Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 July	13 July >

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 15:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Neill (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he could not play in a fully pro league. This has no bearing on notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does. It was contested on the basis that he was found in Category:Gaelic footballers who switched code. Gaelic football does not have what I think you would describe as a "fully pro league" in the first place. Are you suggesting that everyone who plays Gaelic football isn't notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.252 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GAA is fully amateur, no evidence of notability there. Giant Snowman 08:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NGAELIC. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm pretty sure he's played at the highest level of Gaelic football there is. – Pee Jay 16:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This clearly refers to him playing for Antrim against Derry last year. That he could not play in a "fully pro league" does have a bearing on notability, contrary to the nominator's claims. Antrim have reached two All-Ireland finals and Derry have won the thing. How do you get any more "fully pro" in Gaelic football? I found that source in the article. The history shows it was not put there after the nominator's attempts to delete. The source has actually been there from the moment the article was created and was not hard to notice. It is blatantly spelt out in the article that he plays for Antrim. The PROD was quite rightly contested. What more does the nominator want or require by Wikipedia policy? --86.40.97.136 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I must admit I was unaware of the notability guidelines regarding Gaelic footballers. Give the comments above, I am prepared withdraw this nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NGAELIC. Nfitz (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NGAELIC. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Grigoryan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. His only appearance for Armenia was not a full international cap, since it was against a German underage team. PROD was contested on the grounds that the U21 level is not underage. Be that as it may, the cap still does not count as a full international, meaning it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a borderline case whether it pass WP:NFOOTBALL or not, but article clearly fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Zujua (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies of My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of unsourced versions of a children's song. I'm not sure this is even needed as everyone creates private parodies of songs and these look just as unnotable. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is - Wikipedia is not a database of lyrics. Because this is moreover a list of parodies of the song, information about the parodies can't really be given. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a list of unnotable song lyrics. --Artene50 (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a parody of an encyclopedic article! Any notability is derived from the original song. No objection to a few words about notable parodies that are fully referenced merged to the main article, but the rest should go. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the original article My_Bonnie_Lies_Over_The_Ocean. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The encyclopedic content of this article already exists in context at My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean#Parodies. As an aside I must say that I'm surprised that the well known football song "If I had the wings of a sparrow" isn't listed here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in the least. campfire parodies are best left to think up in the moment, not listed in wikipedia--MLKLewis (talk) 21:45, 13 July 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 (non-admin closure). --BDD (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Owl City[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 00:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 00:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this list is becoming less and less clear. I believe the original intent was to give readers a full alphabetical listing of all songs by Owl City. This is becoming fogged by dubious songs that are not yet released, and no references to important information like what album the song is on. There is actually an Owl City discography article, perhaps we could merge this article into it, I would be perfectly fine with that. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Owl City discography. It is essentially the same article under another title. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Owl City discography as the previous editor notes. --Artene50 (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge seems duplicative of Owl City discography. It appears we have this sort of article for some other major artists (Elvis, Beach Boys) but I have to question what new information could be presented here that would not be better suited to the discography page? OSborn ^arf_contribs.
- The discography article does not have a list of the songs the albums contained, which is why merge is the better option, IMO. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Owl City discography. Zujua (talk) 22:29, 16 July 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stories About Nothing[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable recording by non-notable artist. PROD and A9 decline by Cavarrone saying, "I see multiple reviews about this album". The artist was determined to be non-notable by an AfD and all other recordings were deleted per A9. This article has 6 references. Three are from Myspace and not independent (regardless of reliability) which means they can't be used to establish notability. The other three ([1][2][3]) are not from blogs. I would possibly consider Oh Word a reliable source but the article doesn't even list a writer. A Google News search provides no significant coverage from reliable and independent sources (no hits at all). A Google News Archive search provides a two hits that actually pertain to this subject. One seems to be a reliable source but the coverage is of the artist and only mentions the recording in passing. The other isn't about this recording and isn't significant coverage (in my opinion).

Per these findings, I feel that this recording fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS, just like all of the other recordings by this non-notable artist. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, particularly WP:NALBUMS in that there is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Tgeairn (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. This writer in a detailed review hails the record as a "true classic", but was apparently drunk at the time of the review, and uses poor grammar that is criticized by other users on the site. This possibly detracts from its reliability as a source, leaving no further reliable reviews. Zujua (talk) 23:31, 16 July 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 09:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socialphy[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 21:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Prod on grounds "No evidence that this website meets the notability criteria." Prod was removed by a WP:SPA (whose account name includes the name of the website's related company). I'm bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I checked this website out when I first saw this AfD, and I'll have to say, it's a pretty good idea. But I'll also have to say that I can't find the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Good idea, not popular enough. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find anything to conform to WP:GNG. Trusilver 06:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as unambiguous copyright violation of non-free-content ("© All rights Reserved.2009") work. I'm sorry, Voceditnore, although the intent is appreciated. Keystoneridin, the correct process for this is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not AFD. Everyone: We don't tweak and copyedit copyright violations. We revert to the last non-infringing version, delete wholesale if there is no such version and the violation is foundational, and rewrite from scratch with a fresh edit history that thus isn't a derivative work. We deleted Veyangoda Central college and we delete this copy. Our copyright policy is non-negotiable. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veyangoda Bandaranaike Central College[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 21:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot found this article to be copyright infringement. User which created article has the same name as article. CSD G11 template removed by author. Keystoner idin (speak) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Blatant promotion and advertising - db-spam. Oh and warn the editor for removing the CSD template. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Veyangoda Central College (talk · contribs) also removed the AfD template, and has now been warned. Cliff Smith 21:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the AfD template again, and warned again. Cliff Smith 21:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would'nt speedy delete this as a G11, but it's definatley adverty and doesn't provide claims of notability. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reduce to a stub to remove the copyvio. Clearly notable enough for an article, as verified secondary schools are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reduce article to a stub per Necrothesp. It should merit a wikipedia article as a secondary school but the copyvio and the advertising information should be deleted. --Artene50 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high school that educates to grade 13. Needs a thorough-going de-spamming but AfD is not a clean-up squad. This school looks thoroughly notable to me. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. TerriersFan (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What it lacks in notability, it makes up for in a pretty promotional design. If it's notable, where are the secondary reliable references? In fact, where are any references? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This establishes that the subject is a high school in Sri Lanka as the wikipedia article claims. Do we need coverage of a high school in a newspaper to prove that it exists--especially one in a foreign country? --Artene50 (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are generally considered inherently notable. Since the copyvio content is gone, the article can live. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:52, 13 July 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. Relist has resulted in an even more solid keep consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Starlight[edit]

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

Delete - fails WP:BIO due to a lack of verifiable and reliable sources. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Starlight. SplashScreen (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Certainly fairly well-known, and in addition to the sources in the article, there's this. Much of the coverage relates to Lady Gaga and their friendship, so the case for inclusion is weak. I have declined the G4 put on the article as this is quite different to the version previously deleted at AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Much of the coverage relates to Lady Gaga and their friendship" - yes, and notability is not inherited. Lady Starlight needs to do something independently from her celebrity friends in order to become notable, as Wikipedia is not a tabloid or and indiscriminate collection of information. SplashScreen (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist was highly influential in launching and shaping the career of a widely-known, pop sensation. Sourcing can be improved for sure, but I think there is little question that this individual has and will get plenty of attention from reliable sources for her role in Gaga's career. Here are some book sources that can be used to improve the article: [4] [5] [6].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"[S]haping the career of a widely-known, pop sensation" does not pass WP:NMUSIC per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Those three sources (which are all of questionable reliability) are all in relation to Lady Gaga; Lady Starlight has no notability outside of this tabloid "friendship". SplashScreen (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a magic wand to make pop culture articles go away. It is not a "tabloid friendship", but a professional relationship between two entertainers. The subject of this article played a powerful role in influencing and building the career of a highly notable entertainer and there is plenty of coverage to go with that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tabloid friendship", "professional relationship", whatever. If a person is only known because of their association with another person and are not subject to independent and non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources, then they are not notable on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITED does not mean that just because something is only discussed in the context of something else that there cannot be an article on it. The standard for having an article spinoff is if the subject is notable enough for an article and the amount of coverage of that subject is substantial enough that it could not all be included in the main article. Other policies apply, but there is no indication that this article violates any of those policies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio. After seeing DC's comment I found that, aside from the portion ripped from wikia, the rest of the article appears to be copied from her official page. Even if there is some sort of permission involved we should not be substantially copy-pasting this kind of material into an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the copyvio issues appear to have been addressed and there are editors looking to insert original wording based on reliable sources my reasons for keeping stand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough to meet General notability guideline and WP:Notability (people). Sadly, this appears to be another poorly thought out nomination from SplashScreen (talk · contribs) having failed to follow the guidelines of Nominating an article(s) for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fæ, you can follow me around Wikipedia and make as many smears on each of the pages on which I comment as you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that this article fails WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. SplashScreen (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the encouragement. Please do not feel obliged to respond to every keep comment in this AFD. --Fæ (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Same to you. SplashScreen (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally closed as keep (based on above !votes and sources), but relisted on request by nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this common practice? I'm wondering why DRV was not applied. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called talking to the closing administrator, and it precedes Deletion Review. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can editors please note that the three aforementioned trivial mentions in "unofficial biographies" of Lady Gaga which, as well as violating WP:BLP, focus solely on the subject's friendship and do not address the concerns raised in the opening nomination. SplashScreen (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has featured on international tours and received press coverage. There's also significant coverage in books on Google Books, e.g. Lady Gaga: Just Dance: The Biography, Helia Phoenix (Hachette), Lady Gaga: A Biography, Paula Johanson (ABC-CLIO), as well as references already mentioned. Lady Starlight is a DJ in her own right. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without regard to whether or not a viable article could be written about this person, it should be noted that the current article copies passages verbatim from here and uses an image that is almost certainly a copyright violation (hint: the copyright owner is "Chris Kralik/Retna Ltd"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it passes notability guidelines either, but I've removed most of the copyvio from the article and took away a few of the "sources" that were not usable. (Such a link to a tabloid and a ticket sale page.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UT

On top of Tokyogirl's edits, I've removed some more unsourced content and citations from unreliable blogs and even Wikipedia itself. We now have citations from a potentially unreliable biography of Lady Gaga [7], a list of dates in which she will be performing at the same place as Lady Gaga [8] and a series of unverified claims about Lady Gaga in a interview [9]. I think it's safe to say that this individual holds no notability outside of her relationship with Lady Gaga and fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:MUSICBIO. SplashScreen (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not "safe to say" as there are plenty of reliable sources out there on this individual and even tabloids confer notability. However, at this point, until those reliable sources are added in and material written based off them, this article would have to be a stub. I think we are better served by scrapping this article and starting over from scratch, unless someone is willing to step in and make the necessary contributions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is important to note that several users have been improving the article and SplashScreen has been deleting their contributions in an attempt to game the system and eventually get the article deleted. This should be a fact to be considered by the closing admin when making the decision on wheter to keep or delete the article. —Hahc 21 20:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed statements with "citation needed" tags and removed statements sourced by unreliable blog sites [10]. Please read edit summaries and assume good faith before throwing around allegations. SplashScreen (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you now? Statυs (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Splash, you are involved in a edit warring against Status and Tomica, that will get you blocked, so be careful. Also, BLP says that unsourced content that may likely be challenged should be removed. I think that her bio won't be challenged, since it is not libellous. I recommed you to talk the matter before on thet talk page and then, after a consensus is reached, remove the content. —Hahc 21 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not edit warring when WP:NOT3RR is involved. SplashScreen (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If you keep doing that, i will report you. Speaking is better than deleting information. Cheers. —Hahc 21 21:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If information about a living subject is unsourced and/or poorly sourced, then it should be removed. As an aspiring admin, it shocks me that you are unaware of this. SplashScreen (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, don't play that old trick on me, it won't work. I'm not the one who has been rejected from ANI several times and asked to cool down. I know what BLP says and what 3RR says and you are close to violate 3RR. The fact that you are deleting content from the article while this AFD is open is a mere way to game the system. I won't comment further, i don't need to engage a fight with you, Splash. Cheers. —Hahc 21 21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What policy tells that? Cause I have seen a lot of article contain the {{cn}} at the end of sentences. — Tomica (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:BLP and remember (as you've been reminded on other AfDs) that other stuff exists. SplashScreen (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"as you've been reminded on other AfDs" and "As an aspiring admin, it shocks me that you are unaware of this." Seems as if you are taking personal digs in this now. Statυs (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomica, {{cn}} actually states: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately. Do not tag it: immediately remove it." Statυs (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG with extensive sections in several books. See Colapeninsula's detailed and informative comments. The Steve 06:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been moved to Lady Starlight — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page accordingly. Statυs (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 12. Snotbot t • c » 19:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems notable enough.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bath salts (drug). Consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article. But opinions are divided about whether to merge this into the main article or not. So the solution here is to redirect the article; that way the normal editorial process can sort out whether or not certain material from the history should be included in the main article. Sandstein 09:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents involving the drug bath salts[edit]

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

This is just a list of random unrelated crimes for which there is no signifigant coverage of the topic of the article, although there may well be coverage of the individual incidents. Wikipedia is not just a list of indiscriminant information. This is not an encyclopedic topic any more than Crimes where the get-a-way car was a Dodge would be. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 12. Snotbot t • c » 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had been meaning to nominate this myself, and I should point out that this was created shortly after I removed a list of 'incidents' from bath salts (drug). It is a WP:POVFORK of bath salts (drug) that is turning into a WP:COATRACK for media stories related to the latest drug scare. The Red Pen of Doom has gone a bit OTT with their example, but I think it is clear that we shouldn't have an article on incidents involving alcohol and therefore should not have this article either. It's also important to note that there is scanty evidence as to whether or not 'bath salts' were even involved in these incidents or not, and the case that started all the hysteria in the media was later shown to have no connection: [11]. WP:MEDRS demands that we use sources that are stronger than normal when discussing the effects of compounds on the human body, and this does not include what random police officers tell the media. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was a split from Bath salts (drug) as it was becoming to large. Many parents and young people *must* be made aware of what will happen if bath salts are taken. These incidents provide evidence of the risk to a user or potential user. JunoBeach (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article was never too long - articles should only be split when larger than 100kb, and it was 18kb when I removed it. The reason I removed it was because I don't see any reason that we should use such poor sources anywhere in any article. Saying that we "must" do something makes it sound as if you are here to soapbox rather than provide neutral information about BS. I'd rephrase what you said to "Many parents and young people *must* be made aware of what ~~will~~ can happen in a small number of cases if when bath salts are taken in combination with alcohol and other drugs". SmartSE (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are lots of things that *must* be done, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia *must* do them. This is an encyclopedia, not a drug awareness campaign. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bath salts (drug). That article is not too long to support a section detailing important incidents and this is a mish mash of unrelated events in free-standing form. Carrite (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to merge. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP - nothing to merge - Youreallycan 21:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bath salts (drug). The material is sourced and relates to that article. The amount of material to be used is an editorial decision which will emerge through direct editing and appropriate talkpage discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably-sourced information from this article to Bath salts (drug), per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 16 July 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. Rather a serious WP:BLP problem, this article. Sandstein 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Abdullayev[edit]

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

Serious WP:BLP violation. No reliable sources to back any claims made in this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this article for speedy deletion a while back and it was successfully deleted. Keystoner idin (speak) 20:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP violation. Article should not be recreated like this with the inherent bias here. --Artene50 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this line about him controlling "over 70 per cent of the region’s economy" have any value? The source listed doesn't look particularly reliable, but is it possible that this could be supported with more sources? If this source is anything close to the truth, it seems like this guy may be passably notable. Zujua (talk) 10:55, 15 July 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 09:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Barrett Madden[edit]

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

This article does not seem to meet WP:GNG and falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A tragic loss of a young soldier, but not encyclopedic.

Additionally, this article was created by banned user: Billy Hathorn during a block evasion. EricSerge (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- if its the creation of a banned user, it should be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5, so tagged. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ineligible for G5 as others have done non-trivial work on it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad, apologies. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but fails WP:SOLDIER....William 22:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A soldier killed in a war. No particular reason why he should be any more notable than the millions of others who have died in war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy; this article appears to be very well done, and the subject appears to have received significantly coverage by multiple reliable sources, and therefore should pass WP:GNG, as do many other fallen American servicemembers, such as SSG Doria, SSG Mora, and PFC Zawaydeh (just to name a few). That being said although the subject passes GNG, the subject is notable due to a single event, their death, and thus many do not believe that the subject will have lasting notability (see WP:EFFECT & WP:NTEMP). Furthermore, there is WP:NOTMEMORIAL & WP:SOLDIER; as NOTMEMORIAL is a policy, it supersedes GNG, and thus the argument for the article to be deleted is often made. All that being said, as this article is well put together, and the subject passes GNG, IMHO, I am of the opinion that the article should be Userfied to the sandbox of the primary editor of the article. If it can be later shown that the subject is notable for more than just their unfortunate passing, or that their notability is not just in passing, than the article can be brought back after improvement and reviewed into the main article space. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Primary editor of the article is a sockpuppet of Billy Hathorn, who is indefinitely blocked. EricSerge (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the utmost respect to the family of the subject. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Trusilver 06:55, 20 July 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. None of the keep rationales - that webcomics/art forms have a lower threshold of notability than other objects - is just wrong. As various people have noted, the GNG applies here, and is not met. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover Soup[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and I cannot find significant coverage in independent sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find some coverage in independent sources, but just blogs and the like - nothing that would vaguely resemble a reliable source. Robofish (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia." This is a web-comic. It does not require the same amount of source debate that is used to consider a generic article. There is no reason for this article to be removed. Do not delete it. 06:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.145.194 (talk)
- The fact that the article is under the purview of a WikiProject is utterly irrelevant to notability. And, as there is no WP:NWEBCOMICS, it must meet the WP:GNG; your statment that it "does not require the same amount of...debate...[as] a generic article" is patently false. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comics, whether print or web-based, are a form of art. They are not science and facts that must have research and proof. Art is self-contained and intellectual property. Certain leeways are granted for certain projects, such as this one. This project is here because there are thousands of comics printed by small-press publishers, and just because they are not printed by the New York Times does not mean that they do not deserve to be known. Wiki is trying to list them so they can become more known, eventually perhaps even gaining notariaty. By all means go ahead and put up a flag that articles like this need to be expanded, but do not remove the articles just because you don't read the comics in question. Removing comic project articles due to low notability would render the entire project barren. Tremas Koschei (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources means this definitely misses WP:GNG. Contrary to the above assertion that "there are thousands of comics printed by small-press publishers ... Wiki is trying to list them so they can become more known", in fact Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. See WP:NOTADVERTISING. Rangoondispenser (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no reliable sources to show any sort of notability. It utterly fails the GNG, and it is ridiculous to try to assert that articles on certain subjects are somehow exempt from the general notability guidelines. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 19 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Semenchuk[edit]

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

Article is about a footballer who has only spent two seasons in the third tier of Russian football for his entire career - which appears to have ended in 2011. The article is three years old and there is no sign of any coverage of Semenchuk in any reliable sources other than football statistics databases (I've searched English- and Russian-language sources. It is unclear whether the Russian third-tier is "fully-pro" and in any case, this article is not going to get any better so let's apply some common sense and remove it until the point that sources become available that meet WP:RS/WP:V.) Jogurney (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which outweighs WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasons unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Given the clear failure of WP:GNG, any WP:NSPORT argument is not relevant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom - fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND in every sense - no charts, WP:NN labels, nobody notable in it, etc. Zero g-hits. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 16:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Facebook, Youtube and Myspace aren't reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Artene50 (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Lugnuts (talk) 07:28, 13 July 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. Soft delete per limited amount of discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Rants and Raves[edit]

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

Podcast does not meet WP:WEB Breno ^talk 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one reliable source [12] with any depth of coverage, and most likely only because it's "local news." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 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. Original research by synthesis, which Tepi effectively admits this is, is not allowed. Medical topics and concepts in particular must be clearly based on reliable sources. This means that as long as such sources do not describe this as a distinct symptom, we do not have an article about it. Sorry. Sandstein 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rectal malodor[edit]

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

Pure original research. At first glance, appears to be a well-sourced article about a health topic. Problem is, searching for the phrase "rectal malodor" in Google results in hardly any non-wiki-related links. I haven't examined every single source, but a sampling suggests that this topic is mentioned in larger contexts, but not given any depth of coverage in the sources. In summary, it's a long detailed article about a symptom that only gets passing mention as it relates to other maladies. Also curious is that the author of the article has contributed very little outside of this topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. This is an interesting case. Very few hits for the phrase, which seems to originate with the author of this piece, as nearly as I can determine. There is a thread relating to this WP piece at an Irritable Bowel Syndrome self-help message board, started a new British user, pseudonym "ileococcygeus" in which HE STATES:

"This article has been the result of a lot of research on my part. However I am not a GI doc/colorectal surgeon, so my understanding of these topics is perhaps limited. I will continue to add to this article in the future, but it is essentially finished now."

While we appreciate the effort, and the article is of high quality, Wikipedia is not the place to be "breaking" new science. I'm not seeing much evidence that this is a phrase actually used in medicine. I'd be happy to be shown wrong. As it sits this strikes me as pure OR and possibly fringe science. I'll stand aside with this view if use of the phrase can be demonstrated in the scholarly literature — or if there is an equivalent symptom described in the literature with a different name, which would indicate this is a matter of a titling mistake. Nice work on the piece, but this is not the place. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content-creator in the thread mentioned above NOTES that "The rectal malodor, rectal discharge and fecal leakage pages I researched from scratch. The fecal incontinence page was already there, I added "classification" and "normal continence mechanism" paragraphs, plus added references and more detail to several other related topics. Like I said I'm not GI/colorectal surgeon. We need experts to go over these concepts."

I completely agree. We need expert eyes here. If this is good work about an actual symptom described in the literature, it should stand, obviously. But there needs to be some sort of expert input... Carrite (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research/synthesis. This subject lacks any verification from reliable sources; I could not find a single article about it at Google Scholar or PubMed. Although many articles are listed in the references, I don't find that any of them are specifically about this subject; this one comes the closest. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research papers; author might consider submitting it to an online publishing host such as Scribd. I suppose this title could be merged/redirected to Flatulence but they don't seem to be the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I posted a note to the author on his talk page, and this is his reply on my talk page. I am posting it here because I think he deserves to be heard in this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not original research. This is the first time I have heard mention of wikipedia not allowing "original synthesis" too. You can't say "don't copy" and at the same time say "no original synthesis". All your articles would be deleted for being original synthesis.

This article really does not deserve to be deleted, It is not original research, please see extensive list of previously published references. It contains no original research.

I have so far not found a "synthesis" on this topic, so you could call it original, but that is no reason for it to be deleted, since so many other wikipedia articles are original synthesis. I want to appeal this decision, but I am also prepared to rewrite the article if it will prevent this deletion (it is still developing anyway).

This is my second article that has been accused of original research, and the other page was approved. Its getting annoying. Tepi (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When a Google search for the phrase "rectal malodor" turns up nearly zero hits outside of wiki, it suggests that the phrase by itself may be a neologism or otherwise a topic not given a lot of attention to by itself. No one is trying to discredit or malign your work; it's just that several seasoned editors here find that your work violates our WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH policies. All of the "delete" !votes here do a fine job of describing exactly what is wrong with the article in terms of Wikipedia policies. Please read those for a better understanding of the issue. (As Carrite noted, your work is "high quality"; it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The phrase "rectal malodor" does not appear in medical textbooks or on pubmed. The "classification" section is original... However, this is a medical topic that is not original, papers and textbooks would discuss it indirectly, talking about foul smelling rectal discharges, or tumors of the perianal region that are malodorous. You can see that there is not really any new work here, as there are so many wikipedia pages for all the conditions listed. I wanted to make a page of links for people who had this symptom. I would ask for more time to support the page with further references so you can see that it is not a new concept, perhaps I can find a strong reference that will remove the accusation of orignal synthesis too.Tepi (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article doesn't necessarily need more sources. What needs to be demonstrated is that the term "rectal malodor" is used in several published sources to describe a specific medical symptom. Show that A, B, and C have used that term, say in the index of medical text or in the body of published journal articles, and much of the criticism here fades away. Or if there is another medical term for the symptom, point to that. I personally wasn't able to find any indication that such sources are extant. Just point them out is all... Carrite (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I beleive I read the term "rectal fetor", referring to a sign of a particular condition, however the source is old. Modern day medical terminology would call this "rectal malodor", inline with related signs/symptoms like rectal bleeding, rectal discharge. I disagree that the article needs the title changing, I think it is the most appropriate title. I will have time to work on this more this weekend, but it means that rectal discharge stays looking very untidy. I think I will easily find many papers that will save this article, I did very superficial searches when writing it initially. I suppose the classification section is original, and would have to go, similarly with the differential diagnosis section, although it is just common sense rather than original research if you ask me.Tepi (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking out the word "keep" from the beginning of this paragraph. You can comment as much as you like, but you should only "vote" once. --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jade carved WuengJonq[edit]

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

This is one of several rather dubious articles (see WP:AN#Problem articles - possible fraud?, permalink) which reads like a high-gloss sales catalogue for artworks from such material, and lacks reliable sources - in short, it raises big red flags with respect to the trinity of core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Sandstein 13:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a blatant hoax, could be a case for a speedy? Seasider91 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely lacking in verifiability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – apparently part of an extensive Internet advertising campaign for pieces on sale at the author's "web museum". Kanguole 15:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spamming/hoax page created by User:Orionwebmuseum, who's been blocked for spamming. User:Orionandhsu appears to be a sock puppet of User:Orionwebmuseum. -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article written for the subject of Jade carved WuengJonq and has nothing to do with Possible Fraud? guessed by somebody. If someone is really interested in this subject and has different opinions about the contents written for this subject, he should join to edit the contents, instead of deleting the whole subject for interfering readers' rights to understand this subject. Don't make wikipedia to be a blank window books without any contents for readers to select freely. -- Orionandhsu (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a part of a sales pitch. Even if a real term, this article is so bad it would be better to delete it and let someone else recreate it with proper reliable sourcing. Silver seren^C 20:46, 12 July 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mutton fat white jade[edit]

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

This is one of several rather dubious articles (see WP:AN#Problem articles - possible fraud?, permalink) which reads like a combination between a personal essay and a high-gloss sales catalogue for artworks from such material, and lacks reliable sources - in short, it raises big red flags with respect to the trinity of core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Sandstein 13:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete looks like an obvious hoax to me Seasider91 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an article written on a subject of Mutton fat white jade and has nothing to do with Possible Fraud guessed by somebody. If someone has different opinions about the contents of this article, he should then join to edit the contents to improve this subject. It's really not good to delete the whole subject of Mutton fat white jade for interfering the readers' rights to understand this subject. -- Orionandhsu (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells like complete BS. Fails WP:V. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wasn't this just up at AFD??? Yes, there is such a thing as "Mutton Fat White Jade." It is a type of jade, very rare and very valuable. It is well covered in the collectors' literature. This article has certain problems. It is also overflagged — ridiculously so. But the topic is encyclopedic, which is what we are supposed to be discussing here. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The piece lists AN ENTRY on Mutton Fat White Jade from an encyclopedia published by the Taiwan Ministry of Culture. (in Chinese) Carrite (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanpedia is a user-edited site like Wikipedia, and the article on Taiwanpedia was created on July 10 by a user named "Orion Web Museum". And User:Orionwebmuseum is blocked on Wikipedia for spamming. Smells very fishy. -Zanhe (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS PIECE from the Los Angeles Times deals with the subject of Hotan jade, or Nephrite jade, which comes in a range of colors including "Sheep-fat-oily mutton fat white jade." It's a cumbersome term, but that seems to be the commonly used full name for this sort of jade. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merge target, if it comes to that, is Nephrite. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a legitimate term for a kind of jade. The concern here is that the creator of the page is also posting images of jade items that could be fakes, using wiki to give false credential to fake items, and using the page a promotional tool to sell these items in auction. If it is to be kept, the article needs a rewrite and all the images upload by the creator of this page must be removed. Hzh (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that the two jade items shown on the page are listed here for sale - here and here. Hzh (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We currently have Nephrite jade as a redirect to jade, and Nephrite including a section on jade. I think I'd be fine with a merge here, merging and redirecting both Mutton fat white jade and Nephrite jade to Nephrite and making a note of it with a disambiguation line at the top of the Jade page. That seems like a decent solution. This is the wrong venue to discuss the authenticity or lack thereof of items shown in photographs used at WP. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spamming/hoax page created by User:Orionandhsu, who appears to be a sock puppet of blocked User:Orionwebmuseum. -Zanhe (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a legitimate term, this article was created to be the part of an advertisement campaign. If there are indeed reliable sources covering it, which does seem possible, it would be better if the article is deleted and then rewritten from scratch with actual reliable sources. Silver seren^C 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps this could be a legitimate subject, but nothing already included would be of any value to an article. Also "Wonderful and Amazing Soakage of an Archaic Ancient Mutton Fat White Jade"?--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the topic may be notable, the content of the article is problematic and in my eyes clearly intended as promotional. It would be better to delete and replace with content from an editor with no conflict of interest. Peacock (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Fraud and Possible Murder are both not crimes at all, but an Act of Libel or Slander is indeed a crime. "Mutton Fat White Jade" can be searched in many editions of encyclopedia including Chinese Edition encyclopedia published in China. I don't know why gentlemen and ladies here were all discussing this subject as if other editions of encyclopedia were all never to be existed except Wikipedia. Why not everybody here just refers to other encyclopedia to see what other encyclopedia have done very well, then joins this discussion. -- Orionandhsu (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Murder and fraud have nothing to do with this, and if you're trying to accuse other editors of libel or slander towards you I suggest you read WP:NLT. The simple fact is that this article is written badly and in a promotional way, and is therefore not appropriate for an encyclopedia--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The documents themselves can not defend a personal crime of an Act of Libel or Slander in the court! This is a public discussion forum. Orionandhsu (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody except you has said a single thing about fraud, murder, libel or slander--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia of Taiwan, Ministry of Culture, Taiwan, R.O.C. is that the writers of articles have to register their ‘’’True Names and Identities’’’ with Ministry of Culture first, and the contents of articles have to be submitted to Ministry of Culture for careful studies and amendments before they are published to the public. Writers have to be fully responsible for the contents of the articles that were written by them. Besides in Taiwan an Act of Libel or Slander in public discussion forum is a crime and will be arrested by internet policemen via IP address. Writers in Wikipedia are all anonymously unknown to readers and the public discussion forum in Wikipedia seems to be a place for an anonymous sign-up user to conduct an Act of Libel or Slander without restrictions. Orionandhsu (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to understand what has been stated here, using wikipedia as a means of advertising is against the policy here, and the pieces used to illustrate the article is on auction here and here. You have violated that policy. A user Orionwebmuseum who was blocked for doing that is probably you as well - the owner of this website for Orion Web Museum was someone called Orion Hsu. So in all likelihood you already knew what you did is not allowed here. Hzh (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the user (talk) understandes WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST which means that not all types of jade are notable Seasider91 (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Orionandhsu (talk · contribs) has been blocked for making legal threats and as a WP:DUCK of Orionwebmuseum (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would a Speedy Delete per G5 be in order as the article was created by a banned user? DarkAudit (talk) 14:19, 19 July 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 Revolution (TV series). (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Revolution episodes[edit]

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

As per WP:CRYSTAL.Only one episode name known and that too in September 2012.No problem if created after the series starts ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 12:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Revolution (TV series) per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. TBran dl ey 16:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Revolution (TV series) per WP:CRYSTAL and redirect there until the series premieres. It's too soon for a separate episode list. Cliff Smith 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly sourced info to the series page. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series page and don't create this page until a season two is a certainty, CRYSTAL and TOOSOON. Not that hard to figure out; if a show has one season, or hasn't even started, keep it on the show page. Two seasons, then the "List of episodes" page can go forward. Seriously, this should be a policy already. Nate • (chatter) 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdhorsing[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism and possibly a hoax. jfd34 (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a joke. If not, it's a non-notable neologism whose sole purpose is to advertise a website (which itself looks like a joke or a scam). Pichpich (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 12. Snotbot t • c » 12:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but most of all: Wikipedia is not a place for things made up one day. (At least not unless it's covered in multiple independent and reliable sources, which this term is most assuredly NOT.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a dumb joke. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per comments above. There are no external sources. A Google search leads to the name of a blogger. This page is not suitable for Wikipedia unless the term becomes used more widely and is reported in reliable independent sources. Kooky2 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Langthorne[edit]

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

Article has been deleted and recreated for many times. Subject lacks of notability and proper reference, reliable source Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. While he most certainly has been associated with more notable people than I'll ever come in contact with, that notability is not transferred. It might make it easier to find sources, but ultimately Langhorne does not have the individual notability that is required for an article all about himself. Since a quick look at the original editor's talk page shows that not only have they repeatedly added this page to Wikipedia but has also been warned against re-adding it (blocking was mentioned), it's highly likely that they will continue to re-add it until the page is salted or until they've been blocked. Or both.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTRESUME. Routine advertising/PR by likely conflict-of-interest editors. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Not seeing anything there that meets WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Someone that persistent will no doubt achieve some coverage eventually, but for now, definitely a salting case. Mabalu (talk) 16:20, 12 July 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyswatter (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, and WP:N more generally: Non-notable demo recording, albeit by a notable artist but no evidence that this early recording has received significant secondary source coverage to warrant an article. Previous versions of this article have been deleted 3 times (the 2 prior AfDs listed in the box above, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flyswatter (Demo)), and this version isn't substantially different from the prior ones. IllaZilla (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Per nom, it seems the article creators don't seem to understand that Notability is not inherited. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too am unable to locate significant coverage for this demo; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. It is already mentioned in the "Formation" section of the band's main article and that's probably sufficient. Gongshow ^Talk 04:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Non notable and fails WP:ALBUMS. Should the creator want to try again if it achieves notability, they should take it to WP:REFUND. Trusilver 06:46, 20 July 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prey (software)[edit]

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

WP:RS; WP:NOT. The article was created (6 Oct 2009) by a privately held software company’s founder to promote a company product. The creator has no talk page and has made no other contributions. (The company’s headquarters are located outside the jurisdiction of most customers’ courts; the product hopefully contains no malware.) Dervorguilla (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Software has received significant press coverage; article references TechCrunch and LifeHacker, see also[13][14][15][16][17] Most of the arguments in the AfD proposal aren't reasons for deletion: who created the page doesn't affect its notability (the article may be mildly promotional but not so much as to be useless), and nor does what they country they are based in. Are we supposed to refuse to cover any software from Chile? It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide what software people should or shouldn't install; we should only provide the best information for them to decide, and the number of reviews available allows us to do that. Absence of reliable sources in the article isn't itself grounds for deletion, as more sources are available. The proposer should also explain which aspect of WP:NOT this article is supposed to breach. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep - This is useful software, the article is reliably sourced, and does not come under any of the terms of WP:NOT - passes as a business, has third party coverage, no need for this AFD. BarkingFish 17:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has been edited a lot since it's creation from the mysterious user and it has various third party reviews and even had front page coverage on Yahoo. I don't understand the reason on why it was nominated, I think someone should make that clear. Also the software is opensource so anyone with knowledge on the programming language used can easily check for any suspicious code. Also if they are paranoid enough compile it from the reviewed source. --LoganLopez (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Prey, http://preyproject.com/index.php (“The name and logo for Prey are registered trademarks of Fork Ltd.”), with USPTO, Trademark Elec. Search Sys., http://tess2.uspto.gov/index.html (no record for word mark “Prey,” owner “Fork Ltd.”). See generally Fox-Stanley Photo Products v. Otaguro, 339 F. Supp. 1293 (D. Mass 1972) (holding that where corporation did not own a valid registered trademark, corporation’s representing to public at large that it did own a registered trademark was unconscionable conduct and illegal use). Dervorguilla (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep – per WP:DEL-REASON; the nomination is vague in referring to entire guideline and policy pages (WP:RS, WP:NOT) to qualify deletion, and a potential conflict of interest a contributor to the article may possess (or conversely, may not possess) is not grounds for outright deletion of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive to Northamerica1000, Procedural Keep:

WP:RS -> WP:SELFSOURCE#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

“Self-published … sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, … so long as … the article is not based primarily on such sources.”

Of eight sources, four are self-published: ^2. Tomas Pollak, Prey Standalone Control Panel, GitHub. ^5. Tomas Pollak, Prey: Y Rastrea Tu Computador Robado [Prey: And Tracks Your Stolen Computer], Bootlog; ^7. Swapnil Singh, Make Your Laptop/Mobile Steal Proof for Free, TrickTacToe; ^8. Download, Prey.

The other four aren’t. I agree that WP:RS doesn’t apply.

WP:NOT -> WP:NOTADVERTISING

Advertising. “All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style.”

The article intro begins:

“Prey is a free and open source computer tracking software ….”

But even the company owner acknowledges that the software isn’t open-source.

“The code for the installers isn’t available, [nor is] the OSX lock binary.… As for the server code, we haven’t released it because we’d never be able to provide any kind of support ….”

E-mail from Tomas Pollak to Steven [], qtd. in Email from Tomas Pollak of Prey Project Admits Using Unlicensed Geolocation, Prey Project—Open Source Fraud (Aug. 2, 2011), http://preyprojectissues.tumblr.com/

-Dervorguilla (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Old Jade[edit]

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

I believe this article may be a hoax or meant as a product placement. I did a search for the term and found nothing in Google News, Books, or Scholar about it. Furthermore, a Google Web search only found duplicates of the Wikipedia article or Ebay listings for Ancient Old Jade products. Also, the article was created by User:Orionwebmuseum, which further makes me believe this is some sort of advertisement. Similar accounts, likely to be sockpuppets, have also edited the article, with names of User:Orionandhsu and User:OrionHsu. Nothing in the article seems verifiable as Ancient Old Jade being an actual term used for anything beyond just general descriptive words, often used to sell things. Silver seren^C 07:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Old Jade is a jade terminology of jade category to be distinguished from Modern Jade. This jade terminology is well-known by jade dealers and collectors. It's impossible to be a hoax. In Chinese they say 高古玉 (spelling as: Gao Gu Yu) or just 古玉 (spelling as: Gu Yu) as Ancient Old Jade in English. --Orionandhsu (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. 高 (Gao) doesn't mean ancient, it means "high", or "elevated", and 高古玉 (Gao Gu Yu) does not translate as "ancient old jade" in English. "Ancient old jade" does not exist as a specific term for jade, and is invented by the creator of the page. The terminology as described in the page is wrong in any case, 古玉 (Gu Yu) refers to old jade, 高古玉 (Gao Gu Yu) refers to very ancient jade, pre-Tang Dynasty at least, and more often pre-Qin Dynasty (221 to 207 BC, not Qing dynasty (1644-1911 AD) as stated in the article). Hzh (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quote

Ancient Old Jade is a jade terminology of jade category to be distinguished from Modern Jade. This jade terminology is well-known by jade dealers and collectors. In Chinese they say 高古玉 (spelling as: Gao Gu Yu) or just 古玉 (spelling as: Gu Yu) as Ancient Old Jade in English.

Basic Concepts of Authenticity Examinations against Fakes of Ancient Old Jades

(1) Scratch Test: Jades are firm enough to resist from Scratch Test by human finger nails.

(2) Semi-Translucence Test: Jades are semi-translucent under the light of portable flashlight.

(3) Sound Test: The sound of a jade knocked slightly on another jade is just like that from a musical instrument and very clear. It’s not such heavy as those sounds knocked by stones or plastic goods.

(4) Soakage Color Test: The soakage color formed in the earth for thousands of years are natural. People are used to put Ancient Old Jades in pure clear warm water for at least one day and one night to see if the soakage color is still remained the same as usual before to judge if it’s dyed manually. From long-term basis, the manually dyed Fakes will fade their false soakage colors into one another gradually.

(5) Age Test: The Ancient Old Jades must have the appearance and totems of Imperial Royal His Majesty Dignity of an Emperor or a King. This is quite different from the modern jade carved work of art designed just for an Art purpose only.

(6) Carvings of Holes Test: The holes of Ancient Old Jades were not straight penetrated from one side. They were penetrated from two sides and formed a curve path gap between two holes from each side.

(7) Carvings of Lines Test: The inclined feminine lines of Ancient Old Jades were not carved by machine tools that make lines straight forward with two sides of line wall straight upward vertically. They were carved one side of line wall straight upward vertically, while another side of line wall plane inclined by ancient bronze jade carving wheels.

(8) Totems test: The Ancient Old Jade must have Jade Carving Totems used in that dynasty to be presented to the Imperial Royal His Majesty Dignity of an Emperor or a King.

(9) Smooth Carvings Test: The Ancient Old Jades were carved by imperial skillful hand-made jade carving masters and must be carved simply, clearly and smoothly upon specially selected solid fine jades. This kind of carving is not existed in modern world by machine tools and art carving artists or sculptors.

(10) Weight (Density) Test: A true experienced jade collector or dealer can easily tell the difference between a Jade and other stones by just holding a Jade in hand to feel its heavy weight of high density.

(11) Surface Test: The surface of a jade is very smooth and quite different from other stones. A true experienced jade collector or dealer can easily tell the difference between a Jade and other stones by just touching the surface of a jade carved work of art gently with his fingers.

(12) Color Test: A true experienced jade collector or dealer can easily tell the difference between a Jade and other stones by just examining its natural beautiful color appeared in front of human eyes.

unquote

The above contents have been added in the article of Ancient Old Jade to avoid unnecessary mistakes and misunderstandings of readers outside of jade world. -- Orionandhsu (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is largey irrelevant to whether the items in the page are authentic or not, since we cannot touch or feel the items, or check the sounds the object makes, or to see it through a strong light source. However there are plenty of pictures of ancient jade objects in the web, and none of the look like some of what's shown in the page, like these. The color and and look of the stone is very different, moreover you don't see jade with red outlines as seen in the servant girl with lamp figure, that is clearly an attempt to fake the brownish tint you might see in some ancient pieces. Further, the quality of the carvings in many of the items in the page is poor, real ancient items are better carved than those. Hzh (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page is used for advertising for objects that may then be auctioned off by the editor and uploader of the images. For example the piece at this site is the same piece is used to illustrate the article here (the last one in the section). The objects are also likely to be fakes, for example the figure of a servant girl holding a lamp is a copy of a bronze figure discovered in a tomb - here, and the warrior figure is copied from figures of the Terracotta Army (such figures are never found to be made of jade in ancient China). Hzh (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If File:100 3846GreenBiJadeCarvedWarriorsSwordWarHorseQinDynastyChinaSealedPreservedHistoricTimeCapsuleWarriorArmorView.JPG was unearthed in the early 21st century as claimed, presumably not in Taiwan, getting it to Mr Hsu's shop would have violated export controls. A simpler theory is that it's a recent creation. Kanguole 15:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If 古玉 (Gu Yu) refers to old jade, and 高古玉(Gao Gu Yu) refers to very ancient jade, then very Ancient Old Jade should be used to name them all together in English. Please do not use ancient Words Crime Prison to sentence other's innocent words as guilty in modern world. Orionandhsu (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gao Gu Yu" can be seen as a sub-category of "Gu Yu", and "Gao" is just there to emphasis the antiquity and specialness of the pieces. So either "old jade" or "ancient jade", but there is no "ancient old jade" category. To merge the two words together is largely nonsensical. Hzh (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the lack of hits on Google Scholar and Google Books pretty much dooms this one. If that were a legitimate term for a category of jade, one would expect someone to use it - except Orionandhsu, that is. Probably someone able to read Chinese would be necessary to confirm if the references support what they are cited for, but even if they do, much of the article remains unsourced and highly dubious. The images are duplicates of those on this website which claims that Orion Hsu himself is the artist. ~~He also seems to have spammed the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias.~~ Huon (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really absurd to accuse a person who doesn't even know the Russian and Ukrainian languages of having spammed the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. It seems Orion Hsu is a well-known public name for every one in this world to use this name as an artist everywhere in the web-sites, and even in Russia and Ukraine! Wow! This name is so famously registered in modern world. Orionandhsu (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of your images on those Wikipedias and had assumed you added it; that doesn't seem to be the case. Sorry, I should have checked more carefully. My other points still stand. Huon (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an article written on a subject of Ancient Old Jade and has nothing to do with Possible Fraud guessed by somebody. If someone has different opinions about the contents of this article, he should then join to edit the contents to improve this subject. It's really not good to delete the whole subject of Ancient Old Jade for interfering the readers' rights to understand this subject. -- Orionandhsu (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the content would require a reliable secondary source mentioning the subject in the first place. If it were a legitimate topic, surely some textbook on ancient Chinese art would mention the term "ancient old jade" - that does not seem to be the case. Huon (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – apparently part of an extensive Internet advertising campaign for pieces on sale at the author's "web museum". Kanguole 15:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources; just an advertisement for a now-blocked advert-only account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator appears to have made an ironclad case for this being an attempt at semi-hoaxish advertising instead of it being an actual encyclopedic article. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spamming/hoax page created by blocked User:Orionwebmuseum, who's been blocked for spamming. User:Orionandhsu appears to be a sock puppet of User:Orionwebmuseum. -Zanhe (talk) 18:11, 12 July 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 09:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TH3EE[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic article about a non-notable story. The book has not even been published. The item lacks independent references and lacks GHIts and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not notable, there's no buzz from RS about this as of yet unpublished book. It looks to be like it'll be self-published. That doesn't automatically mean that it will never be notable, but it does mean that it's highly unlikely and besides that, we don't keep articles for things that may one day get notability. It has to have notability enough to pass WP:NBOOK and it fails that by at least a mile. The closing admin might also want to see if User:Ryemon/TH3EE and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TH3EE might need deletion, as they're the exact same article and as such, also lack notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale behind endorsing a deletion of those pages is that ultimately Wikipedia is not a place to host someone's story-work in progress or a personal web host. (The page was created by the author, as he's already plastered the wiki entry on his facebook page stating as much, so there's a definite COI here.) They might mean well enough, but this is just someone using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NRVE. Subject has not received significant attention from other people (reliable sources) as of the moment except from the article creator himself. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:18, 12 July 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 09:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flip page[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary entry followed by spam. Penyulap ☏ 04:18, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC) 04:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can't find any evidence that this particular skeuomorph is notable in its own right. On the other hand, I'm not convinced this isn't an encyclopedic topic, so it may be that my Google-fu isn't up to scratch. I doubt that any sources discussing this effect would refer to it as "flip page", but I don't really know what else to search for. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no reliable sources, and there is no indication this is anything significant. Stedrick (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not spam, but some of the links may be. Information is unsourced and probably original research, or is based on sources that do not appear sufficiently reliable for most of what is claimed. Remove this, and what's left wouldn't look like an article - it would probably be no more than a directory of external links. Peter E. James (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saycon Sengbloh[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CV of a minor performing artist. CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. So far this is the most notable entry I found on her, http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Pin-Up-Saycon-Sengbloh/dp/B000CAJF22. Her solo album is currently ranked #1,069,395 in Music at Amazon.com. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her IMDB reference suggests she is not currently notable as she has 11 appearances between 1997 to 2010. She's likely a minor artist at present but she could be notable in future. If this happens, this article can be recreated. --Artene50 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Housewives[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's one of those moments where it's not quite promotional enough to speedy, yet it's clearly not notable enough to merit an entry. I did a search for this book (or anything under the "Zombie Housewives" banner) and other than one news article about one of the two authors [18], there was just nothing out there to show that this recently released book meets any of the notability guidelines, let alone WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability presented, therefore the result is delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Rabern[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced this person meets the WP:GNG. Sources are either primary or about another topic entirely. The standard set of search links for an AfD results in little usable information. As for the Bay of Pigs claim, that on it's face looks completely bogus. Why would the CIA approach a 20-year old kid for such a sensitive operation? DarkAudit (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Appears purely promotional. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a close call. The History News Network piece cited in the footnotes looks "good" as an independently published source dealing at length with the subject of this article, even if to debunk certain claims. The intent of this piece does seem promotional, but that is an editing matter. Even if the Bay of Pigs claim is hooey, this is still arguably an encyclopedia-worthy subject as the founder of International Counterintelligence Services (ICS). Carrite (talk) 16:21, 12 July 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Gonzalez (voice actor)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails notability requirements quite dramatically. The only sources provided are not reliable and do not establish enough notability to have a Wikipedia article to himself. The thing he is most known for is a game series, which is also undergoing AFD for lack of notability. DreamGuy (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actor under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 12 July 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.