Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 July	24 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astraware[edit]

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

No outside sources for article, searches fail to find any coverage-- fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Ducknish (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Oof! I dislike having to !vote to keep an article this bad, one so obviously intended as an advertisement. But here at AfD, the only thing that matters is whether notability can be established. If the sources exist, even if they aren't cited, that's sufficient. The sources do exist. The Google books search quickly turned up 1 and 2; I expect there must be more where those came from. But this is a weak keep because the sources are fairly short and could be argued to be about the company's products rather than the company itself. Msnicki (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the links you've posted and I would argue that they don't really constitute significant coverage of the company or its products. They simply mention the company's name in conjunction with a product, and the product is simply one of many in a compilation. There's really no assertion of real notability for the company and products. Ducknish (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 criterion. Furthermore, Delete: there is nothing so special in this company, no reliable sources to base an article upon and no indication of notability on its own (as opposed to its products, seemingly also non-notable) as required per WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (slightly reluctantly) -- Seems to be a NN company producing software applications. It is a bit too advert-like for my liking. I would like to know more about how many staff it has: two people bought it out, so that it could be a two-man band. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third-party coverage or evidence of notability. Peppy Fazoo (talk) 00:43, 30 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} 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manos Krystalis[edit]

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

Article about non-notable actor and model. AFC declined, but the creator moved it to article space anyway. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User-Reyezsj: "I contest the charge that the artist is 'non-notable.' Please explain to me the grounds on which non-notability is categorized. Here are some sources to indicate the status of the actor (who is also a singer):

http://www.infactor.com/el/talent/1373 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2357821/ http://www.modelmayhem.com/1166935. http://www.amazon.com/Manos-Krystalis-Covers/dp/B003WR9QBM

I was in the process of editing the article when it was moved." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyezsj (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the cited references indicate that this person exists, is a model, and has recorded. Not that he is notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be Included to prove that he is notable?

The guidelines are pretty clear: evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Articles written about Krystalis, not just mentioning his name in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Refs listed are not reliable sources. Declined AfC is also telling, in that the proposed article was reviewed by an experienced editor and deemed not encyclopedic. GregJackP Boomer! 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The cited sources include such things as his own web site, IMDb, and a model agency, none of which does anything at all to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 25 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. Nomination withdrawn. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Hill[edit]

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

I cannot locate independent sources to support notability. Joja lozzo 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Appears likely to just meet WP:GNG:

Significant coverage: [1]
Paywalled coverage: [2], [3], [4]
Also, here's some mentions: [5], [6], [7].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that first ref is okay. I will withdraw my nomination unless there is an objection. Joja lozzo 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 24 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sundheim[edit]

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

Autobiographical vanity article about an executive of questionable notability. A Google news search on his name shows several articles written *by* the subject, but little in the way of significant coverage from independent sources *about* the subject. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotional article about a very ordinary businessman with no special notability. Only one of the references contains text about Sundheim, as opposed to by him, and that one merely gives a brief quote from him. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A very ordinary businessman indeed. No evidence of notability here whatsoever. -- WikHead (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 26 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume![edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources, length of article suggests undue weight to the topic, dubious notability, unsourced content and possible original research, appearance of advertising and possible conflict of interest given perusal of talk page and COI page. General inability to check sources in English language; no mention of this publication in the leading French news site France 24. There are low pageview counts at the French Wikipedia..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has already taken place… Elements from previous PROD discussion. Zamuse (talk)11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place…

Elements from previous PROD discussion

In the editorial board, which is online and in every single issue (18 of them up to now) of the paper version of the journal, and which you can fin online on our website volume.revues.org, there are scholars such as H. Becker, Simon Frith, A. Bennett, T. Gracyk, S. Whiteley, I. Inglis, B. Lebrun, S. Lacasse, A. Hennion, B. Péquignot… : these are major popular music studies scholars. Prof. Lebrun directed an issue f Volume ! on French Popular music. Prof. Sheila Whiteley, leading British scholar on the sixties, will be directing an issue on music and countercultures - the CFP is online all over the place. In France, Philippe Le Guern directed an issue, and he published a book with Simon Frith, one of the founders of PMS. We published a comparative sociology of popular music in France and Britain, which was published by Ashgate in England, by Hugh Dauncey and Ph. Le Guern. These are serious academics, who support the journal, some have directed issues, others have published articles in it, all have accepted to figure in our journal as members of the editorial board. It is not known enough, yet, in the US and the UK, because we are based in France and publish mainly in French.
Please check the list of articles published in English, here: http://volume.revues.org/2135
We work with the Cité de la Musique in Paris, a major concert hall, museum and documentation center dedicated to music, in Paris : http://www.citedelamusique.fr/francais/evenement.aspx?id=12751 We will be publishing the proceedings of that conference (not announced yet, but concluded).
We organized a conference at the Musée du Quai Branly, the Museum dedicated to so-called "arts premiers", created by Jacques Chirac : http://www.quaibranly.fr/fr/actualites/actualites-par-rubriques/actualites.html?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3501
We organized a conference two years ago in Bordeaux (cf. here: http://www.ades.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/Appel_journee_d_etude_musiques_noires.pdf, or here: http://www.cean.sciencespobordeaux.fr/lettre52.pdf).
Link to the ADES laboratory page mentioning the 2009 Bordeaux conference co-organized by Volume ! - another one here mentioning the round table with Philip Tagg the day before the conference.
Our publications are announced on the websites of the IASPM international, Canada (http://iaspm.ca/2010/08/volume-la-revue-des-musiques-populaires-la-reprise-covers/), France obviously (we publish articles they reward). Cf. also here on the IASPM site: http://www.iaspm.net/?p=486. Our recent "Nostalgia" cfp is quoted on many popular music studies site, such as the IASPM
HNET is an important online source (based at Michigan State University) for scholarly calls for papers, academic announcements etc. "H-Net is an international interdisciplinary organization of scholars and teachers dedicated to developing the enormous educational potential of the Internet and the World Wide Web" (cf. here: http://www.h-net.org/) - this means that to publish information on their site, you submit for instance a CFP, they judge if it is relevant and so forth, then publish it.
On this specific page, the "metal studies bibliography" was actually done by K. Kahn-Harris and French scholar Fabien Hein, and first published in Volume ! n°5-2 (on metal music). If you follow the link, we are quoted on his site : http://www.keithkahnharris.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/metalstudies.htm ("I am indebted to Fabien Hein for alerting me to a number of these items. Together we published a version of this bibliography in Hein, F. and Kahn-Harris K. ‘Études Metal: Metal Studies: Une Bibliographe’ in Copyright Volume! 5/2 2006 19-32") - Copyright Volume ! being the first title of the publication, before it became simply "Volume !" in 2010 (issue n°7-1).
We work with the French branch of the IASPM: we publish the winner of their annual "young researcher" prize: http://iaspmfrancophone.online.fr/PrixJeuneChercheur/
And we are on Philip Tagg's database (just type "volume !" in the research bar) - we actually published a new translation of an important letter he wrote, organized a conference about that letter, and just published the selected papers of the conference in our 8-1 issue on "Black Music". :Cf. here: http://www.mollat.com/rendez-vous/en_presence_de_philip_tagg_et_denis_constant_martin-37124.html, here: http://calenda.revues.org/nouvelle12949.html, or here http://www.sudouest.fr/2010/04/13/musiques-de-couleur-64504-2780.php)
We have been accepted by two major French and Belgian online portals: Revues.org (http://www.openedition.org/9173) and Cairn.info (they work together). This means a committee of experts looked at the journal, asked specialists to judge its quality etc. before accepting it on the portals. Articles are online since September. These are two major portals of the French-speaking world - and it's too bad the American databases don't even consider anything in any other language than English as important.
Presentation on Entrevues, a site dedicated to cultural journals.
Overview of the journal in an interview with Emmanuel Parent. The RAMA is a regional institution that supports bands, associations, publications dealing with popular music.
IASPM website announcing our listening CFP.
Leeds Popular Cultures Research Network newsletter mentioning the countercultures CFP.
Neosphères site reviewing the latest issues of Volume. This site is edited by Eric Deshayes, a rock critic, who published several books on rock, the underground in France.
Place des revues the main French online catalog of academic journals, summarizes our editorial process etc.
Volume on Open Edition the site which hosts Revues.org
A link on the Music and Politics online academic journal.
A review on the Monde Diplomatique website. Prominent monthly newspaper on geopolitics. Belongs to the group Le Monde.
Philippe Le Guern's CV mentioning the Volume ! issues he edited etc.
RAMA presentation of Volume ! The RAMA is a regional network dedicated to promoting popular music in Aquitaine. It supports Volume ! and the Ed. Mélanie Seteun.

Zamuse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it finally is time to try to get acquainted with WP guidelines and policies. From your above "elements", I choose just 2: 1/ having important people on your board is nice, but does not mean anything for notability. 2/ That someone mentions Volume! in his CV is, again, nice for you, but really, Really, REALLY doesn't say anything about whether this is notable or not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you select only two elements out of this list, to discredit my attempt to prove that Volume ! is, indeed, a notable peer-reviewed journal of popular music studies? There is a whole list there, with links to major institutions, museums and newspapers (CNL, CNRS, Musée du Quai Branly, Cité de la Musique, Place des Revues, Monde Diplomatique, Sud-Ouest). A good editorial board can eventually be a sign that the journal is respected. Major scholars who accept to add their name to an editorial board eventually do it because they have respect for that journal. Just a thought. It's someone else who had googled us who added those refs to personal bibliographies. Chill out, and try to be a little less arrogant. Our association has been working on Volume for 10 years now, ars artis gratia, and young researchers as well as major scholars from all around the world are acknowledging that work. Your snotty attitude is really out of place. -- Zamuse (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just took two because, frankly, I lack the courage to wade through all the other stuff. The discussion about editorial boards has been had multiple times at the WP Journals project. Notability is not inherited and editorial boards rarely have a more then ceremonial function. All kinds of other stuff you put in that huge post above are irrelevant (for example, in the light of the current discussion, who cares who has "created" the Musée du Quay de Branly? Or that you organized a meeting in Bordeaux?) I'll leave it up to people with more stamina than me to dive into all the other stuff. All I intended to show was that you seem to be clueless about how WP works. Why don't you start reading the links that have been given to you multiple times? And once you have spend a few hours to do so, you will know enough to be able to give us a few good references that are all we need to establish notability and we (including you yourself) can all save lots of time. And while you're reading WP guidelines, you should try WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, too. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see from the above, none of that helps meet the general notability requirements WP:GNG. If anything gives significant coverage in a reliable independent source; please show that source. I don't need a wall of links, just two or three of the best you have is sufficient. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New/reorganized refs. Please explain if you consider these references aren't relevant. Best, Zamuse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

New/reorganized refs

Presence on two major French and Belgian online journals portals

Well, first of all, we are on Revues.org and Cairn.info - these are the equivalents in France and Belgium of Jstor, Muse and co. Revues.org is funded by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the EHESS, the Université de Provence and the Université d'Avignon. Cairn.info by major publishers: La Découverte, Belin, de Boeck, Erès. To be on such portals means a committee of scientific experts looked at our journal, its history, its publications, its editorial process, the authors published etc. to judge whether it was worthy enough to be part of these portals. These two portals host most of the online versions of major, historical French academic journals, such as Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, the Revue Française de Sociologie, Ethnologie Française, Terrain, Gradhiva etc. Volume! would never be on these two portals if it did not comply with the highest academic standards and requirements (peer-review process, international editorial board, major contributors, quality/originality of content etc.). We are thus also indexed on Isidore, the main French index for online academic articles, journals and so forth. This alone is enough to prove we are, at least in the eyes of French academic institutions, a notable academic journal.

Published authors

The list of authors who published articles in the journal, which is on the revues.org website, includes major, prominent popular music studies scholars, from all over the world. Please have a specialist judge this. Among them, just to name a few:

Sean Albiez, Senior Lecturer in popular music studies at Southampton Solent University - http://www.seanalbiez.com/;
Chris Atton, Professor of Media and Culture at Edinburgh Napier University - http://www.napier.ac.uk/sci/staff/pages/chrisatton.aspx;
Harris Berger, Professor of Music, Head of the Department of Performance Studies, Texas A&M University - http://perf.tamu.edu/blog/people/harris-m-berger/
Esteban Buch, Head of Research at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales - http://cral.ehess.fr/index.php?/membres/membres-statutaires/428-esteban-buch
Hervé Glévarec, Research Fellow at the CNRS - http://www2.cnrs.fr/journal/2253.htm
Peter Hawkins, Senior Research Fellow at the Department of French of the University of Bristol - http://www.bris.ac.uk/french/staff/ph.html
Keith Kahn-Harris, honorary Research Fellow and Associate Lecturer at Birkbeck College and Associate Lecturer for the Open University- http://www.kahn-harris.org/
Serge Lacasse, "Professeur Agrégé" at the Université de Laval (Canada) - http://www.mus.ulaval.ca/notice.php?id=29
Philippe Le Guern, Professor at the Université de Nantes - http://www.irma.asso.fr/Philippe-Le-Guern
Barbara Lebrun, Lecturer In Contemporary French Politics and Culture at the University of Manchester - http://staffprofiles.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/Profile.aspx?Id=Barbara.Lebrun
Philip Tagg, one of the founders of popular music studies, the IASPM… http://www.tagg.org/
David Looseley, Emeritus Professor of Contemporary French Culture at the University of Leeds - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/arts/people/20053/french/person/733/david_looseley

and so on… The list is here: http://volume.revues.org/33?lang=en

Our next two issues on countercultures will be edited by Prof. Sheila Whiteley - http://www.sheilawhiteley.co.uk/Sheila_Whiteley/Home.html, with articles by prominent popular music scholars: Prof. Andy Bennett - http://www.griffith.edu.au/humanities-languages/school-humanities/staff/prof-andy-bennett, Simon Warner (Lecturer at the University of Leeds) - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/srw/, Senior Lecturer Benjamin Halligan - http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/page/benjamin-halligan… Our issue on listening will be edited by Professor Antoine Hennion, head of research at the Ecole des Mines - http://www.mines-paristech.fr/cgi-bin/whoswho?Qid=683. The one on nostalgia will be co-edited by Senior Lecturer Hugh Dauncey (Newcastle University) - http://www.ncl.ac.uk/sml/staff/profile/hugh.dauncey/ and Chris Tinker, Reader in French at Heriot Watt University - http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/staff-directory/chris-tinker.htm. The links to the CFPs are above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I won't mention, again, the names we have in our editorial board, since, for some odd reason, it seems irrelevant…

We are now not only organizing conferences in universities (such as the Bordeaux one with Philip Tagg, or a forthcoming one in Strasbourg, with German partners and the French branch of the IASPM), but also events (conferences) with major institutions, such as the Musée du Quai Branly, the Cité de la Musique, the Bibliothèque Publique d'Information of the Georges Pompidou Center. Cf. the links above. We will be publishing the proceedings of a conference that was held by the Cité de la Musique on the question of the cultural heritage of rock'n'roll. We published the proceedings of the Bordeaux conference, which dealt with Philip Tagg's theorization of Black music, in our issue n°8-1.

The journal and the publishing association is supported by the Centre National du Livre, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. The links to the documents attesting this are on the wiki page.

We work with the French-speaking branch of the IASPM (the international association dedicated to popular music studies): we publish the winner of their annual prize : http://iaspmfrancophone.online.fr/PrixJeuneChercheur/.

Scholarly papers mentioning Volume!

Three papers mention Volume! as a leader in the development of popular music studies in France:

Cécile Prévost-Thomas (2010), "Note de synthèse bibliographique: les nouvelles perspectives en sociologie de la musique", L'Année sociologique n°60, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France: 403-417. Her quote: " En dehors des nombreuses thèses et ouvrages dédiés à cette branche de la sociologie et des articles publiés dans des revues spécialisées […] notons qu’entre 1998 et 2008, plus de quinze numéros de revues scientifiques relevant du domaine des sciences humaines et dédiant chacun un dossier spécifique à la question musicale, ont tous inclus une ou plusieurs contributions de sociologues de la musique. Plus encore, d’autres revues centrées sur l’objet musical, telles Musurgia, ou Copyright Volume ! ont largement favorisé la publication d’écrits sociologiques sur la même période."
Philippe Le Guern (2007), "En arrière la musique! Sociologies des musiques populaires en France. La genèse d’un champ", Réseaux n°141, Paris: Hermès Éditions: 15-45. His quote: "A seulement quelques années de distance, les progrès accomplis dans ce domaine d’étude sont évidents : de nouvelles revues ont réussi à voir le jour et constituent des lieux d’expression appréciables, notamment pour les jeunes chercheurs qui peuvent y faire leurs premières armes, ou pour des auteurs étrangers peu ou mal connus en France - Footnote: On pense notamment à la revue Volume dont le premier numéro voit le jour en 2002 et qui a su accompagner la diversification des musiques actuelles."
Emmanuel Brandl (2006), "À propos des musiques populaires : le rock", Mouvements n° 47-48, 2006/5-6. His quote: "C’est donc à une nouvelle génération d’universitaires français que l’on doit aujourd’hui un effort de production et de publication de travaux de recherches en sciences sociales concernant ces musiques. Un certain nombre d’entre eux, regroupés autour des éditions Mélanie Séteun ont déjà assuré la publication d’une demi-douzaine d’ouvrages avec le soutien de l’IRMA et, depuis 2002, d’une revue biannuelle, Volume !".

This article of Le Mouvement Social (2011/3, n° 236, Paris, La Découverte) mentions Volume as a "pioneer" in research on popular music in France. The quote: "La précédente livraison du Mouvement social avait salué la naissance d’un séminaire interdisciplinaire consacré à l’histoire sociale du rock, signe d’un intérêt croissant de la recherche universitaire française pour un genre musical dont l’importance et l’impact au cours du dernier demi-siècle ne sauraient être sous-estimés. Volume ! La revue des musiques populaires , revue semestrielle de recherche fondée il y a une dizaine d’années, et qui a joué un rôle pionnier dans cette reconnaissance, prépare, dans une perspective proche, un numéro consacré au rock des sixties…"

Here are links to a few articles that quote Volume (or Copyright Volume, former title) articles, in the text, bibliography etc.:

Corinne Delmas, "Comptes-rendus, L'Homme (the journal of anthropology founded by Claude Lévi-Strauss), n° 191, 2009/3, Paris, EHESS.
Jean-Marie Seca, "Formatage du ressentir et représentations underground", Sociétés, 2005/4 (no 90), Brussels: De Boeck.
Philippe Le Guern, ""No matter what they do, they can never let you down…" Entre esthétique et politique : sociologie des fans, un bilan critique", Réseaux 2009/1 (n° 153), Paris, La Découverte.
Philippe Le Guern, "Irréversible? Musique et technologies en régime numérique", Réseaux 2012/2 (n° 172), Paris, La Découverte.
Julien Raoult, "Au rythme du tourisme. Le monde transnational de la percussion guinéenne", Cahiers d'études africaines

2009/1-2 (n° 193-194), Paris, EHESS.

Marc Perrenoud, "Partitions ordinaires. Trois clivages habituels de la sociologie de l’art questionnés par les pratiques musicales contemporaines", Sociétés 2004/3 (no 85), Brussels, De Boeck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps… Thanks Zamuse (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You really don't want to adapt to WP, but WP has to adapt to you, eh? All those links to homepages of researchers are irrelevant for the notability of this journal. You don't need tons of references, just a few good ones. And to understand what "good" means here, you really will have to get familiar with our policies/guidelines. If I would want to publish in your journal, I would have to adapt to your instructions for authors, too, wouldn't I? So just see WP's policies and guidelines as our "instructions for authors". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Guillaume, I really don't understand WHY you adopt this tone with me. I'm answering questions, giving links to the academic pages of people who published articles in Volume. This IS a proof of our notoriety. These scholars would not have submitted articles to Volume had they not considered it a serious journal in their field of research. A journal's notoriety is also determined by the content, who published articles in it. I do not see how this cannot be considered as relevant, when it comes to assessing the value of our journal. You were fed up with following this conversation: I'd appreciate it if you followed your instincts and let others deal with this issue. Best, Zamuse (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it adds perhaps to the journal's notoriety, but not to its notability in the WP sense, which is something completely different. Read the policies and guidelines. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I highly recommend that Zamuse should listen to Guillaume and the others here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just added links to mentions of Volume in scholarly journals. Will listen to whoever gives good, courteous advice. Best, Zamuse (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems like Guillaume's advice is courteous and respectful and, more important, correct. Guillaume is trying to help save the Volume! article; at present, Zamuse, it seems like you are doing everything you can to hurt your article's chances for staying in Wikipedia. Can't you see this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume is not being courteous (eh ? yup ? - very obnoxious), plus he selects the elements he wants to criticize, and just neglects all the other ones. I have added a good number of links to articles that mention Volume - three of them actually talk about the journal itself, the other ones refer to articles published in it… This should, I believe, help assess the journal's notability, no? Best, Zamuse (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Guillaume understands the rules. You don't. He has been trying hard to tell you this. You don't seem to listen. Your addition of links has not been helping your cause. If you'd like the article Volume! to stay in Wikipedia, I urge you to listen carefully to what Guillaume is trying to tell you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will, and have: I just added the quotes of the articles mentioned earlier. Please explain why this is not considered as relevant. Thank you Zamuse (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zamuse, you did not listen. You add quotes and then you demand that we explain to you why those would not be sufficient. That's not the way it works. What you need to do is tell us which evidence among the big wall of text that you dumped here satisfies the notability requirements of [|[WP:NJournals]] or WP:GNG and why. Just two good independent reliable sources should be enough. quotes or a few citations to articles that appeared in the journal won't do it. And given the type quotes you just now added, you apparently still have not read any of the policies and guidelines that have been recommended to you. Apparently, you still think that "notability" is a synonym for "good", "valuable", "worthwhile", "important", etc. It is not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You dumped here" - I mean, if that is not arrogant, if that does not explicitly show the contempt you have, a priori, for whatever evidence I have to propose…

1. I have quoted articles that speak about the state of popular music studies in France - that is their topic. And they do indeed mention Volume as one of the agents that developed popular music studies in France. They "address, directly, in detail" the subject of popular music studies in France: their current state, how they developed, where they come from. If you expect to find many online articles that are solely focused on one academic journal, good look to you.

2. They are reliable: published in other peer-reviewed journals, by "independent" authors not affiliated with Volume (one is, in fact, a member of the editorial board, but then again, that does not mean the author is biased, or involved in any "conflict of interest" when he decides to mention Volume in an article).

3. They are "secondary sources": they do not come from our website. I really have, I admit, a hard time understanding how these references are not notable, given they tackle the question at stake, they are reliable, independent, secondary sources…

On the "Notability (academic journals)", here are the criteria:

The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. I have given references assessing that.
The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Maybe not as frequently as 30 year-old academic journals, ok, but we're getting there.
The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history. Yes: there is no other academic journal, since "Vibrations", in France, exclusively dedicated to popular music studies. We offer a space for researchers to publish new, interesting articles on popular music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave links to articles in newspapers that talk about various issues of our journal - how are they not reliable or independent? Le Monde diplomatique, Ouest France are important French newspapers. How do these elements not comply with WP requirements? You haven't explained that - it seems you are blind to these references. I feel like my arguments bounce against hostile wall… Please take each example and criticize it, that's the only way I will be able to understand. But then again, the fact that the equivalent, for example, of the Nation (le Monde Diplomatique) in France does not impress you is understandable: but I cannot invent English sources. Please forgive the fact that the journal, for the moment, only gets attention from French national media… If you type "melanie seteun" (the publishing association) or "copyright volume" (former title of the journal), you get hundreds of responses on Google scholar… "Volume la revue des musiques populaires" gets 1200 answers on Google scholar. I do not believe in google scholar, but since you wanted some kind of an international index (such indexes are important in the Anglo-Saxon world, they do not really exist in the French-speaking one).

If you feel like deleting, in the end, be my guest. I will hardly find anything better than, yes, the prestige of our authors, of our editorial board, of scholarly articles that assess Volume's role in developing popular music studies in France, of the newspapers that reviewed recent issues of our journal, of the major online academic portals that decided we were an asset for them, of the major institutions that call us to organize conferences, debates on popular culture, rock'n'roll, Black music and so forth.

I work benevolently for this journal, it's not always easy, and yet it is getting growing interest in the English-speaking world and beyond (things I cannot prove on WP - the amount of proposals we receive in answer to our calls for papers, the prestige of the scholars who submit papers, who want to edit issues, who accept to review submissions, who contact us to organize international events). If WP accepts dozens of articles on tabloids and pokemons, but not a journal like Volume, that's fine. I really sense incredible hostility in the overly zealous scrutiny you impose upon a page that does not even say that much about the journal - nothing too laudatory, no unverifiable facts, no ambiguous falsifications… And still, I get "uh", "yup", "you dumped here", all these petty signs of contempt, when all I'm trying to do, is offer a young and long-lasting, independent, "do it yourself" and yet serious, scholarly initiative, a little more presence on the WWW.

Anyway, we're doing ok without WP, there's nothing dramatic. Thanks for the experience Zamuse (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable refs?

Comment I made a request for three or four reliable independent secondary sources that show significant coverage. The wall of links doesn't appear to have what I desired. Do those sources exist? Please do not respond with another wall of text, just a short answer showing 3 or 4 of the best sources. (trying to search for Volume! myself was problematic for obvious reasons, searching for "Volume! magazine" is also problematic because there are multiple magazines of the same name!) IRWolfie- (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - Volume is a (scholarly) journal, not a magazine. If you type volume journal popular music, volume French journal, for example, or "volume la revue des musiques populaires" or just volume musiques populaires, volume revue, you find many links in the first page to our original website [www.seteun.net www.seteun.net], to the [volume.revues.org Revues.org] website, the Cairn.info website, and other sites (academia, facebook, twitter etc.), as well as to other sites that refer to us. This is complicated indeed, as there used to be, for a couple of years, a magazine called Volume, and there is a new one also called "volume" that deals with contemporary art and sound (revuevolume.fr). There is also a magazine dedicated to architecture… But once again, if you precise volume + journal/music/popular music/French, you easily find us on google.

Here is a (short, 8 refs only) list of newspapers and online magazines reviewing various recent issues of the journal:

The website "Entrevues", dedicated to journals and magazines dealing with culture, has a special page on Volume. So does Place des revues, the French online catalog of scholarly journals presents Volume.
The major Jazz webzine, Citizen Jazz presents our "Black music" issue.
Les Allumés du Jazz, the "jazzine" of the association of independent jazz labels published a long paper on our "Black music" issue - click on the cover of n°29, the latest issue. It downloads the pdf, and you will find the review by searching for "volume".
France Culture (main national public radio dedicated to the arts) reviewed our "cover versions" issue.
There is an abstract of a review published in Le Monde Diplomatique, reviewing our "postcolonial" issue.
Sud-Ouest, an important French newspaper, presents our latest issue dedicated to gender and racial issues in hip-hop. They had also reviewed our conference in Bordeaux on Black music.
There are links, on the Neospheres website, to reviews of both the "postcolonial" and "cover versions" issues.

Please explain if you consider these references aren't relevant. Best, Zamuse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment: I suspect if Zamuse had left the article alone as a stub we would not be having this conversation. If I recall correctly, User:Guillaume2303 was satisified as long as the COI editing stopped. This made sense to me so I was satisfied. Zamuse's refusal to listen to good advice in the first place has landed the article here. Furthermore, I have communicated to Zamuse (and now to all of you) an alternative to the article which is a section in the article [[Music of France]. The link for the section is here.
Also, I agree with IR Wolfie that a wall of links and other stuff is not helpful. I don't see how we can be expected to sift through all that stuff to prove Zamuse's opinion. However, just to be fair I now have a request. I am not literate in French. Below is are four references cited in this discussion by User:Zamuse. User:Guillaume2303 is literate in French. I am wondering if he would mind giving his opinion as to whether or not these provide sufficient coverage of this publication. Off hand these seem to be Zamuse's best chance.:

Cécile Prévost-Thomas (2010), "Note de synthèse bibliographique: les nouvelles perspectives en sociologie de la musique", L'Année sociologique n°60, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France: 403-417. Her quote: " En dehors des nombreuses thèses et ouvrages dédiés à cette branche de la sociologie et des articles publiés dans des revues spécialisées […] notons qu’entre 1998 et 2008, plus de quinze numéros de revues scientifiques relevant du domaine des sciences humaines et dédiant chacun un dossier spécifique à la question musicale, ont tous inclus une ou plusieurs contributions de sociologues de la musique. Plus encore, d’autres revues centrées sur l’objet musical, telles Musurgia, ou Copyright Volume ! ont largement favorisé la publication d’écrits sociologiques sur la même période."
Philippe Le Guern (2007), "En arrière la musique! Sociologies des musiques populaires en France. La genèse d’un champ", Réseaux n°141, Paris: Hermès Éditions: 15-45. His quote: "A seulement quelques années de distance, les progrès accomplis dans ce domaine d’étude sont évidents : de nouvelles revues ont réussi à voir le jour et constituent des lieux d’expression appréciables, notamment pour les jeunes chercheurs qui peuvent y faire leurs premières armes, ou pour des auteurs étrangers peu ou mal connus en France - Footnote: On pense notamment à la revue Volume dont le premier numéro voit le jour en 2002 et qui a su accompagner la diversification des musiques actuelles."
Emmanuel Brandl (2006), "À propos des musiques populaires : le rock", Mouvements n° 47-48, 2006/5-6. His quote: "C’est donc à une nouvelle génération d’universitaires français que l’on doit aujourd’hui un effort de production et de publication de travaux de recherches en sciences sociales concernant ces musiques. Un certain nombre d’entre eux, regroupés autour des éditions Mélanie Séteun ont déjà assuré la publication d’une demi-douzaine d’ouvrages avec le soutien de l’IRMA et, depuis 2002, d’une revue biannuelle, Volume !".
This article of Le Mouvement Social (2011/3, n° 236, Paris, La Découverte) mentions Volume as a "pioneer" in research on popular music in France. The quote: "La précédente livraison du Mouvement social avait salué la naissance d’un séminaire interdisciplinaire consacré à l’histoire sociale du rock, signe d’un intérêt croissant de la recherche universitaire française pour un genre musical dont l’importance et l’impact au cours du dernier demi-siècle ne sauraient être sous-estimés. Volume ! La revue des musiques populaires , revue semestrielle de recherche fondée il y a une dizaine d’années, et qui a joué un rôle pionnier dans cette reconnaissance, prépare, dans une perspective proche, un numéro consacré au rock des sixties…"

Steve Quinn (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I speak French, and from these passages these, if they can be taken at face value, would indeed indicate that Volume! is considered impactful and important. I haven't read the Wikipedia article, but from the sources alone, I would believe that Volume! is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I would also advise Zamuse to consult WP:JWG if they haven't already. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to leave the website alone - frankly, it's not like I have been adding false statements, anything ideological, any real judgment on the journal - the latest edit was on the forthcoming issues. If that needs to be taken out, no problem. Zamuse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To start, I think that redirecting this article to the section proposed by Steve is an excellent suggestion. And I salute his courage going through all the links that Zamuse has "dumped" on us. Yes, I choose that word deliberately, because it just looks like Zamuse is trying to swamp us under stuff so that nobody checks any more and supposes that somewhere in that huge amount there will be something showing notability. Well, to pick just two random ones again, one was a dead link, the other a list of publications of some researcher, not even mentioning this magazine. Anyway, I had a look at the 4 references selected by Steve and here is what I found:
+ Prévost-Thomas (2010) is behind a paywall and I cannot even access it from my university. the last phrase of the quote given says: "On top of that, other journals centered on the subject of music, such as Musurgia or Copyright Volume ! have stimulated the publication of sociological work on the same period". This seems to be an in-passing mention.
+ Le Guern (2007) mentions Volume ! twice: one is a citation to an article that was published in Volume !, the other is a footnote (cited above), which says: "One thinks in particular at the journal Volume ! of which the first issue was published in 2002 and which has succeeded in following the diversification of current music". Again, an in-passing mention.
+ Brandl (2006) mentions Volume ! twice. The quote concerns one, basically stating that the journal has been published biannually since 2002. The other mention is, in fact, more substantial and says: "The Editions Mélanie Séteun was established in 2002 and have become known by publishing the very first journal devoted to popular music". Nevertheless, barely more than an in-passing mention.
+ The fourth one (in Le Mouvement Social) is an announcement (one of several listed under "Informations et initiatives") that Volume ! is preparing a special issue on rock music from the sixties. Although it indeed says that this journal has played a pioneering role (in the re-evaluation of popular music in French academic research), the item (just a few lines) reads like something written by the editors of Volume ! themselves and is followed by two contacts, both persons involved with Volume!
In conclusion, although notability seems to be tantalizingly close, I don't think that any of these four sources (nor the four taken together) actually do establish notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Guillaume, I have reduced the number of links to 7, up there. Le Monde Diplomatique and Sud-Ouest are important newspapers in France. France Culture is the major national cultural radio. Place des Revues and Entrevues are serious portals. The sites with lists of publications were found by Steve Quinn while browsing on Google, I just, stupidly I admit, pasted the list here. Now things are a little bit more organized. I gave the refs to the scholarly articles to show that we were indeed discussed. Above are links to reviews of various issues of the journal. You have not commented on those yet. Zamuse (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can translate these, if you are willing to trust me :) Zamuse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be sure, most of the reasons asserted for keeping are irrational, or at least not relevant to Wikipedia. But none of the reasons originally given for deletion are relevant. The page views of an article here or on another WP bear no necessary relation to encyclopedic notability--we cover the more obscure areas also. There is no need for English sources to show notability. It is not necessary to be included in a popular national news site to be notable. Having COI, or some promotional content, or being over-long, or of merely dubious notability as distinct from non-notability, having some unsourced content, and lack of adequate references are also not reasons for deletion, but improvement.
Guillaume's arguments of course deserve more attention, as the article does not seem at present to actually meet the standards for academic journals--though I would regard the presence of extremely important editors on the board as significant if they were truly active in the journal. For GNG, I consider that the long signed review in entrevues.org [8] is good evidence for notability, together with the note in Le Mouvement Social and the short notice in Le mode diplomatique" is acceptable as partial evidence for notability to be used for notability -- it specifically asserts the importance of the journal. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the editorial board, I can easily give yet another list of their publications in Volume. this page has links to the articles they published in Volume, and Prof. Whiteley, Inglis, Bennett, Julien, Fabiani, Hennion, Gracyk, Dauncey will soon be published in Volume (we already have received the submissions). The first five in the next two issues on "countercultures" (Whiteley being their guest-editor), the next two in the one on "listening", the last one will be guest-editor of the one on "nostalgia" (all the cfps are online, if you simply type "volume, call for papers, nostalgia/listening/countercultures"). Once again, these are major international popular music studies scholars - any specialist will attest this. It is tougher to prove they have reviewed articles for us - I swear most of them have, and others would be perfectly willing to do so. Zamuse (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion by Guillaume: "reads like something written by the editors of Volume ! themselves and is followed by two contacts, both persons involved with Volume !" amazes me - truly inquisitorial! We never sent Le Mouvement Social any text they should copy and paste in their columns. The two email addresses below are there because the article announces our cfp on countercultures. They aren't a signature of any sort. Zamuse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstracting & indexing I asked the person in charge of referencing at OpenEdition ("OpenEdition is the umbrella portal for Revues.org, Hypotheses and Calenda, three platforms dedicated to electronic resources in the humanities and social sciences", cf here), here is the list he provided, concerning the referencing of Volume!: "Cher ……… Je suis en charge du référencement des revues d'OpenEdition. Vous trouverez ci-dessous les bases des données qui référencent la revue Volume!

AtoZ / Open Science Directory (Ebsco)
BiblioSHS
Google Scholar
OAIster
Ojose
Primo Central (Exlibris)
Scirus (cf here) (Elsevier)
Serials Solutions (Proquest)
Swets
Sudoc
WorldCat."

Volume can also be found on Isidore, JournalTOC, Base. Zamuse (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm very sorry, but none of these are selective major databases. Some (Sudoc) are just library catalogs, others (Google Scholar, BASE, OAIster, Scirus, WorldCat, JournalTOCs) include everything that is published in their area. For yet others (Isidore) it is unclear whether they are selective, but they are certainly not "major". BiblioSHS is the online library access for CNRS academics working in the humanities. None of these contribute to notability. All of them are routinely removed from journal articles as being rather trivial stuffing (we don't mention either that information abotu a certain company can be found using Google, as Google indexes everything; similar for GScholar etc.) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Isidore is dedicated to "SHS" (sciences humaines et sociales) - humanities, social sciences, and it was created by the CNRS - which cannot be considered a "small player" in this field, and neither can EBSCO. It is quite difficult, for journals dealing with "arts", to find "selective" databases - they are usually part of "SHS". Scirus is a comprehensive tool, yes, which is not "stuffed" with anything-you-can-find data - and of course, as mentioned earlier, I do not expect Google scholar to prove anything… But I do get your point.

Concerning notability, you never acknowledged the value of articles and reviews in Le Monde Diplomatique, France Culture, Citizen Jazz, Sud-Ouest, Place des Revues. Please explain why these references should be considered relevant. Best, Zamuse (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! My colleague in charge of "communication" tells me we are "on the verge" of a deal with RILM, the main international music journals index, to be fully indexed on their site. Can't find anything more specialized than that. If you all are patient enough, the deal should be concluded within a couple of months. Best, Zamuse (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all good faith, I here is a quote from a recent email of the person in charge of new submissions: "We are very pleased you would like us to include the articles from Volume! in the RILM database. I will pass all the information about your website and the journal's articles that are accessible on-line, to our editors. As soon as I find out, I will write and let you know which issues they will need in print form."Zamuse (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And an answer from another major music index:

"Dear XXX, Thank you very much for contacting us about Volume! We would be very interested in indexing this journal for IIMP [International Index for Music Periodicals, which is part of the Music and Performing Arts Online database], as it would provide an excellent complement to other scholarly journals covering popular music. I am CCing XXX, our Supervising Editor for the Humanities, who will be able to give you more information about how the process would work.Best regards, XXX"

So, thanks to this debate, not only will Volume be indexed on RILM, but also IIMP! Thank you WP community!

Zamuse (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention that we are partially indexed on the International Association for the Study of Popular Music database created by Philip Tagg, a founder of the IASPM, whose famous "open letter on 'Black music', 'Afro-American music' and 'European music" we translated in Volume here, and with whom we organized our conference in Bordeaux, specifically on the influence of that letter in popular music studies.

Not everything is indexed on the database yet, as they have closed submissions for quite some time, but the process should resume some time before 2013. Once again, quite a specific database, and one that should prove notability, considering the importance of the IASPM in the popular music studies field. IASPM + RILM should be enough, I believe. Hope Guillaume will consider them notable - any scholar dealing with music studies will confirm that they are, even in a WP sense.

Best, Zamuse (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the article a little: taken out what might seem "promotional" (mention of forthcoming issues); added the refs to databases. Zamuse (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "References" and "Further reading" Sections look pretty decent, and 2 other WikiProjects concluded it was notable enough to include in their respective projects (WikiProject France and WikiProject Academic Journals). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have struck my delete (see above) and changed to keep because this journal is a serious scholarly endeavor based on the information provided by Zamusec during this discussion and the previous one some months ago. I am looking at the aggregate of information. Furthermore, although the potential notability of the editors and editorial board are not technically a reason for a keep, in this instance I am allowing it to be a factor in weighing my decision. As expereince has shown, not all decisions pertaining to inclusion have a clear and defining demarcation. In addition, I do not consider the article to be too long or overly promotional. It seems to meet the standards that we have set for such an article, and more relevant information is welcome. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afd process[edit]

AfD process - I am wondering if this AfD was set up correctly. The link in the AFD tag on the article is red-linked. It should be blue. Can someone make sure all the steps were followed? Hopefully an editor didn't just grab an AfD tag and post it on top of the article. I don't what the implications are, but there are steps to follow in order to intiate an AfD. Thanks ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I clicked on the XFD on Twinkle and figured that the software would do the steps right; but this is my first time ever initiating one so it is possible that I missed something. Initially I did a PROD of the article, but then I learned that it had been PROD-ded before, and therefore that the article Volume! was ineligible for a second proposed deletion via PROD.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Twinkle do that, too. The link in the banner appears to be red, but is functional when you click it. Usually, this is transient and goes away after a while. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the discussion link in the template is often red for a short period of time after the AfD is created, as Guillaume2303 mentioned. Everyone who needed to be notified was, the template on the page looks good, and it was logged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 23. Unless I'm mistake, I think that means it all went through OK. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Removal of the section heading appears to be causing confusion. In addition, I have moved two recent comments back up into the thread. This section is not part of the "keep" or "delete" conversation. This was a technical matter related to this AfD in a differnt way. Also, I am restoring the section heading. However, I acknowledge User:Uzma Gamal for a great job in cleaning up and organizing this AfD. Those collapsing boxes have been especially helpful. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who helped improve the article, especially the relentless, inexorable Tom & Guillaume.

Best, Zamuse (talk) 08:50, 31 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. Redirected to alligator shear following deletion The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile shears[edit]

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

The article has existed with no footnotes since 20 March 2006‎. It's listed reference cannot be found via the standard search engines. A Google search of the subject on .edu sites results in no meaningful hits. Searches of Infernal Device: Machinery of Torture and Execution[9] & The History of Torture and Execution: From Early Civilization through Medieval Times to the Present[[10] also come up with 0 results. This article has propagated out on the internet via Wikipedia info cloning and thus, as it stands, appears to be an expanding hoax. Unless someone can provide some reference basis for it's existence, I think it should be deleted. Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a probable hoax. A torture device applied to the penis with no WP:RS. This is a bad joke. It should have been deleted in 2006. --Artene50 (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2006, we were busy trying to work out what to do about the Pear of Anguish (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless there's independent substantiation this should be considered a hoax. Skier Dude (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find the book, either, nor anything else that doesn't come from Wikipedia or this so-rare-no-one-anywhere-seems-to-have-a-copy book. But since this is an easily verifiable alternative name, in both English and German (Krokodilschere), for an alligator shear, I recommend a redirect there. Uncle G (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A redirect to alligator shear is reasonable as long as the contents of this existing article here is deleted. --Artene50 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks like a Hoax to me, becasue the English (unlike the French) did not practice torture in the medieval period. For example, those seeking to destroy the Templars were not allowed to extract confessions by this means. Furthermore, since no king was killed in circumstances where a charge of high treason by regicide would have been preferred, it would never have been used. Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI were all murdered, but only after they had been deposed or abdicated, so that they were not cases of regicide. The citation of a book, allegedly pseudonymous, without an ISNB also leads me to suspect a hoax. Suggest deletion, including its history. The article should htne be recreated as a redirect to alligator shears, where the lead gives the term as a synonym. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 28 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Council of Religious Communities and Groups[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. All Google Books searches seem trivial — I can find sources mentioning them in passing but nothing significant. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was deprodded for a very good reason. WP:PROD is a procedure used for clear-cut uncontroversial deletion candidates, but your rationale was "not sure if notable." If the nominator himself is unsure then it obviously doesn't qualify. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This committee is apparently also known by its Russian acronym OSROG, for which there is coverage here, here, here, here, and here [11][12]. Gongshow ^Talk 00:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would've helped if the article said that, but of course the creator always invests the absolute bare minimum into every article he makes. At least now I know I won't get a "Speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic meets WP:GNG per [13], [14]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources mentioned by Gongshow and Northamerica1000 are quite enough to establish notability (as well as providing extra information, some of which I have now added to the article). PWilkinson (talk) 21:04, 28 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} 23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Gaston Rawls[edit]

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

None of the refs are verifiable. None of the bio info is reffed. Non-notable author or hoax author. INeverCry 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that this may be a hoax, or at least the contents are a fabrication. The bibliography in the article does lead to something be held in a library somewhere [15]. However, the references in the article are a bit dubious. I was able to pull up two of them after a fashion in Google Books. Forgotten Fantasy from Dec 1970 is one of the references provided. Although the entire book is not available, I was able to look at the table of contents which shows no article by a "SCHWARTZ, Delmore" listed. The book is fully searchable even if it isn't fully viewable, and a search for the author and a search for the article turned up nothing. Art Fakes and Forgeries by Fritz Mendax (1956) provides snippet views from a search. Searching for Rawls did not turn up any hits in the book. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 24 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. There's certainly no content in the article that would make userfication a problem, so if anyone would like a copy userfied, just leave me a note on my talk telling me where you'd like it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Keepers[edit]

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

This book series does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Googling for "Dragon Keepers" "Bruce Goldwell" on Google Books retrieves only the books themselves and what appear to be false positives. Google News retrieves four press releases (which, as promotional material, cannot count as reliable sources) and one other article which does not contain significant coverage of the series, mentioning it only in passing. If the series held any other significance, such as winning a major award, that would have been reported in reliable sources, so it appears to fail all criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books). CtP (t • c) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately this just isn't notable. While I applaud the author for turning his life around, this just doesn't meet notability guidelines. I was only able to find one source for the article and we'd need far more than that to show that it passes WP:NBOOK. Maybe one day it will get more coverage, but right now it doesn't have the amount needed to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Userfy. I think that a book or series of books which are getting excellent ("real name") customer reviews on Amazon are quite likely to become notable, even if they are not quite there yet. Then there is the fact that the publisher issued an illustrated edition. Even if concensus goes against "keep", I'd suggest that you give it back to the author to incubate rather than delete it. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. You are right; potential for notability is not yet notability. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I would oppose an all-out keep, I agree that userfication is probably a good idea. CtP (t • c) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you want this userfied? I think that's a grand idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 31 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} 23:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Dodd[edit]

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

This article is about a teacher and author that does not establish notability. as a teacher, the primary claim to notability would seem to rest with being an "efellow" of CORE. All I could find in terms of coverage was this press release. As an author, he has published four books. None of them have received any coverage in independent reliable sources. The first two were through iUniverse, a self-publishing firm. The third was through Mundania Press which does not appear to be a self-publishing firm, but is a very small press. The last is through Lulu which is self-publishing. Note that his book, Quantum Ghosts is already nominated for deletion in a separate AFD. Whpq (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search on this gentleman and his work in connection with the Quantum Ghosts AfD and found essentially what the nominator has noted -- almost nothing that contributes to notability and no reliable sources. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a biographical sketch on the CORE 2010 e-fellows page, but that doesn't seem enough to meet WP:BIO and nor do his books, unless independent 3rd party reviews can be located. AllyD (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 23 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} 23:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Z-day[edit]

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

A stub article with a single source that mentions Z-day in passing. Of no notability independent of the organisations behind it - The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speedy delete as G11 promotional, or possibly A7. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:41, 23 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ispiritista: Itay, may moomoo![edit]

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

No source citations MrX 17:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mainstream movie, nationally released in the Philippines, and quite source-able. See [16], [17], and [18]. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just needed massive plot cleanup and some refs.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nomination appears to be based upon the state the article was previously in, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are a little hard to find for some reason, but since it had a general release, it passes WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Have already released. Might need some improvement. Jonas'VM ☼ 19:14 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Keep We do not delete notable topics because an article lacks use of available sources [19] and simply needs work. Kudos to users Lenticel and Northamerica1000 for their efforts improving this article for the project!Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:59, 28 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break & Turn[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This is just a definition with no other information. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTDICTIONARY ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 17:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also note that page creator is a bit infamous for creating these types of articles on non-notable terms and neologisms. CtP (t • c) 18:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY Ducknish (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of the not a dictionary policy, this, like Outbound exception (AfD discussion), is unverifiable as far as I can determine. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO. It's worth noting that the creator is still introducing new neologisms despite the warnings on the user's talk page regarding the policies on notability, verification, and dictionaries. Meph^talk 14:49, 29 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} 23:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outbound exception[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. CtP (t • c) 16:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phrase doesn't seem notable in this context. Warden (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of the not a dictionary policy, this, like Break & Turn (AfD discussion), is unverifiable as far as I can determine. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. It's worth noting that the creator is still introducing new neologisms despite the warnings on the user's talk page regarding the policies on notability, verification, and dictionaries. Meph^talk 14:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 24 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMNI Aviation Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails to meet WP:CORP, essentially a spam article. Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable flying school one of many thousands none of any particular note and I cant see anything notable about this one. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems to be short of notability, it's just another routine organisation. bobrayner (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Striking out my earlier !vote; I think the sources found by Northamerica1000 shift the balance a bit. bobrayner (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Keep – This topic actually easily passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, per the following significant coverage in reliable sources: [20], [21], [22], [23]. There's also this article, but unsure about the source's reliability: [24]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC) (Modified my above !vote.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for finding those - I obviously missed those sources among the many different companies with the same name. While some of the refs look a bit like press releases, most look fine as refs. I'm going to leave this to run to see if anyone else has any comments or other sources to add. - Ahunt (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment refs are mainly rubbish stuff, it may prove it exists but nothing shows it other than a standard flying school. Significant coverage it is not. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree with the content of the sources I have provided being generically described as "rubbish stuff", a weasel phrase that doesn't state/qualify why or how. Here's some quotes from the articles:

Sun Star – [25]: "SUBIC FREEPORT -- Unknown to many Filipinos, our country is in to be in step with other progressive ASEAN countries like Malaysia to own or introduce top-of-the-line US-made Redbird flight simulators. And that is through the efforts of Omni Aviation Corporation (OAC), which is decidedly considered the Philippines' premier flight instruction and aviation service provider based in Clark Field."
Manila Bulletin – [26]: "MANILA, Philippines — Omni Aviation Corporation (OAC), a flight instruction and aviation service provider based in Clark Field, is literally ready for take-off as the very first aviation school in the country today and second only in the whole of Asia to introduce the revolutionary Redbird flight simulators."
Manila Bulletin – [27]: "As testament of patronage to Omni’s quality and honest service, foreign students continue to flock to its Clark Field main branch, prompting Gomez to shortly open another branch in Subic which aims to accommodate more students and to decongest its main branch at Clark Field, Pampanga."
Manila Bulletin – [28]: "Captain Ben Hur Gomez, Omni chairman and chief executive, said the Subic facility is part of his company’s vision to become the premier pilot school and fixed-base operator in the Southeast Asian region. Investing P33 million for its start-up operations here, Omni will use the facility for its instruction room, flight demonstration room, administration office, and conference room. Six aircrafts, including four for the flying school and two for chartering services, will be dedicated for the Subic operation."

Additionally, more sources about this topic are available on the internet. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you are clearly reading the articles form a different angle:

Sun Star [6] Is a publicity release from the school about using some basic flight simulators, nearly all of it discusses the training devices. Omni Aviation is not the only training school with a simulator.
Manila Bulletin [7] is the same story self-publicity article on simulators as the Sun Star
Manila Bulletin [8] is again a self-publicity story claiming that the school doesnt cheat and follows all the rules,l see nothing notable in that 99% of flight schools would say that dont break any rules.
Manila Bulletin [9] another self-publicity bit from Captain Gomez, we have a new school, not the only new flying school to get a bit of local publicity.

So what we have is four references to support non-notabilty, it is a flying school, it has aircraft and simulator, thats about it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with MilborneOne: it is a non-notable flight school, the article itself looks a bit aimed at promoting the flight school.... --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems to be a subjective proclamation about your opinion of the school itself. How is the school non-notable per WP:N and WP:GNG? Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill FBO/flying school. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 30 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. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Roddenberry[edit]

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

Not individually notable, classic case of an attempt to inherit notability from a parent. Refs do not establish notability. Prod declined with the reasoning "generally notable in trek fandom" which isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. Hairhorn (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I appreciate the nominator's point, but I think that there has been enough coverage of the younger Roddenberry through the years--especially in connection with his Trek Nation documentary--to satisfy WP:GNG. See e.g. [29][30][31] and these GNews results [32][33] On balance I think deleting the article leaves an unnecessary hole in our Star Trek coverage. On the other hand, the current version of the article is overly promotional, and that should be remedied. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eugene Wesley Roddenberry is Gene Roddenberry's son and is a philantrophist through the The Roddenberry Foundation. He was also the consulting producer for the Star Trek fan series Star Trek: New Voyages (2004 - 2011). Added a reference--the LA Times--which briefly interviews Rod Roddenberry directly and solicits his views on the 2009 Star Trek film. If he wasn't important in the Trek fandom and universe, the LA Times wouldn't bother to ask him about his views on this film. So he passes WP:GNG. --Artene50 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a second WP:RS here from USA Today which extensively interviews Rod Roddenberry about his life and activities after his father's death--and also his difficult life living in the shadow of his 'legendary' father as USA Today says. I would say that the subject here passes WP:GNG for having media coverage in 2 separate newspapers. --Artene50 (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two secondary sources, along with his growing credits, make him notable in his own right. Nightscream (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Nighscream's comment: two of the filmography entries are for non-trek films. I recommend trying to find at least one good reference for each entry in the filmography table. --Mirokado (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with reliable sources, including the LA Times and USA Today. Electric Catfish 18:10, 29 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} 23:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Savić (footballer born 1994)[edit]

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

Deleted by PROD on 12 July 2012, and then recreated within 2 days by the same original creator. This player has yet to make a first-team appearance in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL; he also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant third-party coverage. Giant Snowman 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per having already been deleted once recently. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALLL and WP:GNG and I cannot find any reliable sources about him online. Electric Catfish 18:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:02, 30 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 keep. the ed. bringing the AfD has apparently withdrawn it after Dr. B's rewrite DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moto Martin[edit]

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

Non-notable company. WP:GNG requires significant coverage of the subject. Of the two sources cited, one, The World's Fastest Motorcycles by John Cutts and Michael Scott does not mention Moto Martin at all.[34]. The second source, The Café Racer Phenomenon, only mentions the name once, only in passing, among a list of chassis builders who were influenced by Egli.[35] Keep per Dr. Blofeld. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Magazine/newspaper database search negative as well. Brianhe (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thanks for rescue, Dr. Blofeld. Brianhe (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No notability asserted, plus it fails WP: GNG. Electric Catfish 16:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Depends on the level of obscurity the motorcycle project wants to cover (there are very obscure articles in the aviation project, the 'bulletproofer' is the amount of referencing). I remember the Moto Martin CBX being featured in a magazine and other books. If I was looking for info on this brand I would expect WP to cover it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we in the motorcycling project have the power to override WP:GNG with a convention that says, "make an article on every motorcycle manufacturer" or every model of bike or something. WP:NRVE, which says "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists", is policy and that trumps WikiProject rules. And there have been so many motorcycle manufactures that came and went in the space of a few years without leaving a ripple. We don't want articles on all of them. In this case however, Dr. Blofeld has cited enough sources to keep this one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough reliable sources to pass notability requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and many thanks to Dr. Blofeld per improvements [36]. Cavarrone (talk) 23:05, 23 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} 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Snootle and OTHER small stories[edit]

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

This is a book by an author whose Wikipedia page was just deleted due to lack of notability Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorin Morgan-Richards. The references are all book reviews, none of which establish notability. Web searching brings up nothing but links to places selling this book and more reviews. The main author if this page is also a confirmed sockmaster (link) with a habit of promoting books by this author on Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK MisterUnit (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked over the reviews on the page and none of them are the sort that can show notability (ie, by independent and reliable sources). A search brought up only one that might be considered slightly usable, but its reliability is rather dubious. [37] Even if that source is usable, one reliable source does not show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, no independent sources. Vanity, thy name is Lorin. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 18:46, 29 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} 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KSW XI[edit]

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

I Prod'ed this article as Non-Notable event with Non-Notable participants but it was pointed out that there are several articles in the series with the same problem and that a multi AfD eventually including the template would be better. The top article Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki could be considered notable (debateable) but definately not the sub-articles.

The other articles are:

   :KSW XII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :KSW XIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :KSW XIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :KSW XV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :KSW XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also KSW XIX did have an AfD debate with a redirect to 2012 in mixed martial arts events#Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. Depending on the outcome of this debate that might have to be revisited. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Events KSW XVII and KSW XVIII were previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSW XVII. The currently listed events consist solely of routine sports results reporting. KSW XIX was merged because that was done for 2012 non-UFC MMA events in an attempt to reach a compromise (the discussions can be found at WT:MMA, as well as many previous AFD discussions). These events occurred from 2009 to 2011 and there are no corresponding omnibus articles. Papaursa (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I do generally favor the inclusion of the events of top tier promotions like UFC and Pride, but this is a minor promotion with non-notable fighters. The events probably don't even pass WP:GNG, so there's no need to even get into the routine discussion.CaSJer (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There is nothing to show these events have anything but WP:ROUTINE coverage or pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 14:58, 26 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} 23:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alves Bruno[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This article is about a footballer who fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, as well as WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 13:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you want to delete the content of Alves Bruno. This is a page for this luxembourgish football player. you can look at some of his statistiks here:

http://www.transfermarkt.de/de/bruno-alves/leistungsdaten-vereindetail/spieler_103710_9283.html
http://www.footballzz.com/jogador.php?id=168088
http://www.weltfussball.at/spieler_profil/bruno-alves_3/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruuns (talk • contribs)

He does not meet out notability requirements - WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why he should not meet notability requirements? He is like a lot of other Luxembourgish football players who can be found on Wikipedia. It's a former First Division Player who is on a loan at the moment. He also played for the National U-21 Squad, so why doesn't he deserve an article and other players do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruuns (talk • contribs) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxembourg league is not fully-professional and he has not played for the senior national team, which is why he fails WP:NFOOTBALL - he fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant third-party coverage. Giant Snowman 14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article isn't even titled correctly. – Pee Jay 17:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NPSORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 10:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 11:12, 30 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} 23:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Boy Born from Mold and Other Delectable Morsels[edit]

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

This is a book by an author whose Wikipedia page was just deleted due to lack of notability Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorin Morgan-Richards. There are two references on this page - the first to a blog, the second is a dead link. Web searching brings up nothing but links to places selling this book. The main author if this page is also a confirmed sockmaster (link) with a habit of promoting books by this author on Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. MisterUnit (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search, and much like the other listing for a Morgan-Richards book, there's not enough out there to show notability. Fatally Yours could be potentially argued as a reliable source (I found a link to the review on their archive page [38]), but one review is not enough to show notability and there's just not anything else out there to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for myself as well. Another self-promoter with delusions of notability. I would not consider the Fatally Yours source to be reliable. Everything else seems to originate with himself or his friends. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 17:41, 27 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:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Townsend[edit]

Note: I am also nominating the related article Jason Townsend because they are siblings whose apparent claim to notability is virtually identical.

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

As far as I can tell, these subjects fail WP:GNG for a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Before cleanup, the articles looked much like a WP:RESUME; a host of apparent credits appears on the talk pages, but going through WP:BEFORE produced no coverage indicating the subjects' involvement was significant, or that the subjects have had a significant impact in their field to the tune of WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only references to the individuals that I am aware of are in the liner notes of albums and in fan newsletters. Neither type qualifies as WP:RS or meets notability guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:39, 23 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} 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Aubry[edit]

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

A dab page with only two redlinked entries. ~~Neither Ottawa Public Library nor~~ Le Point doesn't mention Aubry, so WP:MOSDABRL does not apply. IBBY Canada does talk about the librarian in passing. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ducknish (talk) 23:21, 23 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} 23:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Steiner[edit]

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

Mostly promotional article for a non-notable artist. After trimming, it seemed to me there was not enough left to warrant a Wiki article (which was, by the by, created by an editor who gets paid to write such articles). Drmies (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, the references are either self-published, or blogs, or promotional.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 24 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ace the Himalaya[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ORG. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Zujua (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organization with no reliable sources. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an advertisement for a non-notable company with little coverage by third party reliable sources. There seems to be only one trivial mention of the company in a reliable source, the Chicago Tribune, but that's not enough to keep the article.--SGCM (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve but do not delete The products and services of the company have been removed from the article. Now, its social works only have been highlighted. The article has been rewritten to prevent it from seeming to be an advertisement. Will add the citations too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.S Nepal (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A.S. Nepal. I applaud your efforts, the page looks much better. But I think it would benefit greatly from some reliable 3rd party sources - as it stands now, I still don't know if there is an argument to keep it. Please also see WP:COMPANY if you are unfamiliar with it. Cheers. Zujua (talk) 11:04, 27 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} 23:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ganesh Stuti[edit]

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

Original PROD: No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline. The numerous warnings on the creator's talk page strongly suggest an attempt by the user to promote their own work both here and elsewhere. Meph^talk 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, self-promotion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, Wikipedia is not for advertising or self-promotion. -- Luke (Talk) 15:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 22:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 23 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 The article contained fake "references" that do not refer to this subject at all. It is clearly either a straightforward hoax or else a self-promotional article about a non-notable person with fake references to give the illusion of notability. Either way, it qualified for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argendz[edit]

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

I tagged this article on a non-notable DJ for speedy deletion as a hoax, as all of the references point to pages about other musicians (lots of them point to articles about Afrojack). There are also some wild claims about co-authorship of international hit records, but the speedy was declined (by the page author, who also has WP:COI issues). I can't find anything verifiable to back up these claims, or anything that meets WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 10:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 10:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3). Expanding on sparklism's points, DJ Mag's #28 of 2010 was not Argendz but Simon Patterson (musician), and Argendz does not appear on any other list by the magazine that I could find. A Google search for "Argendz" returned personal profiles on social networking sites like Twitter, foursquare, Beatport, etc., but no coverage. Adding songs from the claimed discography to the search, like "Between You and Me", come back with nothing except this Wiki article. Seems like a blatant WP:HOAX. Gongshow ^Talk 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 24 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator without any dissenting !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar power forecasting[edit]

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

The article is an essay containing original research with no sources. The title 'Solar power forecasting' does not deserve a separate article. Any information may be updated in Solar Power article itself. -- Anbu121 (talk me) 09:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author has expanded the article, but still looks like original research --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded, indeed, and the sources have been mentioned. The content is original. There is an entrance for wind power forecasting, so it would be good to write a new one for solar power forecasting, as they are the most popular renewables sources and both depend on the weather conditions. [User:Yuli_Alma]
The content is original means that it hasn´t been copied and the sources are mentioned as "References" to follow the structure of the previous Wind Power Forecasting. Any editor is welcome to complete or correct the entrance to make improvements and offer a better quality article [User:Yuli_Alma]
I withdraw the nomination per the sources added --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:34, 28 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} 23:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cappy's Boxing Gym and Club[edit]

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

PROD was declined - Proposed deletion should be used for uncontroversial deletion candidates. The article actually shows some RS, proceed via AfD if necessary

Original PROD was for Notability. Mentioned a couple of times but as an aside for the original training local of a boxer who will compete in the Olympics. Not notable in it's own right. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole claim to notability is that a female Olympic boxer trains there, but notability is not inherited. The only mentions of the gym are passing ones in the articles about the boxer. Papaursa (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trained there - apparently no longer.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited by the fact that an Olympic boxer once trained at this place. Other than this, it doesn't seem have any special features. --Artene50 (talk) 02:32, 24 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 Dolphy. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death and funeral of Dolphy[edit]

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

Article is not notable enough to warrant a content fork from the main article, Dolphy. Subject's death does not rise to the level of, for instance, Death and funeral of Corazon Aquino, that would need a separate article just to illustrate or describe the same. A "delete" or "merge" is hereby requested. Xeltran (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems sensible; there's unlikely to be too much more to add. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge when you remove the duplicated parts of the article from the main Dolphy article, it's very short and not worth being separated.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dolphy. I really liked Dolphy when I was young (although I was in kindergarten when Home Along Da Riles ended, and when Nida Blanca, his co-star in John en Marsha, was murdered), and I felt sad when he passed away (I have a dedication to him on my user page), but do we really need a separate article? Such an event was not as important as, say, Death and funeral of Corazon Aquino, State funeral of John F. Kennedy, or Death and funeral of Leonid Brezhnev, or even the death and funeral of Fernando Poe Jr. or the death and funeral of Eraño Manalo. If we keep this one, we'll end up several articles on the deaths and funerals of several people whose funerals were not particularly notable. We should only have articles on particularly notable funerals, even if it gets lots of coverage. It's just not worth it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By improving it, you can independently split-up the article. It may have long informative-body of item and moreover sort of history.Jonas'VM ☼ 19:14 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge - Must not isolate to the very part of article. No vibrant reason to divide, it was dumbly to dependent the section where is part of Dolphy's history. Jonas'VM ☼ 19:14 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles' recording sessions[edit]

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

I may be a huge Beatles fan, but this is pretty crufty. Most of this content is not notable and that which is has already been or could very easily just be merged into individual pages. The page basically exists as a synthesis of various books detailing the sessions, although most of it still has yet to be sourced three years after the last AfD. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Beatles are possibly and argueably the most influential pop/rock band and collection of musicians of all-time. So WP:NOTTEMPORARY is an immediate answer. Next, WP:SIGCOV demonstrates the world recognizes the contributions and notoriety of the events. Also, a review of the recording sessions falls under criteria for WP:MUSICBIO as a discussion of the recording sessions is also an historical review of the band, musicians, and compositions themselves. The recording sessions as an inclusion in encyclopedic format are relevant. Ren99 (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ren99. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 09:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist. The nominator seems to be proposing this be deleted as WP:FANCRUFT but it hardly qualifies as an "obscure branch of popular culture": it has received coverage in multiple independent books and the Beatles are an enormously important band. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most bands' recording logs are interesting to fans, but not necessary notable, but there is certainly enough interest in The Beatles' output to overcome this bar. (As an exercise for the reader, google for "strawberry fields alternate take" to get an idea of this). Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties is the most obvious reliable source out there, which takes its dates directly from Abbey Road's session log sheets, and The Beatles Anthology would not have been commercially successful were it not for the interest in out-takes and alternative takes from recording sessions. The article is certainly too long and needs cleanup, but not outright deletion. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that there is interest in the recording sessions of A Day in the Life and Strawberry Fields Forever, but is there really encyclopedic value in listing the takes for Long, Long, Long? The most notable tidbits, like the fact that "1-2-3-Fah!" was added from a different take of I Saw Her Standing There, is already in the song's own article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant when I said "The article is certainly too long and needs cleanup, but not outright deletion". Sounds like you agree with that. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes some sense, but what I had meant was that the important info on SFF and A Day in the Life ought to be in those articles anyway, and everything else tossed — thus not necessitating a separate article. But I guess your idea will probably wind up being close to the consensus. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 24 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} 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apherald[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability, no reference, source, and a recreation of a previous speedy deletion Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is referenced, but there is no demonstration of notability and it looks promotional to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having been deleted once before, it falls under category g4 for speedy deletion and needs to be removed. The material needs to be readdressed and rewritten in acceptable format and usage for inclusion. Ren99 (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not apply for speedy deletions, only AfD deletions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam (though I removed all of the SEO links). Various accounts are spamming links to the website. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why should this be deleted? is it not okay to explain about one of the emerging media house in Telugu land? — Preceding unsigned comment added by శ్రీజ (talk • contribs) 07:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being considered for deletion because it does not establish why the web site is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources and no evidence of notability. I have serious doubts whether it is really an online press as claimed in the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:14, 26 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Fang[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG due to insufficient WP:RS. As a former writer for ThinkProgress, Fang's byline may be familiar to some readers, however he has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article is half-resume, half-tangential political debate, and the material specifically about him is cited entirely to primary sources, particularly his own archived posts at ThinkProgress. Meanwhile, the AP and NYT stories included as sources make no mention of Fang whatsoever. Following a search at Google, Google Books, Google News archive and Highbeam, I've concluded that no reliable, third-party sources exist to establish notability. WWB (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator did their homework well. The description of the article is accurate and the searching is persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with the nom that the article needs to be cleaned up, but the subject does seem to have received enough coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. There has been non-trivial third party coverage of the subject in the Washington Post and Boston Globe, and more trivial mentions in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Winnipeg Free Press, Charleston Gazette, Al Jazeera, CNET, New York Times, CBS News, MPR News, Cape Cod Times, and Fast Company. There have also been non-trival mentions by the Business Insider, although the reliability of the news site is debatable, and the The Atlantic, although the article is a commentary on an op-ed piece. This is definitely one of those borderline cases, but I think there's enough to warrant a keep.--SGCM (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources just quote Fang's blog posts on other subjects, the NYT for example; there is no way a coherent biography could be written from them. Some are reposts of other articles (i.e. Charleston Gazette, of Politico) or are letters-to-the-editor (Boston Globe) and in several his name is mentioned only once (Al-Jazeera, CBS, Fast Company). As stated in the nom: his name pops up in reliable sources on account of previously writing for ThinkProgress, but none "address the subject directly in detail", so none can be "significant coverage", and I think it's clear subject fails WP:GNG. WWB (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post coverage and the Business Insider article are non-trivial mentions. As I said, this is one of those borderline cases, that when evaluated in its entirety, does come out barely notable. As you've written, many reliable sources have quoted and cited the subject, which does meet the "widely cited by peers or successors" criteria for journalists in the WP:BIO (WP:AUTHOR) guidelines .--SGCM (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about "widely cited by peers"; I suppose the number of reliable sources involved probably counts as "widely". So I can see the rationale for a "weak keep", although I think if cleaned up it would a stub at best. WWB (talk) 17:38, 24 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Vendetta[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND: no major tour, no awards, no singles, no albums released on major or even notable label. Article created by what appears to be a WP:SPA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many issues with that statement by Walter Görlitz.

Major tours for this year alone include: The Southern Swing Tour: http://www.indievisionmusic.com/2012/04/07/red-cord-records-announces-the-southern-swing-tour/ The April Assault Tour: http://www.itickets.com/tours/1192.html The Firestar Tour: http://www.redcordrecords.com/tours/ John the Revelatour 2012 European Tour: http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/righteousvendetta

Singles include: The Dawning InTents John, The Revelator This Pain (This was released today 7/6/12) http://righteousvendetta.com/

What is the definition of a "major or even notable label"? Seems as though personal preference may be influencing this determination. Red Cord Records currently has 23 total artists signed to their label. Here's their artist page that shows and list every band they have signed: http://www.redcordrecords.com/artists/. Red Cord Records has also produced over 40 albums.

My appearance as WP:SPA is misconstrued as this is the first article that I have written.Mikmania —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no aspect of WP:BAND that is met by this group. I disagree with Mikmania that a roster of 23 artists denotes a major independent label -- one way I have found that guides me in discerning that is whether the label in question has a Wikipedia page; Red Cord Records does not and I believe is unlikely to meet notability requirements to sustain one. Also, as criterion #5 says, "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers many of whom are notable" -- the company was established in 2008 and, of bands considered sufficient notable to have a Wikipedia article, I found one mention of such a band having released an album via Red Cord. Criterion #4 doesn't require merely that they have toured, so the list of completed and proposed tours is not especially relevant; the criterion requires "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country", and I found very little that even qualifies as "non-trivial coverage" -- which also disposes of criterion #1. There are no assertions that the band in question meets any other criterion of WP:BAND and I found nothing to make me think that another criterion has been overlooked. (No charting songs or albums, musical competition wins, national airplay, feature of a substantial broadcast segments, etc.) To sum up, I can find no evidence of notability sufficient to meet WP:BAND and there are not enough reliable sources to bolster any claims of notability that I see here. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- So you want me to make a Red Cord wiki page in order to make it a notable label? Why can Inhale Exhale, also with Red Cord Records, have a Wikipedia page and contain no sources but Righteous Vendetta can not? The sources provided are straight from the source, the band members. Within the sources are transcripts from interviews with the band. [[Mikmania}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikmania (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. (a) No, in fact, I suggest that you not bother making a Red Cord wiki page because I doubt that it would qualify. (b) (i) Because Inhale Exhale has released three albums on Solid State Records, as is clear from the page; I haven't investigated, but they do have an article so I presumed that company was notable; (ii) there's a policy around here called other stuff exists that "X has an article so why can't Y" is not a really useful argument in a deletion discussion, for reasons contained at the page I've linked. (c) it is precisely because "the sources provided are straight from the … band members" and that the "sources" are "transcripts from interviews with the band" that they do not count as reliable sources. Those are primary sources and they're not used, by and large, to bolster Wikipedia articles. We're looking for things that meet the criteria outlined in WP:BAND, and things that the band says about itself don't really count. I hope this helps you understand the criteria that are being applied here and how these discussions work; if you need further information, feel free to leave me a note. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Ubelowme Thank you for your explanation. What you have stated does in fact make sense. Since the article does not state matter of opinions such as "Righteous Vendetta is a great band" wouldn't it make sense that historical information, which is what the page is mostly used for, would be preferable if it came from the individuals themselves? I'm new to the whole creating articles, and even editing in general so these questions are not to question decisions but rather to further my understanding of the policies.Mikmania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikmania (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Red cord falls short for wp:music#5. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 25 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971-Inside Secret[edit]

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

POV fork of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The propagandistic tone makes it unsuitable for merging, DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely agree with the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a long-winded POV fork. Any worthwhile material should be merged back to the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: a POVFORK as mentioned in the nomination and per copy right violations. I am tagging the article for speedy per copy right violations. --SMS ^Talk 12:46, 29 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} 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jupp[edit]

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

Not notable. Anyone but Michael Jupp himself (User:Mike Jupp) may contest this notability fact. J (t) 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable autobiography. From the photo it looks like he finally cut his hair. Pburka (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's going on with the article? Jupp deleted huge amounts of it and totally messed up the formatting. I tried to tidy it up, but if it's kept someone may want to see if any of the deleted content is worth saving. --Colapeninsula (talk)

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) 05:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Mr Jupp doesn't want us to know about him as he deleted a lot of info after the AFD was submitted which looks like vandalism on his part Seasider91 (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted all the edits after the AFD opening so we can discuss the article as it was before, I say DELETE as he hasn't worked on anything notable and notability isn't inherited. Seasider91 (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 13:52, 28 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} 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minghao Xu[edit]

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

Previously nominated with no consensus (only one additional opinion than mine, and that was a "not sure"). I still think notability is questionable but not clearly unnotable. Further discussion is requested. But as it stands, my opinion is delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:48, 1 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, →TSU ^tp* 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable filmmaker Seasider91 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmmaker? As his works are not intended for theatrical distribution, artist is more applicable. We consider WP:ARTIST and look to see if his works have recieved the requisite coverags or made an imapct, English or non-English. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Looking away from English language only sources for this German-born Chinese filmmaker working with fractal art, we find over 1,600 g-hits. Yikes. Help is needed from Chinese-reading Wikipedians and German-reading. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable artist. Lots of references are just to his own web page, and he does not seem to have achieved anything that would make him pass WP:ARTIST. Also a side note: Please do not relist this debate again, it has been relisted five or six times already (including the first AfD). —Kusma (t·c) 12:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to respond to MQS' request for foreign-language speakers above, I don't speak Chinese but my German's pretty good. Based on the German-language sources I've been able to find, I wouldn't dream of trying to write an article about this character, and I can't recommend that we keep this around.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Mindful though I am of WP:CANVASS, I've taken the liberty of asking Timotheus Canens to read the Chinese sources for us.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Chinese ghits are utter crap. Virtually all are unrelated random stuff; the Chinese source linked from the article is roughly a press release from the museum hosting an exhibition on his work. T. Canens (talk) 09:15, 24 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 Robert Wyatt. Bruce, if you want to work on it in user space feel free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flotsam Jetsam[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable compilation album, basically of odd bits gathered from Robert Wyatt's unreleased recordings. Hard to find any serious references for it (not blogs or CD shops). Would be happy to be proven wrong. Search is complicated by standard phrase "flotsam and jetsam" as well as by blogs and shops; news search gives no hits. Try this search. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect I had a search but couldn't find any info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Robert Wyatt. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added an Allmusic review, and I think that establishes notability. The article needs some tidying up, and I'll get to that next week. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, worthy work Bruce1ee (and well done finding it), but I'm far from sure it establishes notability. The review is brief, not specially flattering, and doesn't claim the compilation is remarkable. It's just one source; and being commercial, has an interest in covering as many albums as possible, notable or not, so it is questionably independent. More and better sources would be required to demonstrate notability. Nom still thinks Delete is the correct option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting a source because it's commercial is ridiculous (almost everything you read is published to make money or advance the career of the writer, so what do you consider an acceptable source?) But notability requires multiple reliable sources, which this does not have. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but we're not rejecting the source because it's commercial: we're just taking into consideration that the nature of the source to an extent influences its choices, and in this case to some extent most probably reduces our estimate of how notable the reviewed work is. Had AllMusic written a long, detailed, strongly approving review praising the album and giving numerous reasons for its excellence, we would certainly all agree that this contributed (one of numerous reliable sources, if such exist) to notability. But it didn't. I have no beef with commercial sources, nor with AllMusic. This particular review "damns with faint praise". all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One uncharted and uncertified album, without award or recognition, on one label, by one artist does not meet criteria for WP:BAND regardless of the number of other performer's songs they cover on it, etc. Ren99 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS is applicable here, not WP:BAND. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added a non-trivial secondary reference (an Italian book) that discusses the album over two pages. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has two reliable independent sources, satisfying WP:NALBUMS. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:07, 26 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} 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Aptekar[edit]

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

Just seems like a dentist -- and could not find reliable citations for the journal mentioned. Frederick Ding 03:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability. No reliable secondary sources. Conflict of interest as he seems to have created an article about himself. Unsourced personal information. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability in the article is the claim that he is the founder and editor in chief of the "Journal of Clinical and Practical Oral Implantology". However, that journal does not appear to be a "major well-established academic journal" so it does not provide notability per WP:ACADEMIC. The journal was only founded in 2010 and only comes out quarterly. Google Scholar never heard of it and neither did PubMed. It doesn't even have a presence online - not even a website. Lacking notability through the journal, he appears to be a run-of-the-mill dentist; I'm sure he is very good at what he does, but he does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 28 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 no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back-Up Trust[edit]

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

Not notable. No independent sources cited, and no significant independent coverage found on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found many possible sources online, but I am not certain about their reliability. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 10 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hays[edit]

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

Adult video work is verifiable but doesn't seem to rise to WP:PORNBIO, country music career seems to lack anything in the way of reliable, secondary sources that I can find. I declined an A7 on this, but I don't see sources that establish notability. (Withdrawn below.) j⚛e decker ^talk 23:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's not really a porn star as a b-movie star but criteria 3 of PORNBIO would seem to be satisfied if her music and appearances on mainstream tv shows can be verified. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article should be deleted on grounds that it is almost certainly libelous and likely to remain so since it is a BOLP. The subject does not appear to be notable in either catagory singer or PORNBIO. BO | Talk 18:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as suggested by Morbidthoughts she is more a B-movie actress and a TV-hostess than a pornographic actress, Film Threat has a biography of her [39] and she received some coverage as hostess of Playboy TV ([40]). More or less weakly, in my opinion WP:ENT is met, on the other hand if we should apply PORNBIO, its third criteria would be satisfied. Cavarrone (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Keep as nom based on additional sources provided by Cavarrone. I have added them to the article. The FT intro to a later interview is significant coverage, and FT is a reliable source, and I think you could make a plausible case that this meets WP:GNG, or as Cavarrone suggests, ENT or PORNBIO 3. Take your pick. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 25 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:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rock & Roll Over Tour[edit]

Tour existed. Check the KISS tour bible Kiss Alive Forever. People should know what they're talking about before deleting items.

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Couldn't find any secondary coverage in a Google News search. All of it is sourced to primary sources. The table list of cities is absurd. Kiss (band) doesn't even mention this particular tour (except in template). A little material about the tour could go there (god knows there's lots of material about lots of tours), or I suppose it could go in the album article. Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 07:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 23 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} 05:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airmax Muzik[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. Per WP:MUSIC, mixtapes are generally not notable unless there is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. (Current "sourcing" is two de.wikipedia and three youtube refs.) SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 9 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 08:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete complete lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 19 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) 05:35, 23 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 Star Grave[edit]

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

Non notable band without coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:MUSIC Valenciano (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC gives the criterion of two or more releases on a major indie label as satisfying notability. 5 Star Grave has a recent one - on Massacre Records, that along with their inclusion on Last.fm is making me lean towards Keep (but barely) - needs more 3rd party sources and to trim some of the POV. 81M (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion: CSD A9. Adjkasi (T | C | L) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A9 is for musical recordings, whereas 5 Star Grave is a band, not a recording. You probably mean A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs at least a second album released through their current notable label, or an international tour. Last.fm includes every band whose music can be "scrobbled", so it doesn't prove notability, and they have just three thousand listeners on there. Mushroom (Talk) 15:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 8 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 08:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 23 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:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Craft[edit]

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

The piece in The Atlantic was written by Steve Craft, and it is his only story for The Atlantic. The rest is TEDx and not independent. I cant find anything else online to indicate notability. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 08:02, 15 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) 05:34, 23 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 TED (conference). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TEDxJMI[edit]

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

No indication that this TEDx is notable; I couldnt see Google News results. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 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, — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 08:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TED (conference). This article contains almost no information, and the event may not be notable. The main TED article could have a list of all the events, maybe a table, giving this a few words. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. I don't see very much to merge. It might be time to actually build a (previously twice deleted) List of TEDx events. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Most of the content in the article talks about TED, not TEDxJMI. That apart, no reliable sources found to ascertian notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:35, 30 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} 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism and developmental psychology[edit]

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

Appears to be entirely original research. Wikipedia is not for the publishing of original research. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay synthesis discussion; not appropriate for Wikipedia. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious Essay, WP:OR. There's a much better article already on Nihilism which covers the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche et al. No cause for merging, straight deletion is the answer here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the criticism above,however there was a previous version of my article in which the verifiable fact of a meeting/interview between myself and Marmysz (2012), discussing the the possibility of an innate capacity for nihilistic thought, was posted for about half an hour. I am not sure if that was rejected or not, but I dropped those first two paragraphs in line with what I thought would fulfill Wikipedia criteria. As support for that documented and original concept of an innate capacity for nihilistic thought, the essay was written, of which I thought an excerpt could be included as they are in many other Wikipedia articles. Does anyone think that is a promising path to pursue in this case? This is not meant to be an article on nihilism or Nietzsche, but rather about several thinkers who have a new conception of the role that nihilistic thought plays in human development, with a specific focus on psychological tendencies/capacity. --Christopher Anderson (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 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. Absolutely none of the Keep contributors (all but one of which are SPAs) give any policy-based reason for the article to be kept. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Cornielje[edit]

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY - an autobiographical article. Possible claims to notability in article are an inherited title (WP:NOTINHERITED), a poetry award which turns out to be the best poem from a specific book, restricted to members of a website he was on, a music nomination in the "Indie Music Channel" awards, the first and only year of those awards. Gnews archives gives 4 hits - one passing mention, one single-paragraph local paper mention, and two hits that are both this article, from what appears to be a localized edition of an Indian paper. Google offers an article that looks like it was generated by the hotel he was playing at for 3 years in Phuket, Thailand, but otherwise looks like a sea of self-generated hits. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet criteria for WP:MUSBIO. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources giving non-trivial coverage of the subject. No evidence of notability within the article. Lots of unsourced personal information. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough evidence of notability through links provided, through family history, Facebook fans: over 64,000, Twitter followers nearly 40,000 and numerous videos of performances worldwide on youtube and other sources--Vonsaxen (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Above editor is apparently both the subject of the article and the sole author of it in its current form. (Sorry, I can't remember the templates to tag these things at the moment.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cornielje is very well known in Holland, Morocco, Thailand, Switzerland and many other countries, he received a poetry prize too in Holland and he does a lot of charity work for orphans in India. I have seen his shows and they are great.--Poerak (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Poerak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I have seen Gerard Cornielje's performance in Paris, he was moderating and performing for the Tour de France (Alberto Contador, Saxobank) he has other great performances in Switzerland and Holland, he is really amazing, I am on his like page and he has got almost 65.000 Likes under 'saxbomb' How can he not have enough notibilty: he has got fans all over the world and is a well respected poet and musician in the Netherlands!--Bennaomi (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Bennaomi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep To begin: I think that the message welcoming me here regarding 'canvassing' was not pleasant to read. However, I have created this account with the single purpose of supporting Gerard Cornielje in this matter. It is probably a grave mistake to be so bluntly open, but when it comes to music and art we should let ourselves go and follow our hearts and souls. That is what Cornielje is about, so that's what I would like to express: please keep this guy where he belongs: in Wikipedia, among us all. Perhaps a little guidance here or there would be appropriate, but deletion would be too severe. Agreed, I am a fan and therefore not objective, but then again: who is? Should clinical judgement always be the defining factor in making these decisions? Aren't artists of this kind valuable enough to be kept in the eye of the public? I think they are and therefore request a definite Keep!--Janssenb (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Janssenb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment None of the above keep !votes address the fact that he doesn't seem to meet the criteria for WP:MUSBIO. However if you could provide references to articles about the person in newspapers, magazines, books or other reliable sources, then that could help establish his notability. This is all I could find (article) and on its own it just isn't enough. In any case there is a lot of unsourced personal information in the article, which will need to be deleted unless sources can be found. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Online resources seem to show notability, I believe that the amount of twitter followers and Facebook likes speak for themselves. The artist gathers his following most likely through live performances. His poetry award and nomination as best Blues Artist and his global Reverbnation position (nr. 27) on the Blues Charts also speak in favor. Reverbnation is after all one of the best known online music platforms for independent musicians.--Vladimireric (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Vladimireric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We have guidelines for inclusion of musicians, seen at WP:MUSBIO, and it would be helpful if the new editors we have popping up to comment could review that set of guidelines and address the material in the terms presented there. Twitter and Facebook counts do not "speak for themselves", as they are very manipulatable, and in any case do not measure "notability" by the definition Wikipedia uses (see WP:NOTABILITY). --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in case of Cornielje is not restricted to music, he is is published poet as well, the award he won is not as trivial as it sounds in your comment above: the NCRV is a very respected broadcasting company in The Netherlands, the internet platform they ran for many years has been used by thousands of poets from Holland and Belgium. A pre-selection of 120 poets was made and Cornielje's poem was chosen as the best poem out of the entire history of this project. The award handed to him is a definite indication for notability. So is his book In Exsilium.The nomination as Best Blues Male Artist for the Indie Channel Awards can not be trivialized either and meets one of the requirements for notability in the field of music. The fact that Cornielje has been chosen to be ambassador for the Toe-to-Heart Trust in Bangalore is a verification of his notability to: one does not choose just anybody for such a position. Finally does Cornielje's family history make him a figure of interest (especially in the Netherlands): there are very few noble families left in the Low Lands.--Vladimireric (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Indie Music Channel Awards" nomination does not meet any of the requirements in the field of mysic; those requirements call for nomination for "a major music award", which these clearly are not. A Google news search including archives for coverage turns up a grand total of seven hits - most of them press releases. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put in my tuppence worth: I of course accept the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, but would regret very much to see my article disappear entirely. If my notability as a musician is not sufficient to classify for Wikipedia, then so be it. I would like to mention however that being a musician is only part of my life. I therefore would request a check of my family history and my career as a poet as well. Perhaps the article can then be re-labeled. If the editors feel that this article is not Wiki-worthy after this check, then I do no longer object to removal.--Vonsaxen (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned article has been accepted and researched in The Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Switzerland, all hereditary questions have been verified, artistic values have been recognized, so let's get this thing on the road and settle the issue asap: hesitation is a virtue of the weak after all :-) Keep or Delete that is the question m'lords! Let's get on with it!

KEEP or DELETE, that's the question my fiends :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonsaxen (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Chart nr. 28 on the Global Reverbnation Charts, indication of notability--Vladimireric (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a country's national music chart; that's just the sales chart for a single website, among those who happen to use their web service... and as the chart goes on infinitely, every performer on ReverbNation is "on the charts". --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ last attempt to share some hopefully useful links to establish notability:

http://www.waaier.com/bundels.php#12 (Anthology in wich I am featured)

http://www.waaier.com/bundels.php#10 (Anthology in wich I am featured)

http://www.bruna.nl/boeken/in-exsilium-9789085396796 (Poetry in English and Dutch)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dutch_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_jazz_saxophonists

http://top-topics.thefullwiki.org/Dutch_jazz_saxophonists

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Jazz/Musikerindex

http://www.reverbnation.com/main/charts?geo=National&country=CH&state=&city=Regensdorf&postal_code=8106&genre=blues&page=1&use_postal_code=1

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergh

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/'s-Heerenberg

http://itunes.apple.com/ch/album/sax-on-the-beach-single/id488417646

http://itunes.apple.com/ch/album/blue-door-feat.-gerard-cornielje/id514777075

http://www.reverbnation.com/mobile-app/41040/saxbomb

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_Nederlandstalige_dichters

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorie:Nederlands_dichter

http://www.geni.com/projects/Dichters-in-de-familie

http://stillesuiker.wordpress.com/webnest/dichters/

http://poezie-homepages.startpagina.nl/

http://persleandertijdhofcom.blogspot.ch/2011/05/gerard-cornielje-wint-dichtersprijs.html

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Autor

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Biografien/Cor

http://celebrityautographs.nl/ln_dutch/c/cornielje.htm

http://poezie.jouwpagina.nl/rubrieken/erkende-dichters-c-d.html

http://tjsaxes.com/gallery

http://itunes.apple.com/ch/album/god-bless-the-child-single/id488434172?l=en

http://books.google.ch/books/about/Dutch_Saxophonists_by_Genre.html?id=aRnKbwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

http://artseesdiner.com/gerardcornielje.html

https://www.reverbnation.com/c./rpk/413317

Contact for Publishing house 'De Wilg' [email protected] 0031-592 273 266 (Marion Spronk oder Rob Spronk) contact for publishing house Freemusketeers: [email protected] At 'De Wilg' 2 more books of poetry will be released next year. The incredible tales of Baron von Saxen and another title which as of yet has no title yet. This information can be verified with the respective Publishing Houses.--Vonsaxen (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC) This user has voted twice.[reply]

Added recent publications and releases to the article and removed some remarks from this discussion page, since a discussion between Nat Gertler and myself has taken place on my talk page. This to keep the conversation in the realm where it belongs: the contents and 'wiki-worhtiness' of this article.--Vonsaxen (talk) 16:32, 22 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) 05:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NPOV ...please note a contributor states; "Agreed, I am a fan and therefore not objective..." and also the debate statement; "Note - Above editor is apparently both the subject of the article and the sole author of it in its current form." These statements in and of themselves should provide justification to Delete. The article could then be rewritten for relevence and a neutral stance. And for what it matters, if you type in my name on a Google search you will get hits too, and anyone could drop my name on various lists on wiki as well as if that in and of itself is definitive of noteworthiness. Let us include you, don't just up and decide it yourself; that's what the world calls "narcissistic", a particularly unsavory tag to get listed as. Ren99 (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*KeepI feel notability has been established in the course of this discussion: a book of poems, 2 anthologies, a CD, 2 CD singles, international influence (Thailand, Morocco, India, several European countries,I found numerous links, videos and referrals to this person globaly).I believe that this article is a definate keep.--Vladimireric (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) This user has voted twice.[reply]

Keep Notability through verifiable international appearances, recordings, publications and heriditary relevance add up to meeting the required criteria.--Ajampaniki (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — Ajampaniki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you point to which specific criteria these meet? --23:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:MUSBIO would like to refer to WP:NOTINHERITED--Ajampaniki (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking WP:MUSBIO, the only of the listed criteria there which the things you list would qualify for is #5, but that's dependent not just on the number of recordings but on the label for the recordings. Do you have information on Cornielje's labels that shows their import? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet criteria for WP:MUSBIO. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources giving non-trivial coverage of him as musician resp. poet. Violates WP:NPOV.-- Engelbaet (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevance through international influence: India, Thailand, Morocco, Europe. etc. Perhaps criteria designed to assess are no longer in touch with present reality and should be somewhat more flexible to be able to differentiate between irrelevant and relevant--Zulauf1234 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Zulauf1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is not an effective place to argue for a change to policies and guidelines, I'm afraid. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanispamcruftisement. Charts are not Good Charts. Overloading us with bad refs doesn't make him notable. What is he meant to be notable for? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 30 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} 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Tirrell[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this musician is sufficiently notable. All the references used in this article are actually written or published by Tirrell himself. I was unable to find in-depth coverage of Tirrell in third-party reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any non-trivial, independent coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject may meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO one day, but at this time the only sources found are social networking sites including YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Formspring, ReverbNation, SoundCloud, etc. Gongshow ^Talk 01:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. Does not meet WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.CouchSurfer222 (talk) 17:11, 30 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} 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Imam Mahdi[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic; appears to be original research (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy?) delete. At least part of the content appears to be copied and pasted directly from this page. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good call. I thought that it looked copied from somewhere, but a quick search couldn't find the source. Let's let the AfD run its course (at least until/unless an admin closes it early.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. I also tagged the article as a copyvio. GregJackP Boomer! 11:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purported source is a slideshow uploaded by someone with an account named "rummanii". The article here was written some 13 days later by someone with an account named Rummanibni (talk · contribs). It's not outside of the bounds of possibility that this is the same person. So you might want to find other grounds for deletion as well. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my nomination and messages to the author refer to the original research angle, not just the copyright issue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Assuming that it is indeed copyvio. -- WikHead (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked at some of the pages of the site of which is alleged to be a copy-vio. I would suggest that the whole thing is WP:OR based on the web-author's view of islamic exchatology. Unless reliable independent sources can be provided showing that this is a widely-held interpretation of islamic scriptures, I would suggest that it has no place in WP. My attitude is similar on some of the more scatty interpretations of Christian scriptures, emanating from th American deep south, though some of them may have been widely enought publicised to warrant an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 28 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 - consensus is that WP:5P applies as the subject is a verifiable settlement. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 04:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matubhuiyan[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, or WP:NOTGUIDE. Doesn't effectively demonstrate significance. Unable to locate any reliable sources to add potential historical/encyclopedic information; perhaps some exist in Bengali language texts? Zujua (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have invariably, for a good few years, kept articles about verifiable human settlements. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, thank you for that; sounds keepable to me. In its original state, I thought it was referring to a bazaar rather than a village. Can I count that as a "Keep" vote from you? Shall I withdraw the nomination? Zujua (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a verifiable settmement; Wikipedia is a gazzeteer as one of the pillars. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also exists as a gazetteer. Also keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 24 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} 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Sigma Fraternity[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article about high school fraternity. No sources provided, and a search by me shows only tangential coverage in reliable sources. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Without finding more "substantial coverage" in reliable sources, this ought to be deleted. GrapedApe (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete HS fraternity falls under the category of WP:NN. Not a significant entity, no significant impact. Adding this to wiki space invites every collection of individuals using a greek lettering system to spawn pages. Ren99 (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, all of the other articles for high school fraternities should be nominated for deletion, which I do not agree with. BlueGold73 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, just that all HS frats that cannot satisfy notability requirements should be deleted, which I agree with,--GrapedApe (talk) 23:59, 26 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} 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owal (rapper)[edit]

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

This person has never been notable as an individual musician, and doing a couple one-off collaborations with barely notable musicians doesn't really do much to add to it. There aren't any good sources to speak of here, so I don't see a great case for notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can find no indication that the musician has any sort of notability, nor can I find any reliable sources. Grated, if sources existed, they would most likely be Polish, but looking at the past AFD that ended with a no-consensus, people were unable to really find any thing then, either. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources. I also checked the Polish Wikipedia article for this artist and although it has many sources they are all either MySpace or other Wikis. J04n(talk page) 19:36, 28 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} 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic SA[edit]

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

I declined this G11 CSD, but I can't find any sources which would suggest the company is notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sole reference shows the firm as one of 3 recipients of a local export award that year, which is insufficient. Nor does it appear any other evidence of notability is available. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 23 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} 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jourdelle Bennett[edit]

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

Happened across this while looking for a West Indian cricketer, one glance was all I needed to see this has near enough zero notability attached. No sources which establish notability from a google search, so fails most of all WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in his own right. Any information about him that is worth keeping can be added at Jamie's Dream School. CodeTheorist (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 28 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 Imagi Animation Studios. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Tale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A cancelled film with no citations, fails WP:N. WP:V, WP:NOTFILM, and WP:FUTFILM. Google shows nothing since 2005 regarding pre-production of film. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imagi Animation Studios. The film is not individually notable, but should be redirected to the parent article, which is. Per WP:FUTFILM: "Article content can be merged back to source material, where it exists, or to the articles of the primary filmmakers. If the film reaches production, the redirect can be easily reverted."--SGCM (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imagi Animation Studios. This film was in the loop but was cancelled during Imagi's times of troubles. Now that Imagi is back, they have apparently revived their plans and the article can be recreated if the new plans come to sourcable fruition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 24 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba Provincial Nomination Program PNP[edit]

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

No indication of notability (WP:GNG), reads like a WP:HOWTO and an advertisement for the program, probably with liberal application of copypaste. Sandstein 05:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I've made some improvements and found some references which could go some way to indicate notability. I think the article could definitely be improved with some more rewording, and expanded to further prove notability and move it away form a WP:HOWTO. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that the article is mis-named, I believe. Looks like it should be "Provincial Nominee Program for Business," which yields a few Gnews hits, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:18, 23 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Smith[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability. Sources given show he exists but little else. Apparent autobiography. noq (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. He has had roles in theatre school productions, and at the Edinburgh Fringe. There are two films in production; in one he has a voice acting part, and I couldn't find much information online about the other film (Henry V). Anyway he clearly fails "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Also the personal information is unsourced. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:04, 15 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) 02:31, 23 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham Raiders[edit]

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

Non notable amateur team in a non notable league. Fails WP:NOTABILITY Keystoner idin (speak) 23:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to have been the subject of in-depth coverage by third-party reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 23 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 No Consensus to delete. While there is no consensus that the article content should be deleted the the balance of arguments favors covering him in the context of his notable father so I am redirecting the article as an editorial decision. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur MacArthur IV[edit]

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

Son and grandson of über-famous American generals but by all accounts this man sought to avoid the limelight and did. Much of the article is based on sources of questionable reliability that rely on hearsay which is unacceptable for a biography of a living person. Pichpich (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki entry on Arthur MacArthur IV is of tremendous historical significance and should be retained. References provided are the only ones available on MacArthur but the references are credible. The entry has been edited down to a bare minimum so it covers only the historical significance of the living entry. Arthur MacArthur is of significance because he is still alive and an established public figure. People want to know that, and Wiki now provides the only known bio information on this noted individual. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoruff (talk • contribs) 08:47, 23 July 2012

Why is he of tremendous historical significance? How is he an established public figure? If that was the case, there would be plenty of detailed references to build an article. Pichpich (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very young Arthur MacArthur IV was on the cover of LIFE in 1942 (Amazon.com listing here), and there is a 1946 UPI story describing him as an 8-year-old "musical prodigy" (and even then mentioning the "screen of secrecy MacArthur maintains around his slightly built son").[41] Otherwise the only thing I can find is a series of very brief entries in columns of the "where are they now" variety, reciting the usual story that he sought privacy, changed his name, became a musician, lives in New York.[42] I see no basis for a separate article. At most, a few words, a sentence at most, might be added to his mother's and father's articles mentioning the basic reliably sourced facts. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Douglas MacArthur. It's a convention to redirect articles on family members of notable people that aren't independently notable, as per Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid criteria.--SGCM (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Arthur MacArthur IV has significant coverage in bios of his father. In addition, he has numerous instances of press coverage before he started using another name in his musical career. Above was mentioned the Life magazine cover. Here is a link to the article about Arthur on pages 66 and 67 of that August 1942 Life: [43]. The press service story about his from 1946 was mentioned above: [44]. Here is an article when he was 13 with significant coverage:[45] Here is another article when he was 13: [46]. Here is an article when he was 14 with a paragraph about him:[47]. Here is a wire service story from 1964 while he was still Arthur MacArthur, with significant coverage: [48]. He was called a "familiar figure to the public" at age 26 in a wire service story. His life and chosen obscurity gets coverage such as Tampa Bay Times 2010: [49]. This is far more instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources than most Wikipedia biographies. If the bio is deleted for some reason at this time, in disregard of WP:BIO, it could still be re-created when he dies and the obit appears in various news media, with coverage of his later career under the later (secret) name. His chosen obscurity can still be respected by absolutely not sleuthing his presently used name or other present details, while he lives. Edison (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bar to notability is quite low on Wikipedia. He has kept a deliberately low profile in New York City, which is notable in its own right, considering the extraordinary notability of his father. 76.17.130.55 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In essence you're arguing that we should put him in the spotlight because it's really interesting that he manages to avoid the spotlight. Ethically, I find that very problematic and the BLP policy does call for a respect of people's privacy. He was paraded around as a child like many celebrity children but we don't have articles on the children of Tom Cruise (despite the fact that they'll routinely appear in tabloids). Pichpich (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect to father. Notability isn't inherited, and this subject hasn't done anything sufficient to earn notability on his own. Applied sources fail IRS. Nothing in presented sources or in a reasonable search which meets GNG or BASIC on the subject's merits. Clearly fails WP:MUSICIAN. I see no sources in the last 35 years which directly detail the adult son independent of his relationship with the general. Virtually everything recent (like the Tampa Bay source linked above) is an unanswered "where is he now?". "Keeping a low profile in NYC" applies to some 8 million individuals. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 30 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 Simpson_family#Pets. This is quite a close call, but there seems to be quite a bit more policy-based discussion based around a Merge here. Even some of the Keep comments also indicate some agreement with a merge. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball (The Simpsons)[edit]

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

This article cites no sources, and is literally just a plot summary of five fictional cats. There is no real world context (creation, development, reception, etc.), and it has been tagged with the in-universe tag since 2009. It may be a plausible search term, so I think a merge and redirect to Simpson family would be appropriate. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect (and perhaps merge some information). I agree with the nom. I have tried to find reliable, secondary sources for this article in the past but there aren't any that address the subject in detail. It's just trivial mentions. Much of the information currently in the article needs to be cut out as it is just plot material and too detailed. And since there aren't any sources that can be used for "Development" and "Reception" sections, this article really should be directed to Simpson family. Theleftorium ^(talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The cat(s) is (are) a notable part of the Simpson family. If we get rid of this article, we mind as well get rid of Santa's Little Helper. Failing that, the article should be merged and redirected to Simpson family. Dough 48 72 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The difference between this article and Santa's Little Helper, is that the latter actually contains real world context, making it a notable subject. Just because the subject is notable to The Simpsons does not make it notable to Wikipedia; this is not a fansite for The Simpsons, but rather an encyclopedia. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one who wrote Santa's Little Helper and I voted delete/merge here. These characters are different in that there actually sources that talk about the dog in detail, making Development, Reception, and Influence sections possible. An article like that couldn't be written about Snowball. The fact that the cat is a part of the Simpson family isn't important as notability is not inherited. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in multiple books: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... and that's just on the first two pages of Google Books results. Some of the references are trivial, but in completely odd places: A Spanish lesson? An Essay Writing treatise? I'm not familiar with the fictional cartoon cat, but it appears to meet the GNG to me, without even trying to look at Google Scholar... Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All but two of those sources are trivial mentions. The others just mention what happened in one of the show's episodes. So I wouldn't say the subject meets the GNG. And here's no "real-world" information at all. You can't just have an article comprised only of plot information (WP:WHIM). Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're ignoring the presence in places *unrelated* to the Simpsons--those references demonstrate real world impact, even if they are trivial mentions; that's why I included them. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia doesn't support articles consisting of plot summaries and trivial mentions. If it did, we'd have far too many pointless ones. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I agree with the senitiment of the nominator, the cat is showing up everywhere. We should really have some article rescue going on though, before the article gets off the chopping block, i.e. adding sources, and making sure that the sources we are finding are adequete to maintain notability, Sadads (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Simpson family. While there are sources when you search for them, most are extremely trivial. As in, literally, many of them are just mentions in trivia books. Unlike Santa's Little Helper and other minor Simpsons characters who have their own pages, the cat(s) in this article have been largely background characters with only a very low number of episodes in which they play any importance at all. In fact, two of the four cats written about appeared only in a single episode, and a large portion of this article is merely a plot summary of that one episode. However, I think it would be perfectly fine to expand the section on the cat(s) already present at Simpson family with some of the more notable information here, and leave this page as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Simpson family. Snowball is a background character whose irrelevance and replaceability occasionally serves as a running joke. I disagree with the Santa's Little Helper comparison, the dog is legitimately a main character, and has had multiple episodes centered around him.--SGCM (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Simpson family. Most of the Snowballs are not notable enough for their own article, but a couple of them are. A merge would also be acceptable, but deletion would be a removal of valuable information. Bazonka (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some are notable, and at the very lest, merge into Simpson family. Also, per the above comments. TBran dl ey 05:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give reason to make them notable? Trivial mentions in a book does not meet the GNG. Nor does a plot summary. There are no references in the article. If you are pushing for a 'keep', please give reason. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I'll go with a merge information into Simpson family. No need to remove info, so. TBran dl ey 05:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it isn't the best article doesn't mean it doesn't belong. It's a regular character in a long-running popular TV show. Of course it merits an article. It should be improved, not removed. --LDC (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Your rationale is irrelevant. As I've said; just because it is important to The Simpsons does not make it notable for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a Simpsons fanpage. Nobility is not inherited, so it doesn't matter how popular the show is. There are no sources available for this topic, except for trivial mentions and plot details. How this is not being understood is beyond me. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snowball Keep~~ (sorry... I had to do that..... :D, but ~~Keep~~ Merge nonetheless). This is a notable family member of a very notable family of a very notable animated series.--Coin945 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly makes her notable? Notability is not inherited. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said WP:INHERIT was the case at all. That's WP:OR on your part. I merely explained that imo, Snowball is a notable (series of) cat(s), that happens to be part of a notable family, which hails from a notable tv show. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, the notability of the cat(s), I am willing to admit is up for debate... :D--Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds exactly like WP:INHERIT to me - you're not sure if the cats meet the notability guidelines, but you think they are notable because they are a part of a notable family. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. I'm getting to that now. It's like saying: "well, i'm pretty sure cat is notable... and hey, its cool that cat is a subsection of animal, which is notable, which is a subsection of creature, which is like totally notable!! :)". Here are the sources that I found for Snowball (NOTE: this is not a complete list of sources out there).

Planet Cat: A Cat-Alog
1,001 Things You Always Wanted To Know About Cats
[books.google.com.au/books?id=RKd9xK80dfcC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=snowball+simpsons&source=bl&ots=UpkqgR658J&sig=3oZyez3u5a_C87AAcjCoMlF2A48&hl=en&sa=X&ei=llgWULT1E-iNiAegwoGIDA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=snowball simpsons&f=false The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia]
The Godfather Was a Girl - makes allusions to Animal Farm in pages not in the preview
Fundamentals of Animal Science
The Simpsons in the Classroom: Embiggening the Learning Experience With the Wisdom of Springfield
Toys and American Culture: An Encyclopedia
Top 10 Segments From 'The Simpsons' Treehouse Of Horror
In toon with the times
~~EconomicExpert.com (also [50])~~
~~Alan's Simpsons minor characters database~~
search
~~Simpson Relatives~~
~~'The Simpsons' Character Bios~~

A lot of those sources are unreliable, particularly further down the list (in fact one of them is a Wikipedia mirror). The others are passing mentions of the cat(s) that are completely useless for this article, and/or just plot summaries. If you combine all noteworthy information about this cat that can be gathered from reliable secondary sources you have about one paragraph of text and therefore this cannot be a stand-alone article. There simply isn't enough info to write a good article about Snowball. If you take a look at the sources you listed you will see this for yourself. Theleftorium ^(talk) 12:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True... true..... as I researched, I did get the feeling that there was only enough info for a paragraph. But my point is that there should be a paragraph and no less... i.e. this page should not get deleted. So I am right. The topic is notable, just not information-loaded-enough to require its own article. (btw if we had access to "The Simpsons analysis books" previews via GoogleBooks (which we hardly - if ever- do) I'm sure we'd have enough info for a full article, but I'm just speculating, so I guess I'll have to cope with a merge to Simpsons family. Oh, and if you wouldn't mind, for those who want to help with the merge, can you point out which of those sources are bull please?--Coin945 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, new argument: looking at the references for Santa's Little Helper, the masses of plot are taken from the Wikipedia articles on the respective episodes, so that part is covered, but the really juicy stuff on character development and history etc. is completely sourced by DVD commentaries... stuff that we will NEVER be able to find via any sort of Google search imaginable (sorry for the hyperbole :D). So I guess to find the article-keeping material, our local video store (if those things are even still around anymore.. my local one closed down recently) is where we should be heading to save this article.--Coin945 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with a merge - my only issue with this article is that there's not enough noteworthy real-world information for it to be a stand-alone article. I own quite a lot of Simpsons books with analysis about the show and as far as I know, none of those analyse anything about the character Snowball - they just mention her when talking about the plot of certain episodes. The book sources you found I would say are reliable. But fansites such as #11, 13, and 14 are not. #10 is a Wikipedia mirror so that can't be used either. Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I wrote the article Santa's Little Helper! An article like that couldn't be written about Snowball since there is basically no Development, Reception, or Influence information available about her! Go ahead and rent the DVDs, you won't find anything useful there. I've listened to every commentary track at least twice. Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... should've guessed by your name and all that you're an expert on this and are probably getting rather frustrated at all the noobiness :D. Wasn't trying to be difficult or anything. I'm just one of those innocent until proven guilty kinda guys and was making sure we covered all bases before going in for the kill. You have totally convinced me. A merge it is. :D (btw, great work on SLH!)--Coin945 (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've poured my heart into the Simpsons Wikiproject for almost four years now so yeah when I'm trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of The Simpsons (in this case merging an article that can't stand on its own), it's kind of frustrating when people who aren't involved with the project prevent me and the other members of the project in our work. That's why some of my comments here sound a bit negative. But I'm glad you were willing to take part in a discussion. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) IMO, everything in that post you just made should probably be your opening statement - that you *are* an experienced editor who has read everything there is to read on this subject and who has an intellectual high ground over AFD skimmers who probably just came to defend that cat from that TV show they used to watch (that's not me btw). I know we're not supposed to own articles or anything, but by simply stating your opinion it melds into the chaotic discussion... I think you need to show that you (having absorbed all reliable sources out there) are a reliable source in your own right, and that therefore your opinion holds a lot more ground. It would certainly smooth over your Simpsons-related discussions.--Coin945 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anything about deletion. Even in my description of why it's not notable on the very first line, I clearly wrote merge and redirect. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Theleftorium's original proposal was delete/redirect. I was referring to his~~/her~~ comment.--Coin945 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... which in retrospect actually sounds a lot like a redirect.... hmmm... I see your point.. :D--Coin945 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well he/she said delete and redirect and merge, so he/she probably meant merge the info, blank the page, and redirect it to Simpsons family. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 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 Internet pornography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet pornography statistics[edit]

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

A page of statistics is unnecessary. This page is almost guaranteed to be some form of "trivia" list regardless of its content or form. EDIT: From WP:Indiscriminate: "Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." There is no purpose in recreating a page on pornography just to support a list of stats. It should be the other way around. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge and Redirect - The references in the article are about pornography, not statistics. Although the references may contain statistics related to pornography, that is not their central topic. Their central topic is porn, and the statistics are used to back up whatever thesis they are promoting. As such, the contents of this page should be merged into Pornography or other related pages. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rewrite 1) These is big part of internet today and stat page has its scope. 2) See those references, most of those references are related 3) See in sources too (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course pornography is a big part of the Internet today, but pornography statistics is not a big part of the Internet. There is no Department of the Pornography Statistics at any university. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content is categorized. The statistics reflect a real world issue with a statistically important base. You might not like the information, but that does not mean it need be removed. Perhaps we should consider something like leprechauns or unicorns; the stats might be in question on those.Ren99 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the validity or quality of the information. I'm just wondering what the heck a random list of statistics about a broader topic is doing as its own page. The important stats should be merged into other articles and the useless stuff has no place on Wikipedia. There is no encyclopedic value in listing that "Every second, 372 people are typing the word 'adult' into search engines," regardless of whether that claim is sourced. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to pornography or similar articles. Some of it is useful, some is trivia. It's going to be a bit of work to merge, but we should try to preserve info where possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge - A list of factoids. Not an encyclopedic topic. Merge appropriate material to pornography. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Internet pornography, which is a good fit. --Lambiam 16:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with pornography or internet pornography. A whole page of statistics is unnecessary, but properly-presented statistics offer readers a useful and inherently objective ("numbers do not lie", if you will) way to learn about something. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 08:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Internet pornography, as suggested above. Cavarrone (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator's comments:

I started this article but could not continue, currently it is a stub/start class article. But, more content can be added there. So, don't only see content, also see scope.
Should not be merged with pornography, since those are on Internet pornography and not all type of pornography.
The article is created as a sub-article of internet pornography
I tried to avoid backdated information and added only recent statistics (2011–now). If I can add 2007–2008 stats I can add many more important point. --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with internet pornography: Very fascinating and insightful. I would say this would work best as part of that page, possibly as its own "statistics" section, or else broken up and the various statustics being used to support various statements within the article.--Coin945 (talk) 05:00, 30 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. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 and beyond in film[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2013 and beyond in film (2nd nomination)

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

All future film releases are subject to change. This list is therefore unlikely to be verifiable through reliable sources. Material from companies that produce or distribute films is likely to be WP:PROMOTION. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.16.7 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this Article Shouldn't Be Deleted. I've spent a lot of time into this article, making sure that the information posted here is up to date and reliable. It's the only page on the internet that can easily list films that are being released in the future on one page. Sure, release dates are subject to change, but lots of things change. Should we have to now delete every individual movie page because the movie release date may change? No. So why delete this page? If a movie is given a release date, it usually means that the studio is targeting their movie to be out on that day and that they are developing it as we speak. If there is a change, then the article changes to reflect its accuracy. TheMovieMan222 (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.16.7 (talk) [reply]

Keep Everything is verifiable, if it isn't, it can be removed. Yes, film release dates get changed and some films get shelved. With those cases, they can be updated or removed too. Lots of independent coverage of upcoming films, esp. those from well known directors or featuring "big" stars. Lugnuts (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing unencyclopedic about a list of upcoming films. Most of the 2013 films have their own articles anyway, so at the very least this list serves as a useful navigational aid. Some good arguments also made in the previous AfD. The article definitely has issues, but it shouldn't be deleted. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we really need an article like this, how about calling this article Films in production and when a film is complete, move it to X_in_film (where X is the year and the article will be created when the first film of the year is complete)? Op47 (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject to reconsidering the name, up and coming films are the subject of TV progs and newspaper articles. If they thing new films are that worthwhile then they must be notable. Op47 (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The article is fine as is. Only change the year when it gets too close to the beginning of the next year, so that it becomes 2014 and beyond in film later this year and 2015 and beyond in film a year from now. The article as it stands now is the easiest way to look up upcoming films. It'll be a lot more difficult to locate if the upcoming year is not part of the article's title. EnragedBattleOx (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - per WP:LISTPURP; a discriminate and structured list article with verified information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per Northamerica1000 and TheMovieMan222.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:23, 26 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} 02:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Augustus Fitzroy Fitzsimons[edit]

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

Subject is not notable or insufficient reliable sources are cited to establish notability. Reads as a personal genealogy. MrX 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is one step short of WP:PROD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyHillbilly (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR para. 2. Charles Fitzsimons is not notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO nor WP:BASIC. He may be the illegitimate son of a notable person but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. --Joshuaism (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the author of the page, I have read these discussion points and concede that the page does not meet the requirements, so I agree that it should be deleted. Sorry for any inconvenience. - MosomIV 5:46, 24 July 2012 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosomIV (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, interesting story, but not really notable enough for inclusion here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:44, 28 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 - a lot of mess, here, but the sources presented by Anbu121 and 101.63.161.174 appear to satisfy notability. Article, like discussion, is a bit of a mess, but AfD ain't cleanup. Wily D 08:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology[edit]

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

This educational institution does not appear to have any reliable sources that discuss it. It is a fairly new university and much of the article is sourced to university pages or the Karnataka government's publications. It is not notable and it is a massive puff piece. I originally put it up for proposed deletion, but an IP at the university seems to disagree.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'll have to agree with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to an extent. All of the references are self-published sources, like what Ryulong said. I've checked Google and only came up with news articles on students, not the actual school itself. -- Luke (Talk) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP.Ryulong,I beg you to differ MSRIT(MS RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY) is a famous college in Bangalore(India) but is't a university.The college has a history of 49 years.Just Google MSRIT you will be able to generate about 50,0000 results.Luke is right that he found many articles on students of MSRIT,that simply dismisses the allegation that it is a new university.Let me try to bring in weblinks that are atleast a decade old to convince you that the article is NOT a BLUFF.type MSRIT in google search engine,On the left tab set Custom Range for time say 23/4/2001 ,you will still find many reliable sources discussing it.One more point to be noted ,Government Publications cannot BE DECLARED UNRELIABLE since the government does keep the webpages live for atleast a decade.Here the top newspaper of India in terms of Circulation,The Times of India has references to MSRIT.Few of them are listed here,You can find still more if you google .These must clearly must make you differ your stand

"MSRIT was a part of consortium of Colleges that developed a satellite in 2009". Times of India. Retrieved 23 July 2012.

"Many engineers in the making". Times of India. Retrieved 23 July 2012.

"MSRIT wins Quiz conducted by Swedan Embassy". Times of India. Retrieved 23 July 2012.

"MSRIT is ranked in Collegekhabar website". College Khabar. 23 July 2012.

"MSRIT discussed in yahoo forum 5 years ago". College Khabar. 23 July 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.162.57 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — 115.242.162.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A tertiary educational institution with nearly 5,000 students is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot be deleted.The Wikipedia article on MSRIT came in to existence on April 2 ,2005 as per the article's Revision History.The theme in the wiki article in 2005 was that the institution imparted quality technical education,Even today it has remained the same.I do agree with Ryulong,The Citations are few.Some one should make more citations to make the article up to Wiki Standards.But it's not a Good idea to say that it's massive puff piece since the article has stood for 7 long years - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.105.97 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — 115.184.105.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:LONGTIME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is good coverage about the college in national newspapers. Here are some more:

MSRIT celebrates golden jubilee - The Hindu

Campus Capsule - The Hindu

Innovative ideas come alive - The Hindu. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the IPs trying to protect the page on their school, those articles merely say the school exists. They don't mention any particular things of import other than the Golden Jubilee happening.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From a non-IP, longstanding consensus is that verified tertiary educational institutions are notable by virtue of their existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not undervalue a person's arguement, just because they are an IP. WP:URIP2 --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arguments by WP:SPAs, IP or otherwise, that use arguments to avoid are given less weight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep.I m an alumnus of this college (2003-2007 batch).
- Allegation #1 by Mr.Ryulong: No reliable sources discuss it
  - Some IP user as well as a name user have given links that have reported about major events at the college.I would like to feed in links that IEEE(A very reliable source as per Wiki norms)having citations that date back to 2005 .Almost all are papers published by researchers at MSRIT.There are more than 150 links but I would like list a few.Anyone can verify my claim by searching IEEE official site.

[51] - IEEE 2005.

[52] -IEEE 2005

here s the link to Bangalore Chapter of IEEE.The website has MSRIT on its link

[53]- IEEE Member list Karnataka Region

- this is the link to College Chapter of MSRIT :::[54] -IEEE MSRIT
- Here s another link To cited by TEDx :::[55] - TED
- Here s the link to Student website of TedxMSRIT wherein one can find many videos of acclaimed personalities delivering speeches at MSRIT
- Centre Of Excellence By Hardware and Software giant IBM.When any college is declared as a Centre of Excellence By a Software Giant like IBM it s a notable Institution[[56]]
- My view : International Bodies like IEEE,TeD recognize MSRIT.International Software Giants like IBM have Centre of Excellence at MSRIT.Many National Newspapers have extensively covered MSRIT.MSRIT has been covered by Government sources at least 100 times.My conclusion is that it is a notable institute [[57]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghava2009 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC) — Raghava2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Links to Major Events to prove that the institution is notable

International Conference on Advances in Computing - ICAdC 2012 [58] -International Conference on Advances in Computing - ICAdC 2012] One of The six Key notes Kenotes was delivered by Jainendra K Navlakha(School of Computing & Information sciences FIU,Miami.The proceedings of This Conference would be published by Springer.The link to the Proceedings

[[59]]

The international Conference and Proceedings Published by Springer must definitely mean that Institution Is highly notable

Keep a degree college that which is verifiable and finds mention in national media. [60] [61] passes notability for educational institutes. --DBig Xray 07:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The college is very notable in South India.Though it's self financing Institution ,the World Bank is aiding 120 million(12 Crore) Rupees this year [62]

.Also,There is a mention of the college in World Bank's Website [[63]].An Institution recognized by the World Bank is Notable . A popular Indian newspaper Deccan Herald describes that learning at MSRIT is an Enriching Experience[[64]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohanphilip (talk • contribs) — Sohanphilip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Raghava2009, you've already made your argument on this page. You are not allowed to do it twice.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I m simply shocked to see someone has put it for deletion.I have been to this college during late 1980s(It was then Known as M.S.Ramaiah College of Engineering) when I was a student at RVCE,Bangalore doing my civil engineering.The college had a hospital and a popular Medical college in a nearby building on the same campus.Ramaiah College hosted a Basketball tournament in 1987.I was apart of the college Basketball team For RVCE,Bangalore.I can still remember that there were only 5 popular engineering institutes in Karnataka at that time:UVCE,RVCE,BMSCE,MSRIT(then known as M S Ramaiah College of Engineering) and SJCE.

Sweet Memories apart let's come to facts!

- Argument Point 1 :The main wiki article on MSRIT has citations to several state government publications(Government of Karnataka), Central Government of India bodies(such as AICTE) and also United nation 's world bank.All the 3 are reliable sources as per Wiki Norms .
- Argument Point 2 :This deletion argument page has popular newspaper citations which reveal the fact that the college MSRIT is receiving Funds from World Bank[65] and the college has a mention in the world bank's website[[66]].Both are reliable sources of information as per Wiki norms
- Argument Point 3 :The college MSRIT has mention in International bodies like [[IEEE][67] [http://www.ieeebangalore.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106&Itemid=211 and Ted.Both are simply reliable sources
- Argument Point 4 : As raghava2009 pointed about the newspaper Deccan Herald had reported that learning at MSRIT is an enriching Experience.The article in this daily has quite a lot of information about the college.This is another reliable source
- Argument Point 5 :The college Held an international conferance on computing as someone pointed out which was published by Springer of USA[68] -International Conference on Advances in Computing - ICAdC 2012] which is another reliable source of information as per Wiki norms
- Argument Point 6: The college MSRIT has completed 50 years of existence :::MSRIT celebrates golden jubilee - The Hindu.Definitely,this is a proof to dismiss the claim that the university is new one.
- Argument Point 7:International Software giant IBM has a centre of Excellence at MSRIT.This another reliable source [69]]
- Argument Point 8 :The college MSRIT was involved in Building a satellite for ISRO [[70]]called the StudSAT.Satellite building and Rocket Science cannot be done by any laymen;Requires considerably good facilities,instructors and of course quality pupils.This college in a country where primary education itself is't available to all has been involved in building a satellite.This simply makes it notable

Thank you all.Hope everyone finds my point wise argument in a good shape and health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin chennai (talk • contribs) 09:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Martin chennai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Can I just point out to students and former students of this institution that creating possible sockpuppet accounts just to vote on this issue does not actually do your case (which I support, incidentally, as you can see above) any favours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment .Wiki norms say that majority is not the criteria for deletion or retaining of an article.Its the weight of the argument that does the job.Guys stop counting the keeps or deletes.JUST look at the possible proof and sources that are used in arguments and then decide for yourself whether this is notable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.158.147 (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely article needs a lot of work, But its notable. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
source.Famous Indian daily the Deccan Herald was all praise for the institute in their article.The article spoke about how the institute evolved over years.[[71]].In another article it calls it a pioneer in engineering education in Karnataka [[72]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.161.174 (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In another article a newspaper reported that MSRIT's students earned 29 medals(second highest in state of Karnataka).These medals were given by visvesvaraya technoligical university for academic excellence and this was among its 200 affiliated college.[73].The article on MSRIT has many reliable external sources as pf now— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.233.19 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The college seemed to be the the fourth most sought after engineering college in Karnataka as per the seat allotment in July,2012^[1]

Comment:This cannot be deleted.WIKI rules for deletion :Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Many independent sources are discussing it and its an accredited school as proved above that offers bachelor in engineering,Masters in engineering and also Phd in engineering.so does not qualify for deletion. Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are being deleted.But the institute is completing 50 years^[2]>of existence as reported by many newspapers.so again it does't qualify for deletion.There was former president of india A. P. J. Abdul Kalam 's appreciation^[3] for the college.President of India is also a strong reliable source.Since it does not qualify for deletion under these two clauses.Article cannot be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.175.221 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 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.

^ "Seat allotment trends:BMCRI,RVCE,PESIT,BMSCE and MSRIT most prefered in KArnataka". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 27 July 2012.
^ "Golden Jubilee at MSRIT". Retrieved 21 July 2012.
^ "Former President of India address at MSRIT". Retrieved 26 July 2012.

[1] "Seat allotment trends:BMCRI,RVCE,PESIT,BMSCE and MSRIT most prefered in KArnataka". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 27 July 2012.

[2] "Golden Jubilee at MSRIT". Retrieved 21 July 2012.

[3] "Former President of India address at MSRIT". Retrieved 26 July 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]