal attack on you. Honest. For what it's worth, I have read notability guidelines quite a few times in my years here. And, if fact, that is exactly how they're made, people make them up, usually in deletion discussions, in fact; if enough people do so, consistently enough, other people write them down. They're not handed down on stone tablets from Mount Ararat. If you want the chapter and verse for the existing guideline, though, then I believe one indepth review and multiple shorter mentions do satisfy the Wikipedia:General notability guideline, which you probably know WP:NFILM explicitly defers to. Multiple long reviews would, of course, be nice, but the fact that it was aired multiple times on a national television network makes the difference for me; after all, the point of notability is notice, which that does provide. Again, though, none of this is a personal impugnation. So I'd appreciate the same favor.--GRuban (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry, I didn't take it as a personal attack! :) GNG specifies significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so I don't know why you're citing it in support of the claim that significant coverage in one source is sufficient. Nor does any guideline talk about airing as an indication of notability. An airing of the program would be a primary source, and we need secondary sources that discuss the subject, as GNG clearly states. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gruban. WP should strife to inform people on issues and notability is not affected by the by the documentary being pro or anti-israeli/palestinian or its (lack of) quality. In fact WP can and should inform on the controvery and the issues/problems of the documentary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is, however, affected by the presence or absence of reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, and what we have here is an absence. Contrary to what you're saying, Wikipedia does not cover or need to cover everything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's correct but a somewhat moot point as sources are available. I guess "significant detail" is in the eye of the beholder.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you explain what you believe to be significant detail that others here have contested as significant detail? I see discussion of whether various think tanks are reliable and whether the cast and promoters of the film are to be considered independent sources, but I'm not sure the depth of coverage has been much of a topic of discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with 2002 Netanyahu protest at Concordia University. Despite what some comments suggest, this is not a clear case. I don't think that the sources establish the film as independently notable. If I made a film about 9/11 or the Kennedy Assassination, I couldn't claim that all the coverage of the event made my film notable. On the other hand there is usable content here that I wouldn't want to lose hence my suggestion that this could be part of the article on the protests. I would also be uncomfortable if this article was deleted while Discordia (film) remains- it would look like double standards. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said, I haven't had a chance to check out "Discordia" yet but rest assured if I can't find significant coverage in reliable independent sources then it too will be on the list –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — There are enough reliable sources to pass GNG and WP:NFILM. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are they? The op-ed from the guy who was in the film? The primary sources? "There are sources" is not a particularly helpful comment when none of the sources presented except the Star piece are reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alrewas. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alrewas Arts Festival[edit]

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

This festival exists, but the gnews hits are few and local in nature, and I think it lacks the substantial RS coverage required to pass GNG. Tagged for notability for over 3 years, and for zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alrewas, where it is held. This is often the best solution for local events. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. There is no ref-supported, unchallenged text to consider merging. Might you be thinking of a redirect?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, plenty of time has passed. --Ifnord (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Alrewas per Peterkingiron, as it is a reasonable solution. Per Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above comment -- I'm not quite sure it is in accord with our core verifiability policy, and our merger policy, to merge content that is both unsourced and challenged. Rather, it requires inline citations to be merged. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just mention it, with citations, in the Alrewas article per WikiProject:Cities suggestions. SarahStierch (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are thinking of a redirect? Merge suggests merging text, and all the text here has been challenged and is unreferenced. Per our core verifiability policy, it must now have inline citations or it is subject to deletion. See WP:CHALLENGED, and also the discussion at the wp:merge talkpage.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BlackDown[edit]

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

Delete. Neologism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism for the title, but borderline A10 speedy for the content since we have a main article for the blackout. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be speedied but the ~~CfDs~~ CSDs err too far to the keep position. So we have to waste yet more precious time on AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do categories for discussion have to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I mean't CSD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO; agree with the above users that this term does not appear to be notable. Gongshow ^Talk 00:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brent M. Buckley[edit]

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

An AFD in May was closed with no consensus (but with leave to speedy renominate) because there were no !votes other than the nominator and the article's creator, but notability has still not been established. There are a lot of references listed, but I checked them all out, and they just don't amount to anything like significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Most of them other than his law firm just mention Buckley's name in a list. Delete. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial sources have been added since the first nomination, and the subject still appears to fail WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I disagree with the nomination to delete this entry. Brent M. Buckley meets the notability criteria to have a Wikipedia entry. He is one of the most prominent lawyers in the state of Ohio. As proof of this, he was named one of the Top 50 Lawyers in Cleveland and one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Ohio in December 2011, which establishes his prominence in the law community. I have added citations of this to his entry. Additionally, he was recently elected to the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association Board of Trustees for 2011/2012, which I have also added to the entry. He is on committees and boards for at least 8 major Cleveland institutions, further establishing his pubic prominence. There are citations in his entry that verify this. He is also part of a band that has played at well known establishments such as the House of Blues, Jacobs (Progressive) Field, the Cleveland Masonic Temple, Cleveland Public Auditorium and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. For these reasons, I believe his entry deserves to remain on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Clevelandwriter13 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, failing WP:ANYBIO. --Ifnord (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - person seems to be successful, yet not particularly notable. --Thetrick (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This lawyer is notable - he is a Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association Board Trustee. Does Wikipedia have guidelines about notability of lawyers? - if so I certainly hope Board Trustees of bar associations are automatically nobable. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Most lawyers that are on the board of their bar associations will not be notable. VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundersport (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The long list of references is misleading; they don't establish any notability. Other issues are WP:RESUME and WP:VANITY. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waterdeep (band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? They've got a ton of coverage in the Kansas City Star, Dallas Morning News, Grand Rapids Press, Dayton Daily News christian sites like crosswalk.com etc. The Dallas Morning News had Everyone's Beautiful in their year's best in '99. 86.44.31.8 (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs rewriting. There's plenty of coverage showing up on Google News and a few on Google Books, plus there's a bio at Allmusic. Some of the text here is suspiciously close to the Allmusic bio, so it needs rewriting.--Michig (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG -- which is an alternate route to notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Adar[edit]

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

Lacks substantial coverage in RSs. Zero gnews hits. Zero RS gbooks hits. Zero refs in the article. My understanding is that placing 10th in a version of Pop Idol does not in itself confer notability. Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Winning would have tipped me, maybe even placing, but 10th is a no-brainer. --Ifnord (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. We could debate about whether contest winners deserve articles, but 10th place finishers? No. Not covered in reliable sources to boot. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and foregoing. Couldn't say it better. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newsline Caraga[edit]

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

Hoax Philippine regional television newscast. All of the dates indicated on the articles are inconsistent. WayKurat (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Please note that the contents of Balitang Katalugan were copied from Balitang Amianan, while both Noticia Chavacano and Newsline Caraga were copied from Balitang Bisdak.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 08:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add to this AfD TV Patrol Western Mindanao, which I PRODed before. After searching, I can conclude that the article is a hoax, and as far as I know, the territory covered by this "TV Patrol Western Mindanao" is covered by TV Patrol Chavacano. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoaxes.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, including TV Patrol Western Mindanao, per Lenticel. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calliflower[edit]

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

The company is not notable. I also just did a google search and it came up with 185,000 results with the first few of them being the company itself, the other are just sites, that don't talk about the company or provide references to make it notable. Also currently the article sounds and looks like it is a WP:G11 an unambiguous advertisement. Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find reliable sources establishing the company's notability, and the long feature list in the article makes it look like a WP:G11 to me as well. If someone has reliable sources establishing notability, they should edit the article accordingly. Circumspect (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Forbes and CNet) added to establish notability for firm and founder (Alec Saunders), as well as elimination of all features except for those referencing other articles. Slbedford (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaventure Mizidy[edit]

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

Un-elected politician of a minor party, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr Mizidy is a former presidential candidate of a country, not 'an un-elected politician' to some local council. The sources exist, see this link. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because he was a candidate doesn't make him notable (article states that he got only 1% of the vote!). References prove his existence and candidacy, not his notability. And yes, a candidate is still un-elected! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I repeat: We are talking about a former presidential candidate of a country. Could you imagine an AfD for a candidate in the US presidential election?? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:14, 13 January 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 07:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently he came in 6th place at around 1% in 2002 and 9th place at 0.27% in 2009. Definitely fails notability guidelines.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information about who were the people applying for the post of a head of (any) state in an official election poll is very important for the history and politics of the state, and it should be covered also by a detailed encyclopedic project. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found some coverage of him in the Congolese press online[8][9][10]. I suspect that Congolese news articles are more difficult than, say American papers, to find online. So it looks to me like he receives fairly decent coverage in his country. If we were talking about a candidate who received 1% of the vote in an American presidential election I doubt that there would be any debate about his notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant person, add more citations. Thundersport (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Sandstein 18:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Roux[edit]

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

Has not become notable yet, despite being on a cast album that charted. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable, refs do not establish individual notability for this person. Possible G4 speedy delete. Hairhorn (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been deleted and re-created several times with really heroic efforts by someone probably associated with the subject to promote this individual. Assuming that the consensus is to delete again (it may not be) can we have a permanent block on re-creation this time? (assuming that is in accordance with policy). Philafrenzy (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with a leave for speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeetumoni Kalita[edit]

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

Might fall under WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E AKS (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won an Indian national dance competition. BLP1E does not seem to apply in this case, as he appeared on Indian television numerous times over a period of weeks. Pol430 talk to me 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankan Sen[edit]

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

Might fall under WP:BIO1E and / or WP:BLP1E AKS (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up the article, quietened the tone and removed inappropriate material. What remains is a reasonably-sourced summary of a single event as nom implies. We are not obliged to delete such things - the guidelines ask us to use our judgement on 1E issues. It feels to me as if a merge might be best here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omobono[edit]

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

Won a lot of very minor awards but not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Homobonus as the Italian spelling of his name. No independent notability that I can discern, and non-notable marketing awards don't count for very much. There are a couple of news mentions, e.g. here and here, but these seem to be purely incidental to something else. I notice the company doesn't even rate a mention on the page of Peter Owen-Jones, its co-founder. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Kynes[edit]

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

Article about a pagan author. She appears in various catalogues and online pagan magazines, as do plenty of other writers. No evidence of notability per WP:AUTHOR or even WP:GNG. Why does she need an encyclopaedia article? andy (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said elsewhere, this is a successful published writer, not just someone who "appears in various catalogues and online pagan magazines". Had she had only one book published and it had sunk without trace I might agree about the lack of notability. As it is, she has had 6 published and they are available internationally.Plingsby (talk) 15:03, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a detailed book review of A Year of Ritual on The Wiccan Pagan Times of Sept 26, 2004 - quite critical but says the book's of interest to beginners. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the author reckons that this article can be deleted - see comments here andy (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no argument then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete this article? It contains useful information, is clearly notable and is useful for research. It has been substantially enhanced since the original placement. I do notice a tendency by one of the contributors here to mark huge numbers of new articles for deletion, sometimes even speedy deletion, without any immediate consideration as to value. Plingsby (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, because Andy said you wanted it deleted, so I'm happy to strike my delete; we have 2 reasonable RS, one interview and the author's website, which I'd say was just about enough to show existence and notability. If you can find one more RS that would bring the article home and dry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree but one of those "reliable sources" is simply a catalogue entry. It proves that the books exist but not that the author is notable. IMHO this is very well short of WP:AUTHOR and not even approaching WP:GNG. She may indeed be such a well-known author that she needs her own encyclopaedia article, but I don't see anything even on her publisher's website to make her stand out from the crowd. andy (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, not the catalogue entry, there's one source in the article and one listed above. The cat entry proves ~~nothing and should be removed~~ only that the book has been translated, in fact I'll do it now and copy in the RS above. There are 2 RS, and there are bio facts on the author's website, that's all as I said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Successful author. Reviews, references, meets WP:Author. The Steve 21:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morya (Theosophy)[edit]

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

Article reads like an advert of promoting Theosophy, there are enough Theosophy articles on wikipedia, the concept of "Morya" does not need a separate article, the subject is completey non-notable, it is even non-notable for occultism. Nearly the whole article is taken from four Theosophical books such as from Leadbeater or Creme etc, these books are not notable on this subject, no third party sources at all and from what I can see alot of it is copy and paste?, the sources are all published by the Theosophical society. Also look at the edit history of the article and you will see a large number of anonymous IPS doing mass edits, these IPS obviously have been connected to the Theosophical Society (you can see that by their edits only editing Theosophy articles). The article is also difficult to read, does the average person have a clue even what the article is even about? None of it makes sense. I suggest the article should be deleted or some of the information could be redirected to the main Ascended master article. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can appreciate the nominator's frustration about the state of the article, and the feasibility or not of improvement, the question here is notability. In that context, looking at the one book I have to hand that covers Theosophy (Peter Washington's "Madame Blavatsky's Baboon"), this has a substantial number of index entries confirming Morya's in-universe role - from Blavatsky's first encounter in London/Ramsgate through to the Judge - Olcott disputes. AllyD (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Are we supposed to delete all articles on Christian saints, Greek philosophers, or American civil rights leaders because those topics have "enough" articles? The Theosophical Society shaped an enormous part of the New Age movement, as well as other occult and philosophical schools (eg: Anthroposophy). Morya was (and for Theosophists is) a very big part of what shaped the Society during Blavatsky's time and continues to influence practice. I vote for improvement, not deletion. Delete this and you might as well also rid Wikipedia of Socrates because our only sources on him are from Plato and a handful of other Greeks. - Hidoshi (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One book is not enough to keep this article, can you put up 6 - 10 third party sources which discuss the concept of Morya? Morya in-universe role? Morya does not exist, it is a made up entity of Madame Blavatsky. If the concept of Morya was notable then it would atleast be included in the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology there is no entry for Morya in there and one line is dedicated to Morya which says it came from Blavatskys made up letters and fake hand-writing. The current article is a copy and paste job from three Charles Leadbeater books, and most of it is not properly sourced, a search for Morya online reveals only Theosophical resources. Outside of Theosophy this topic is not notable. Theres not enough reliable references for this article to remain in a separate article. GreenUniverse (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This "being" is also mentioned in Symonds' introduction to Aleister Crowley's Autobiography and a quick Google Books search is turning up this in a book on Steiner, this in a book on esotericism, this in a book on Gurdjieff, this encyclopaedia. The point about it being a "made up entity" is not relevant; were it so, it would imply the biggest-ever bulk AfD on figures from religious books. But notability is distinct from reality. AllyD (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is what you forgot to mention:

1. The book on Steiner by Leviton is not a third party reference, Leviton elsewhere has published support for Theosophy, he is connected to the Theosophical society, see his articles such as 'A Précis of Albio which have been supported by Theosophists such as David Pratt. So in other words a Theosophist.

2. Regarding the Gurdjieff source- "Seymour Ginsburg is active in the Theosophical Society and was president of the Theosophical Society in South Florida for many years. He was a founder of the Gurdjieff Institute of Florida, and has been a student of Theosophy and of Gurdjieff’s teaching for more than twenty-five years." - Another Theosophist note how his books are published by Quest Books a theosophical company Profile for Seymour Ginsburg

3. Rosemary Guiley is an esoteric author and Theosophist, her books are published by the Theosophical Publishing House. See for example her book The encyclopedia of angels (1994). Again a Theosophist.

4. Roger Hutchinson on Aleister Crowley? Here is the source "Two of them, Koot-Hoomi and Morya, revealed themselves to Madame Blavatsky" - That is it. One line in the whole book.

Most paranormal books such as Encyclopedia of the unexplained: magic, occultism and parapsychology mention Morya but only in one sentence. This is not enough to have a massive article on wikipedia on. So far the only sources are Theosophical references, most of which are copy and paste from Leadbeater and Creme. The subject is not notable outside of Theosophy. If morya is to to be mentioned then mention it on a section of the main Theosophy article. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mention pasting of text. That's an important point if so, as any WP:COPYVIO text should be deleted. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -a horrid mess, but I think it can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is not exclusively the domain of an article having multiple sources. Even if various authors were part of the Theosophical Society at one point, some like Helena Roerich split off (re: Agni Yoga) and would be considered, therefore, secondary sources anyway. - Hidoshi (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson King[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Creative[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MK Public Relations[edit]

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

Not notable despite some coverage in local papers. Ranked 70 out of 100 outside London. Article is advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A PR piece by a PR company. Couple of local press mentions don't really imply notability for a company whose raison d'etre is managing media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtellett (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Dtellett. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Napier Partnership Limited[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant coverage cited in the article is the company profile, which is a primary source, and it isn't clear that the league tables are sufficient evidence of notability. A search via Google doesn't find much that could be used in the article - the main sources of information I can find are from its own website and from Marketing Week Marketplace, which seems to consist of press releases and not independent coverage. FeaturesExec also seems to be a press release. Peter E. James (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O Communications[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. Minor trade awards and business reviews don't confer notability automatically. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cornell[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few interviews are available with him, but, I believe he fails WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears the article creator is User:Hollycornell, obviously attached to the subject, so we could toss WP:COI in there as well. SarahStierch (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Taylor (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO (no awards/noms), WP:ENT, and the GNG. Little reliably sourced biographical content. Most GNews/GBooks hits are spurious, since name is common, remaining small fraction are trivial. Not even mentioned in the article on the low-profile reality Playboy TV show she appeared in 2 episodes of. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject did one interview with AVN Insider website and was in a car accident once. Fails GNG for lack of multiple, substantial, published, independent references. Carrite (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also signed with Vivid and was on some Playboy TV show. Enough coverage to pass the GNG for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Morbidthoughts. --Lexusuns (talk) 16:37, 7 January 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 17:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MorbidthoughtsSPNic (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourced to industry websites that amount to PR releases, nothing more. No GNG threshold met. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Enough industry coverage to satisfy GNG for me. Dismas|^(talk) 22:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she passes WP:GNG. --WR Reader (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - porn industry promotional spam. Youreallycan 02:29, 15 January 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable pornographic actress. She fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per morbidthoughts The Steve 21:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karmarama (advertising agency)[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of news hits including The Guardian and lots industry magazines. Havent gone through these with a fine-toothed comb, but certainly not an obvious delete. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 5 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google news search indicates sufficient coverage in WP:RS even excluding articles that are probably press releases or rewrites of press releases. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait, wait, wait... There's been some monkey business going on with this article. Originally an article about a Picturehouse album [11], it was hijacked by User:Johoholt who replaced the existing text with an article about an advertising agency [12] [13]. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article isn't properly linked to this discussion. Can someone fix it? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:12, 17 January 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 January 18. Snotbot t • c » 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the original article was "hijacked", I have split the histories of both articles. This discussion is now about the fate of Karmarama (advertising agency). Furthermore, since this AFD was not transcluded onto any logs, it should not be closed until Jan 26th. (allowing 1 extra day due to the shutdown). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many keeps, but none to refute the nominator's reason for deletion. The "Il Corriere dell'Arte" sources is the best that is provided, and it is not sufficient to remove the image of a non-notable but massively wiki-promoted organisation. The deletion of the Italian Wikipedia article, whil in itself not determining what we should do with it, is telling (indicative that the lack of sources is not due to a language barrier as well). Fram (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMMAGINE&POESIA[edit]

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

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

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

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

I bring this article to AfD with trepidation. I believe that in spite of the appearance of the article, underlying it is a non-notable artistic movement. For example, no serious reviews or other secondary sources are presented in the article, and I cannot find any online. The article has lots of primary and non-independent sources, a case of WP:Bombardment. It also has dozens of article in other Wikipedias, which is consistent with their manifesto being translated into 28 languages (according to the article), a case of WP:Wikibombing (SEO), doubtless by the people involved. The list of related events is impressive-looking, but sources are self-published, blogs, etc. If valid, independent secondary sources can be found, I will withdraw this nomination. Speciate (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've had little to no luck finding quality resources in English for this. It's not even mentioned in any type of notable art website or publication. It does look like most of the resources are Italian, so perhaps someone with Italian knowledge of art can provide their insight. A shame, looks like a lot of work went into that article! SarahStierch (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems well referenced, well worked article...Modernist (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems... Speciate (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the author of the article and I can say that, in spite of what Speciate writes, there are notable references re the Movement: poets and artists of IMMAGINE&POESIA were presented at the International Poetry Festival, organized by Peter Thabit Jones : http://www.peterthabitjones.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:international-poetry-festival-swansea-wales-june-2011 in Swansea, Wales in June 2011. (Peter Thabit Jones - Stanley H. Barkan International Poetry Festival - An Anthology, The Seventh Quarry (Swansea) - Cross-Cultural Communications - New York, June 2011.). At the Dylan Thomas Centre od Swansea (Wales) there is a permanent collection of poems by Aeronwy Thomasd linked to paintings http://immaginepoesia.jimdo.com/about-us/in-the-uk-dylan-thomas-centre/.

Since 2007 the Movement has spread in many different countries with important exhibitions and this is the reason for being on other WP.--Alessandroga80 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither of those links leads to an independent, reliable secondary source. They are in the realm of press releases and in no way establish notability. Speciate (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are already some secondary sources presented in the article like Montecarlo News. Although I believe that this article needs some improvemnts, but deletion is not acceptable. And if you think there should be only popular art movements then you have to delete half of the art movements from Wikipedia including: Intentism, Defastenism, Superstroke and many other art movements. --lapsking (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That "source" you provide is a "comunicato stampa", a press release! Also, on your talk page several months ago, you stated that the sources for this article are no good. Speciate (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Comment: Still I say the article needs improvements, but if an eye has a problem, making it blind won't help, you have to cure it. --lapsking (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Speciate is right when he says: I bring this article to AfD with trepidation. In fact it would be a big mistake to delete this article if encyclopedias and Wikipedia are meant to deal with culture and information. How many articles re contemporary Art Movements would be deleted for the same reasons ? Moreover I don't agree when he says there are no secondary reliable resources: La Stampa, the second national newpaper in Italy, in June published an article about the event Italia150 organized by the Movement [14] and Il Corriere dell'Arte, one of the most important Art Reviews in Italy has already published several articles related to IMMAGINE&POESIA, just to have an example: [15]. Of course if Speciate has decided to delete the article he will not accept these references as he has not accepted the references from the UK: the Dylan Thomas Centre permanent collection of images and poems, organized by the Movement, and the Acts of the International Poetry Festival of Swansea. --Angler45 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not "decided" to delete the article, and you are providing press releases which are not valid sources. Speciate (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SarahStierch says that's a shame, looks like a lot of work went into that article and I agree as I have contributed (like several other editors) to the article for the reason I know the Movement. Why does Speciate have to emphasize "Seems" when Modernist says: Seems well referenced, well worked article... ? The article is well referenced and well worked.

Articles on independent newpapers are considered press releases by Speciate, but in many other articles they are reported as good references. Moreover the page is well linked: many other art movements have less links and less references.

As Lapsking says, the article could be improved, but deletion is not acceptable: if you are in good faith and you delete it, you'll have the delete most of the articles re art movements ! I do hope you'll give it a chance--Aeron10 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMMAGINE&POESIA is a well known artistic movement flourished in Italy and moved into many countries of the world. This movement was found a place in Wikipedia a few years back and I also contributed from India and Bahrain. Now it seems that this head is going to be removed, which I feel "injustice". So I strongly recommend to keep IMMAGINE&POESIA in Wikipedia, which will enable many young Artists and poets worldwide.(talk) 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being one of the editors of IMMAGINE&POESIA, I can say I know the Movement well. IMMAGINE&POESIA has been on en-WP for 2 years. I have counted 33 editors from different countries who for 2 years have worked on the article doing a lot of work as SarahStierch writes... then suddenly one morning Speciate decides to ask for deletion, without giving the possibility of improving the page, without giving suggestions before. I have always liked Wikipedia, but I think we don't need to have strict censorers, but persons who can help and suggest in cases like this. Some of the aspects that Speciate considers as negative, are very positive, according to me: if 28 persons have translated their Manifesto into their own languages and if they have uploaded the page on their WP, this means that the Movement is understood and appreciated in a great number of countries.

Speciate speaks of Wiki-Bombing and Wiki-Bombardment not considering that one of the first WP rules is to assume good faith: I think that many references have been reported in order to improve the page, not to promote the Movement. Moreover I have read that Bombardment is good when each source has a lot of information of its own. Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing and this is exactly the purpose of those references. Last but not least, when the Movement has been deleted on the other WP, the main reason was that The Movement appeared only on blogs: now there is an official web-site

http://www.immaginepoesia.org. Please visit it in order to understand the true spirit of IMMAGINE&POESIA. I do hope that the Administrator who will take the decision won't throw away the work done by so many people in 2 years...--RiverTeifi (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would you care to explain how the editors of the Italian Wikipedia came to delete your article? Speciate (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. As I wrote, the main reason was that till a few months ago the Movement appeared only on blogs, but now there is a professional, official blog. Please have a look: http://www.immaginepoesia.org. If the article stays and you have any suggestions to improve it, we'll be very grateful.--RiverTeifi (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For information

The french and italian versions of the article were deleted for the same reasons (lack of notability and cross-wiki spam) :

on :fr in 2007 (discussion here).
on :it in 2011 (discussion here)

Best regards, --Wikinade (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the "movement" is based in Italy, its deletion from the Italian Wikipedia is especially telling. Thanks for your research. Speciate (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anti Comment: I have simply updated with new info several pages of WP ... if updating means spam...well this is the end of Wikipedia. It has been clearly explained that many artists asked for having this page on the WP of their countries and several translators said to be honoured to have translated and uploaded this page. Is this spam ? Wikipedia has a team of translators: what are they for ? Is there a rule about the number of WP where an article may be translated ? As to the lack of notability, now there is an official web site, a permanent collection in France and in (probably) the most famous museum in Wales, many articles from newspapers and art reviews, the Acts of a Congress, a list of exhibitions in different countries: I don't think the other Art Movement have more valid sources...--Alessandroga80 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The tone of the article and of this discussions, with its angry declarations of importance by accounts apparently associated with the subject, are typical of fringe or minor groups using Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. I am not convinced, after looking at the sources, that the group has the required level of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per Sandstein. If this really is an important "movement", as opposed to a flash-in-the-pan fringe thing, you'd at least expect some sources in Italian where the movement supposedly originated. That the Italian WP community drew a blank is quite illuminating. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a reasonable suggestion that a merge might be the best long-term outcome, and I would encourage the parties to discuss that possibility further on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity (software)[edit]

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

Does not demonstrate nor indicate notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found one review on some pretty obscure site and some blog coverage. Given that the software itself is only recently labeled as production-ready, it might need some time to get notable (if ever). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't know what search engine Dmitrij D. Czarkoff was using, but both Google and DuckDuckGo return hit counts in six figures for veracity "version control" from sites like Stack Overflow, InfoQ, presentations at O'Reilly OSCON, and many more. A Deletionist might get his hopes up; a realist should recondider. It surely meets WP:GNG. Jeff Dickey (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure I found refs from Stack Overflow and InfoQ (this one was the obscure site I've mentioned), but I found no reliable sources. These two categories have no common entries. OSCON presentation by the author is a primary source, thus also not usable for WP:GNG purpose. So, zero WP:GNG-compliant sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does the fact that the software was showcased at OSCON at all mean anything? I know the author's company sponsored the talk, but a dedicated talk at a conference like that must count for something, right? --Fritzophrenic (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we can make a good article from the source already given in the article, and the few references I managed to find and put on the talk page. I'm hoping to give it a shot soon (I didn't have quite as much free time as I hoped this past weekend). I understand the primary sources don't establish notability, but I'm really not clear on how to establish whether a given 3rd-party source is itself notable/reliable enough to establish notability. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All current sources are either affiliated or WP:SPS with an exception of InfoQ, which is of dubious use for establishing notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a lot of content from several sources, a few of them from places not affiliated with the product. I don't want to remove the notability or delete tags without consensus, though. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably shouldn't vote twice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recall reading that the discussion for deletion isn't a vote, we're building consensus. I had more information relevant to the discussion, due to a major change in article content. I'm not trying to "vote" multiple times. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I count one reliable source independent of the subject (InfoQ). Due to the project's nature as an open source project, I don't think we need a great deal of independent coverage for verifiability purposes - the guideline says you should "usually" have multiple independent sources, but thinking pragmatically, I don't think it's necessary here.--greenrd (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG "lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". This software has a long way to notability, and there is no indication that it's goind to ever make. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, what broader topic should we include it in? --Fritzophrenic (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the Dr. Dobbs link, and the Capprime Software guy? Sure Capprime Software is a 1-man company, but he's apparently doing software development consulting and the link is adapted from a talk he supposedly gave to the Twin Cities Developer Group (link to the talk was broken). They're not the most reliable, but they're not bad. Plus the "Producing Open Source Software" link is a book from O'Reilly Media. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finnamore[edit]

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

Self promotion. This company is not notable despite winning a minor award of the sort that every consultant has a shelf full of. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - corporate puff piece with low quality references. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 2 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:08, 10 January 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sole claim to notability, an award, is weak as baby's piss. Speciate (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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