Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 July	30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Woon[edit]

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

The proposed deletion tag was removed by a IP who also submitted additional unreliable and non-notable sources. The references that have been provided are also either videos or simply promote the subject. I should also note that, as shown at the deletion log, this article has been deleted twice for the same reasons I'm citing today. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article on a non-notable 14 year old video director. The article claims that he is notable because of his age, though countless youths make videos these days. The references are to blogs, YouTube and Twitter, and none are reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage to this child. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable living person. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 01:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's sources consist of social networking sites and non-notable blogs. The best of the bunch is the passing mention on SoulCulture, but that's not significant coverage, and I couldn't find any in reliable sources. Subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable director. Also, fails GNG as most of the links are from Youtube and I can't find any reliable sources for him. Electric Catfish 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youtube and twitter are not reliable sources while www.jamal-woon.co.uk. is a self-published source. This person doesn't pass WP:N at present. --Artene50 (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with sourcing, notability concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Tse[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Premier League is fully pro, which is true, but not relevant since he has not played in the Premier League. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This says it all from the article, "Tse was abandoned by Manchester City in May 2012 and have failed to make a first-team appearance in the club.[4]" In accordance with NFOOTBALL and lack of GNG, this will have to wait until an appearance before restoration. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry but this person currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL --Artene50 (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Toolkit[edit]

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

I don't think this framework is a notable PHP framework. I can not see any independent source about it. –ebraminio^talk 22:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I searched in vain with Google to find anything. Once you subtract out everything on their own agiletoolkit.org and .com sites (e.g., here) there's just nothing there, nor do I think that's surprising. The subject gives every appearance of being yet another unremarkable piece of open source software. Msnicki (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I failed to find any significant coverage by reliable independent sources to meet WP:NSOFT --LoudHoward (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genome diversity and karyotype evolution of mammals[edit]

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

Although I started this article, I now wonder whether it's in scope. It is copied from an open access journal, but I fear it may be too specialized and current to be in an encyclopedia. I worry that its technicality will not allow it to be updated, and that it will quickly become outdated as new research emerges. InverseHypercube (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can rewrite it and explain it more so the public can read and understand it easier then keep it. I think maybe you should come up with a shorter name and use the two points as separate contents. Remember to provide some links to the related articles and websites. -- RexRowan Talk 11:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic to be able to do that. InverseHypercube (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like the article to be deleted, you can request speedy deletion by criterion G7. It seems to qualify. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see if anyone disagreed that it should be deleted. I'll probably propose speedy deletion soon. InverseHypercube (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but incubate - I think the concept of such an article is good, but it will need an extensive re-write. This article, as drafted, begins to tie together a lot of information about mammalian clades, but it's too poorly organized to be useful to our core readership right now. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but in the absence of anyone willing/able to rewrite it, should it be deleted? InverseHypercube (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined the deletion, because I think the article potentially useful to the encyclopedia. Although we normally delete when it's requested by the sole author, a contribution to the encyclopedia gives an irrevocable license, and if anyone in the world wants to make use of the material for any purpose, including using it in Wikipedia, they may do so. Even were we to delete this, there would be nothing to stop anyone from doing the necessary technical work to reinsert it from the source. As what I did is somewhat unusual, I think I need to justify it in some more detail. The article is not at all too specialized for a general encyclopedia: it seems a well written general article on a major topic. It overlaps considerably with other articles, such as cytogenetics, but does not seem to duplicate the content of any existing article. The sourcing seems generally adequate. Nor do I think it too "current" -- I cannot even understand the meaning. It's not too technical--we have many equally technical or more technical articles on this subject. It will need updating , certainly, but there are dozens of people here with advanced degrees in relevant subjects (myself included). It's not original research, but a review article. I think there is general feeling that the level of sophistication of many such review articles is appropriate for Wikipedia. Indeed there is a project to specifically write such open access content in such a way that it will be usable both in WP and in one of the PLOS journals. And there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access. I'm going to notify them of this afd, because if we go on this route, the question of when the article can be deleted will arise again. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep G7 is weak, and definitely weaker than this article. An excellent demonstration of the error in that rule, to accompany WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We do not delete things simply because people want to. Anarchangel (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but copyedit because it is valid, valuable and seriously unreadable for Wikipedia;s audience. It meets inclusion criteria. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 21:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Franklin (politician)[edit]

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

Unsourced Biography of a Living Person of a non-notable regional politician. Carrite (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Franklin crops up in routine news coverage about elections and some of his political achievements e.g. [1], [2], but nothing biographical or substantial enough to verify the information in this short stub. Sionk (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just because he's a politician doesn't mean he's notable. Many politician pages here have the same issue. WP:NOTINHERITED. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails 3rd guideline at WP: POLITICIAN. Just being a politician doesn't make you notable. Electric Catfish 22:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not even a real politician - just an elected member of the local transit board. Nothing in the article suggests notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all of the above. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to passing any notability tests. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with arguments on GNG and notability. Not even a true 'politician' by most standards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay#End of relay. The consensus seems to be that an article at this point is premature. No prejudice towards recreation if her actions lead to a stronger case for notability in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Bailey (footballer)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable as a footballer and not notable for being one of thousands of people involved in the Olympic opening - she fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football discussion, WP:NFOOTBALL is a non-sequitur: Tony Blair fails WP:NFOOTBALL but we do not delete Tony Blair. Notability is conveyed by significant coverage in reliable sources. Is there significant coverage of her in reliable sources? There is certainly numerous coverage (see article) by RS's and sometimes surprising: as I pointed out, Sky News mentioned her and omitted Kenneth Branagh, which was a trifle harsh to Branagh. But is there in-depth coverage? The honest answer is "increasingly" (the Guardian mentions her position, articles are getting more detailed, and she had some coverage back in 2010 due to the Umbro nomination).

However I need to point out that this is being taken over by events. Apparently PRWEB have gotten in on the act, so Ms Bailey is now being discussed in some depth.

So things are in flux here: sources are growing rapidly due to the coverage and it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. Given that, may I ask for a delay of (say) seven days to 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th? By then we should have found out whether this is just a flash in the pan or Bailey (continues to) meets the in-depth criteria. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One person's involvement in the Olympic opening ceremony is not notable. She's hardly going to go on and have a world-famous career off the back of this one event. She does not pass notability for her actual career either, per WP:NFOOTBALL. – Pee Jay 18:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability does not derive solely because she carried the olympic torch and was part of the opening ceremony. Her notability derives because she carried the olympic torch and was part of the opening ceremony AND Sky News, The Australian, the Los Angeles Times, the Daily Mail etc considered her notable enough to mention her specifically by name whilst ignoring more established celebrities. Her potential career is irrelevant: she has already been found notable by the RSs.

Besides, if you are right and interest fades rapidly, then you'd be happy to wait seven days to 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th, since that would then become obvious.

Delete: Not notable either for her part in the Olympic ceremony or her football career. The general notability guidelines require significant detailed coverage in reliable sources and Jade Bailey has not received this yet. The references to reliable sources only mention her name and don't go into any detail, and the example above is only a press release, so it isn't reliable. And for the comment above which says "WP:NFOOTBALL is a non-sequitur", I think if you're going to disambiguate the page as "X (footballer)" then surely you would expect the subject to be notable for their football? Big Dom 18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd be OK if I put "X (something else)" instead? Serious question. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally if you're right, and interest fades rapidly, then you'd be happy to wait seven days to 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th, since that would then become obvious. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your first question; no, then she'd just be non-notable for something else. I was just saying that if you looked at a page disambiguated "footballer", you would expect it to be about a notable footballer. And secondly yeah, if in the next seven days reliable sources start discussing her in detail then I'll change my vote and if not I'll keep it the same. Cheers, Big Dom 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: quite prepared to wait seven days to see if notability increases and other sources can be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 19:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL: everything in it is in the past tense. WP:CRYSTAL applies to Wikipedia articles, not Wikipedia:AfDs. Otherwise it would be legitimate for me to delete this AfD on the grounds that it has no sources at all. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.. since one might reasonably expect that this might emerge from the local press. Perhaps other editors feel it's easier to delete now and re-create if there is more material in a week's time. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That specific precedent is discussed in WP:TIND. There is no rush to delete articles. A debate can be had now, but a simple seven day delay will resolve it to everyone's satisfaction. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really CRYSTAL, this discussion is going to be open for seven days now so there's no harm in using that time to wait before making a decision if he wants to. Big Dom 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ONEEVENT. Having a minor role in a minor event (compared to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand) does not make her notable. Adam4267 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentioned in many leading papers, but that's it. I can't see any reason to believe Bailey will become a major news subject in the next 7 days. PRWeb is a distributer of press releases, therefore doesn't count towards WP:GNG. Bailey hasn't yet played for the senior national team so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. However, if she suddenly becomes the subject of reliable news articles, I'll happily change my recommendation. Sionk (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. So, to summarise. We meet back here on 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th. We already know Bailey has obtained widespread coverage from numerous verifiable RSs on three continents. The only thing that remains is the "significant" element. We know that a PR firm has issued a press release discussing her in greater depth. But a PR firm is not a RS (except of itself, but I digress). If in the next 7 days a RS covers her in greater depth other than a brief mention of "Jade Bailey, footballer", then she passes notability to everybody's satisfaction and the debate is resolved. If not, then not. Either way, we can get back to our work. For the avoidance of doubt, the RS would have to be bigger than the local paper so Hampshire Evening Gazette (or whatever) wouldn't be good enough, Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your edit summary - there is no consensus to wait until any specific time/date. This AfD will run for 7 days, plenty of time for you to change the minds of the editors who wish to delete this article. Giant Snowman 20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably "There is no rush to delete articles" covers precisely that. However, you misunderstand me. I am not going to sneak behind everybody's back and my edit history will confirm that. I'm going to go away and do other things, (although I may still work on the article). Why? Because this problem is easy: if everybody just backs off and waits seven days, the problem resolves itself one way or the other. So let's do that. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and if the Hampshire Evening Gazette, or any other reputable local news source runs a feature on her, it will all count towards her profile. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will the Waltham Forest Gazette do? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. But you're OK with the delay to 21:00 UTC next Sunday August 5th? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 days is normal, ~~as everyone knows~~. Sionk (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often I get to say this, but I genuinely didn't know that. Well I'll go to the foot of my sock. Thank you for that, that was genuinely helpful. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless coverage more significant than the current extremely fleeting mentions turns up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So we're on for the delay to 21:00 UTC Sunday August 5th: nothing more significant pops up, it's gone. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and sorry but the sources regarding her olympic involement just mentions that is was young hopefuls who lit the torch, no mention of Ms Bailey at all. Seasider91 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't one of the torchlighters: she was in the torch relay on the boat, just in front of David Beckham on the boat. The article mentions twelve references - Guardian, Bailey Football Academy, Daily Mail, Arsenal LFC, The Australian, Sky News, The FA (3 times), Umbro and football.co.uk. All those sources refer to Jade Bailey by name. You can check via the article here: Jade Bailey (footballer). If you would like to tell me the specific source you were looking at then I can show you where Bailey is mentioned there. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I switched on Wikipedia today to find out about the person who accompanied Beckham on the Olympic torch relay. I tried other sites first but facts about Ms Bailey were scattered all over the net. HERE, finally, there is a complete biography, all I wanted - and then I notice that other users are really debating whether to delete it! Do keep the article, guys. Cyan22 (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how you can describe this as a "complete biography". Where was she born? When? How old is she? (BTW - She is described as a 14-year old in the article dated 8 September 2010) Why did Umbro select her in 2010 "as one of the next generation of England's footballing stars" (the article cited merely describes her as "one of the best prospects in the England Women’s team")? Are there any reports of her actually playing for Arsenal? This article needs a lot of work before it's anywhere near "complete". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not complete (my mistake) but certainly more comprehensive than any other biography I've found of her so far. The things you mentioned are missing indeed, the more I think the article should be kept so that these things can be added by other users once they become available. The article does need a lot of work but users will probably only want to contribute if they know the article won't be deleted. Therefore: Keep Cyan22 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair point, Cyan22. If I was a new contributor and I came here and saw five votes to delete and only two to keep, I might well think "what's the point". But I'm not sure there is any way around this - for articles that really are "no-hopers", I guess it stops people wasting their time. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far, a waanabe; wannabe footballer, wannabe model, wannabe celebrity isn't yet clear, which is not unreasonable for a 16 year old. She has had one big, and one minor, PR opportunity. Whether she actually achieves anything on the back of those opportunities remains to be seen, but until she does, there is no notability. And before the page creator posts yet again about waiting until Sunday evening, I would point out that we should wait until notability is established, then create the article, not the other way around. Kevin McE (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Notability is not conferred by achievement. It is conferred by being noted. Reliable sources giving her significant coverage bestows notability: and if they do that then she is notable even if she has achieved nothing. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by her prominent appearance in the Olympic opening ceremony. Deb (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has multiple reliable sources. --Vclaw (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails WP:NFOOTY. As far as her fleeting appearance in the Olympic opening ceremony goes, well of course it will be mentioned in the press but her being there is oh so small a part. I would change my vote if there were real, reliable sources on Bailey herself and her achievements not just standing on a boat, modelling a shirt and her admiration for John Terry and Ashley Cole.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY is not relevant to whether she is notable or not: Tony Blair fails WP:NFOOTY, but we do not delete Tony Blair. Addistionally, the article does contain "real, reliable" sources. I do note (and concur) with a need for an in-depth, hence the seven days thing.

Keep (I forgot to vote) Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC) See below for revote[reply]
Comment. the situation is this:

Being a wannabe model, wannabe footballer, whatever is not relevant to whether she is notable or not. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds to delete.
WP:NFOOTY is not relevant to whether she is notable or not: Tony Blair fails WP:NFOOTY, but we do not delete Tony Blair.
So what does confer notability? Broadly, notability is conferred by being noted. Specifically, reliable sources giving significant coverage bestows notability: and if they do that then she is notable even if she is a wannabe who fails WP:NFOOTY.
We know that she has recieved widespread coverage from many reliable sources so there is at least a prima-facie case for notability.
Somebody above has pointed out that to make the coverage "significant" it has to be in-depth as well as widespread. Fair enough. we know that Umbro did an in-depth piece on her in 2010 and we know PRWEB lauded her "yesterday" and Newsround interviewed her "today" (definition of "today"/"yesterday" depending on where you are). So we're kinda edging towards it here.
I suggested the delay to because then the problem solves itself: either she gets in-depth coverage from an independent-of-her RS or she doesn't - if she does she passes WP:GNG and the article's in, if not then delete away.
I am informed by Sokal above that AfDs have a minimum period of 7 days anyway, so that also suggests that approach. Remember, "There is no rush to delete articles"
Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the situation is this:

She has gained not one in-depth real, reliable source on herself. Not the Olympic event, not the shirt adverts and not her membership of a youth football team. There is no doubt the opening ceremony is notable but what is needed is something to show Bailey's notable achievements which would demonstrate why she is notable in Wiki terms. At the moment we have her on a boat and modelling a shirt. --Egghead06 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not needed. Notability is not conferred by notable achievements. It is conferred by being noted. Reliable sources giving her significant coverage bestows notability: and if they do that then she is notable even if she has achieved nothing. Incidentally, why do you use the word "real"? Are you contending that the sources are fictional? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither has Bailey been prime minister of the UK or launched a major war against anyone, therefore repeated comparisons with Tony Blair are irrelevant. She is, however, a footballer so WP:NFOOTY is completely relevant as an alternative means of proving notability. Sionk (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that WP:NFOOTY is a relevant means of proving notability for a footballer. But it is not the *only* means of proving notability for a footballer. It is possible for someone to be a footballer and fail WP:NFOOTY and still be notable. Albert Camus, Pope John Paul II, Che Guevara, Niels Bohr and Vladimir Nabokov are all goalkeepers who would fail WP:NFOOTY. But they retain notability because of the other things they did. Nobody is saying that Bailey passes WP:NFOOTY. But that doesn't automatically make her nonnotable. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:1E, all of the coverage is about the opening ceremony rather than her as a footballer. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 17:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E doesn't mean "if a person was in a (notable) single event then that person is nonnotable". It means "if a person was in a (notable) single event then that person is not automatically notable". Notability is conferred by being noted. If one is sufficiently noted then one is notable, even if it is for one event (see Erica Roe). I discussed the question of Bailey's notability above, esp. the requirement for an in-depth coverage by a RS. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree that the coverage she has received meets WP:GNG. She was a minor part in the opening ceremony. --Jimbo^[online] 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your second point (about the minorness of her part) is not relevant (notability is not earned by achievement, it is conferred by coverage). However I do note your ~~second~~ first point that you do not think that the coverage she has received meets WP:GNG. I assume you have read the list of the coverage she *has* achieved and found it inadequate. So we need to find out what coverage you *would* find adequate. I mentioned above we need an in-depth from a RS. Would that meet your requirements? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the sources again I have found Ms Bailey being mentioned but that is all. One passing mention for one event DOES NOT confer notability. This article therefore also fails WP:ONEEVENT as well Seasider91 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that one passing mention for one event does not confer notability. But Bailey has received *several* passing mentions for one event from *several* RS's *plus* an in-depth from Umbro for another event *plus* an enconium from a PR firm *plus* a televised interview from Newsround *plus* Arsenal and Faye White saw fit to congratulate her publicly. To characterize that as "one passing mention for one event" is difficult to sustain. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of people who have lit the Olympic Cauldron. Delete. This is only one event, and a full-blown biography seems excessive. Fortunately we do have a very specific article for this scenario: List of people who have lit the Olympic Cauldron. There is definitely scope to expand the 2012 row to give all seven flame lighters the coverage they deserve, without creating seven full-blown biographies on otherwise low-profile individuals. —WFC— 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She was the penultimate torchbearer wasn't she, albeit on a speedboat? She didn't light the cauldron. Sionk (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she was one of the seven as well? Evidently not. If the event doesn't warrant a mention in another article that's unfortunate, but the rationale that a full-blown biography is excessive stands. —WFC— 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is always 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay. I would think (if she isn't already) she should definitely be mentioned there. Sionk (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is already mentioned there. The "mention" is a link to the article... Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate point, everybody says Bailey fails WP:NFOOTY. But Bailey has played for England U-15s, England U-17s, is signed to Arsenal and sources keep saying she is part of Team GB (is she?). At what point does she actually *pass* WP:NFOOTY? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When she plays for her country at the highest level (not youth) or makes an appearance in a fully professional league. If she had played for GB or England she would pass.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a serious answer to a serious question, I appreciate it Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Can be restored if she gets a full cap. Number 5 7 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:NFOOTY equals notable, but failing WP:NFOOTY doesn't equal nonnotable. Pope John Paul II is a former goalkeeper who fails WP:NFOOTY but we do not delete Pope John Paul II. He was noted for the other things he did and so passed WP:GNG. Anameofmyveryown (talk)

keep: she's been interviewed on BBC national television: [3] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've appeared on ITV and CBC - do I get an article as well? Giant Snowman 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you carried the Olympic Torch, in a speed-boat, down the Thames, with David Beckham, watched by a global TV audience of 1 bn, and have played football for your country, then yeah sure, why not. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Youth football not the national team. Loads of people carried the torch and have been down the Thames and met David Beckham. All that marks her few seconds of fame is that she was seen by a global audience and got a name check. --Egghead06 (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that arguably she has accrued sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG (I assume I don't have to list *all* the sources again?) Characterizing this as a "name check" is difficult to sustain. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, never mind, Snowman. Better luck next time, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have received several passing mentions for several RS's plus an in-depth from Umbro plus an enconium from a PR firm plus a televised interview plus Arsenal and Faye White saw fit to congratulate you publicly, then yes, you would. Arguably sufficient reliable sources had given you sufficient significant coverage for you to pass WP:GNG. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "passing mention" is not the same as "significant coverage" as determined by GNG - so you are admitting she's non-notable? Giant Snowman 08:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had said that she had recieved "a passing mention" then you would be correct. But I did not say that. I said that she had received several passing mentions for several RS's plus an in-depth from Umbro plus an enconium from a PR firm plus a televised interview on Newsround plus Arsenal and Faye White saw fit to congratulate her publicly. I then went on to say that (therefore) arguably sufficient reliable sources have given her sufficient significant coverage for her to pass WP:GNG. We can safely conclude I was arguing that the article be kept due to her notability. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay until/unless she meets notability guidelines. No problem merging a couple of sentences of sourced information from this article to that one to provide appropriate context for her participation in the torch ceremony. Rlendog (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article be redirected if Bailey is not notable. The question which we need to address (of course) is whether she is or is not notable. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy incubate until August 5. Notability is in flux, nothing to be gained by keeping this AfD open or this article in mainspace until then. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC) window for a speedy incubate has elapsed, striking dated !vote, Unscintillating (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no rush to delete articles". Additionally I am informed by Sokal above that AfDs have a minimum period of 7 days. Lack of profit is not grounds for article deletion. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.. I think you mean Sionk? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: it was User:Sionk not User:Sokal who mentioned the minimum 7 days. Incidentally, User:Sionk also said that a reputable local news source would do. Cue the Waltham Forest Gazette Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Waltham Forest Gazzette? Seriously? If one article in a paper of that level is sufficient to pass WP:GNG then my wife's way more notable, in the course of her job she's been interviewed by our local paper about five times..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had said that one mention in the Waltham Forest Gazette was sufficient to pass WP:GNG then you would be correct. But I did not say that. I said that User:Sionk thought a reputable local news source would do, and I was correct - he did think that (see above). So I gave him the link. Incidentally, I think (I might be wrong) Bailey had a BBC Radio 5 Live interview. Any ideas where I can find it? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said local news sources were perfectly acceptable as reliable sources. Unfortuantely the Waltham Forest Gazette article tells us little more than we already know. Sionk (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does tell us how she got be on the boat - she trained (and lives) in the area (same area as Beckham is from, incidentally) and was nominated by Waltham Forest Council to take part. Previous entries for the same newspaper yield further detail. If not sufficient for WP:GNG, it certainly helps with the article. We have lots of bits and pieces and the article may be passing WP:GNG thru sheer mass of sources, although (as I say above) I would prefer an in-depth from a RS, since that would satisfy most of the people on this AfD. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what is she 'notable' for? Is she a footballer - no fails WP:NFOOTY. Is she a career model, athlete, singer, anything? Not that we can see from reliable sources. Of course she will be given passing mentions. That's the age we live in. Twitter, newsfeeds, papers etc. etc. But for Ms Bailey not one article on her alone and her achievments, just name-checks. Just a brief moment in time on a boat with Beckham on The Thames. --Egghead06 (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but a person does not have to be notable 'for' anything to be notable. Notability is not earned by achievement, it is conferred by coverage. So the question is not whether Bailey has earned notability, the question is whether she has received significant detailed coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I assume you have read the list of the coverage she *has* achieved and found it inadequate. So we need to find out what coverage you *would* find adequate. I mentioned above we need an in-depth from a RS. Would that meet your requirements? Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She could write a blog and tell us how she got on the boat. Local rags don't confer notability and their scope generally isn't very wide. --Jimbo^[online] 14:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. And oddly enough she did do something similar via her Twitter account. And if the only RS that had mentioned her was the local paper, then this AfD would have been a far shorter discussion...:-) But she did recieve way more than that. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC) I've been arguing (correctly) above that Bailey is notable due to the weight and breadth of sources passing the WP:GNG threshold, and others have been arguing (less correctly) that her failure of WP:NFOOTY and lack of achievement render her non-notable. But in all the kerfuffle we all seem to be forgetting the subject of the article is still only a sixteen-year-old girl. We all know that article sources are easy to find on the net: I once found a picture of a politician shaking hands with neo-Nazis, for example. But even so I was shocked to discover how much info there is online about Bailey. In writing the article I've blurred things a bit by omitting her middle name, the name of her mother and her exact birth date. But even so it's hitting the point where we could commit identity theft and the girl is still only a minor (OK, she's an adult in the England and Wales jurisdiction, but even so). So what I suggest is:[reply]

Give me until Sunday to chase up the Radio 5 Live interview, other sources, and wrap up the article.
After Sunday, redirect the article to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay.
When she plays for England or Arsenal as an adult she'll pass WP:NFOOTY and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football contributors can resurrect the article from the edit history.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I don't think even UEFA allows this, do they? haha. But seems fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anameofmyveryown - you've given two recommendations now, you should strike through the one that no longer applies. Sionk (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playing for Arsenal will only lead to the article being resurrected if the league goes fully pro. And u18 is not adult in English law. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her age is immaterial to her notability; and the point about the women's league not being pro, when the men's league is, smacks of systemic bias (Wikipedia's, not yours personally). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against women. The league needs to be fully professional. The ladies league where Arsenal L.F.C. play isn't.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs - the women's league not being fully-pro is not biased, it's factual. Giant Snowman 15:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the women's league is not fully professional may indeed be a fact. It is our use of that (when the equivalent league for men is professional) as a yardstick to judge notability which carries the bias. My name's Andy, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The league only needs [sic] to be professional because we choose to say so; we could as easily say, for example, the "top three leagues", or "the top 20 percent" or some such measure, which would not carry the bias. This discussion probably belongs on the SB talk page, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that age is irrelevant to notability: in fact, I argue strongly above that she is notable due to amassing enough sources cumulatively to pass WP:GNG. And if I put the work in I could write a fully-sourced article that starts "Jade XXXXXX Bailey, (born XXXXXX November 1995, Waltham Forest, England), daughter of Trevor and XXXXXX Bailey, sister of XXXXXX, is a footballer. She lives at XXXXXX, XXXXXX. She attended XXXXXX Primary School as a child then attended XXXXXX before signing for Arsenal LFC. She is currently on holiday in XXXXXX with her friends XXXXX, XXXXX and XXXXX and is also friends to...." because it's all online. But I'm not really comfortable with that level of detail about a minor being available in one place. Hence my volte-face. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the systemic bias thing: make a list of all men's leagues, make a list of all women's leagues, count the number of professional leagues in the former, count the number of professional leagues in the latter, work out the proportion of men's leagues that are professional, work out the proportion of women's leagues that are professional. If the proportions are too different, then you have a systemic bias. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt non-professional football gets far less resources, lower standards and far less coverage. Maybe things will change with UK womens football after the Olympics but, either way, it is a systematic bias in society, not in Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No doubt non-professional football gets […] lower standards" - that's an unsupported assertion; ergo there is doubt. "systematic bias in society, not in Wikipedia" There is bias in the yardstick we use to measure notability; but I've already addressed that above, and suggested a forum where this would be more on-topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to PPG Industries. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Paints[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally nominated for speedy but I decided to move it to the general deletion discussions after doing a bit of research about Sigma Paints. This is on behalf of the original nominator User:Mean as custard. I do believe that they may be notable, but, I'll leave it up to the community to decide if they fail WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Available sources that pop up seem mostly company announcements and listings. Does not seem to be a notable organization to me right now. -- BenTels (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnotable company, promotional language, unreferenced. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge : With PPG Industries, per historical narrative below. {{{1}}}-TALK 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is confusing. Sigma is originally a Dutch company (see nl:Sigma Coatings) with roots that go back to 1722. After a sequence of mergers making it Europe's second largest paint manufacturer, it was acquired by Bain Capital who sold it (with a huge profit) to PPG Industries, making the latter the world's second largest paint manufacturer. "Sigma" then became a brand of PPG Industries (see their website), using the name "Sigma Coatings". Apparently they also have a Middle East section operating under the name "Sigma Paints", which is what this article is about. An article on all this seems in order. Otherwise, perhaps the best is to merge what we have here (in much reduced form) to PPG Industries. Since these are major players, I expect all this can be reliably sourced from trade publications. --Lambiam 02:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just blocked the article creator for a username violation. That said, my take on this is ... merge into PPG Industries. Notable as a unit of that concern that once was, as noted, one of the largest paint manufacturers in Europe, but not notable as a standalone, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to PPG Industries. Has a promotional tone and discussion of future events ("Further openings are planned for..."). Has no inline citations and only www.sigmapaints.com as a reference, so fails WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be an example to send a link to the Wikimedia Foundation to remind them that we asked a year ago to have users autoconfirmed before being able to create new articles. Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, obvious disruptive nomination. --MuZemike 17:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing spray[edit]

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

Unimportant. This article brings no importance whatsoever to Wikipedia. VivaLVEnvy (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — VivaLVEnvy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Mentioned by several RS, in use by two top division leagues and being considered by others. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the article are reliable and establish notability. As for importance, this seems like a perfectly valid example of a sports technology to me (although the article could stand expansion in the area of how it works chemically). -- BenTels (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article seems notable and has reliable sources. The nominator's argument sounds like a textbook case of WP:WEDONTNEEDIT --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:39, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xakriabá people[edit]

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

So short,it should not be notable. I would propose that this be merged with the Menais Gerais, Brasil article. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search found a book with a little bit of information, which I have added to the stub. I am sure a more thorough search would find more, especially among Portuguese-language sources - although the Xakriabá language also gets hits which makes it a bit harder to find, as . Alternatively, perhaps the language and the ethnological group could be merged into one article Xakriabá - the only other article on the current disambiguation page is about the Otocinclus xakriaba catfish, but the article doesn't currently exist, and a hatnote would be sufficient to direct people to it should it be created. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the option to merge is taken, I am happy to do that! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my suggestion to merge the two articles, as I think there is enough for two articles, and keep the disambiguation page as it is (although the catfish article needs creating...) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) - Not sure if we have notability criteria designated for "peoples", but IMO historical groups of people with their own unique languages are almost by definition notable. At any rate there is academic coverage of the Xakriabá, so I added one such cite. --Lquilter (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - I think there is enough to justify a stand-alone article for both the ethnic group and the language as separate articles - I'm sure that a search for more sources for both will find some, especially for a Portuguese-speaking editor. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Lquilter; I too feel a people with their own culture are inherently notable, plus the existence of academic sources cinches it. -- BenTels (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient Reliable Sources, and I concur with Lquilter that a people known to exist (i.e. at least one RS) is essentially notable, just as places are. Could nom please note that the basic criterion for bringing an article to AfD is that sources do not exist in the world, not that an article is short or contains few or no sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have almost always kept articles discussed at WP:AfD that concern an identifiable group of people, such as a caste, class, or culture; yet we have not always kept individual families or clans. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is now a reliable book source here which proves that these people do exist. So, this article should be kept since all indigenous peoples are notable. --Artene50 (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stig of the Dump (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Of the four sources given, End of The Weak doesn't mention him, one is a Facebook link and the others are YouTube videos. None of which establishes notability whatsoever. Ritchie333 (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a silly nomination very notable rapper. Unfortunately most of the serious peer reviewed scientifical journals don't mention hiphop. Actually the battletitles he won are enough to establish notability. Stig is even featured on BBC music showcase. Did you mean to nominate Stigg of the Dump? Arcandam (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. {{sofixit}}[reply]
Comment BBC music actually reviewed his album. His battlerecord is very impressive: 2xWorld EOW Challenge Champion of Champions, 2xUK EOW Challenge Champion, UK Battlescars Champion, on Jump Off he was both a Tag Team Champion and a judge. Stig has also written for the likes of The Guardian, Front, ZOO, One Week To Live, Music Week, Hip Hop Connection and continues to write for HHC Digital. When he released the HOMELESS MICROPHONIST EP it was the number 1 seller on the UK’s biggest Hip Hop mail order site until it sold out. He worked with people like R.A. the Rugged Man. Who? R.A. the Rugged Man, arguable the biggest name in this scene. They created a 12" together, that was chosen as a single of the month in Hip Hop Connection, IDJ & DJ Magazine. Arcandam (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response If Stig has written for the Guardian, could you supply an appropriate link from www.guardian.co.uk that we can use as a reference in the article? --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the template {{sofixit}}? You don't seem very keen on my suggestion to actually improve the article together. Arcandam (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~, probably~~ I can't see a Guardian article *by* Stig, but there are one or two that talk about him. 11 Dec 2010. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three more refs from the news. Should be simple to use these to prove notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

Stig of the Dump interview with Huck Magazine
International Business Times (Floyd Allen, 2 May 2011)
BBC: Stig of the Dump "Mood Swings" Review (Adam Kennedy, 15 November 2010)
Evening Standard (David Smyth, 30 March 2007)

Also, 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) 08:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. without prejudice towards future merge discussions Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vodafone Global Enterprise[edit]

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

I initially deleted the article and moved the non-promotional content to the parent Vodafone article, that was reverted so using the principal of WP:BRD I am now nominating the article for deletion. This is an article about a division of Vodafone. It isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. All this article does right now is say "it exists". It does nothing to establish the company's notability - its size, turnover, significant products, achievements, or customers. I believe it is best deleted and left as a section within the parent article. Biker Biker (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is a multi-billion pound turnover subsidiary of one of the largest companies in the world. Independently it would be an FTSE 100 company and significant third party coverage is available with ease: [4]. It is also a natural break out article from the main Vodafone article which is already very large. Yes details of the sort which you describe need to be added, and I am just about to do so. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - £1.3 billion revenue is not multi-billion pound turnover, and in a £46.4 billion company I simply can't see how it rates a separate article. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I made a mistake about the revenues number, they are currently smaller than I had understood. However £1.3 billion in revenues is still very large (there is no requirement for a company to have a certain amount of revenues to qualify for a WP article in any case). It is also true that the revenues number will go up very considerably once the acquisition of Cable & Wireless Worldwide completes in the next few months (it has revenues of £2.2 billion). Even without that this would still be a highly notable topic however, third party coverage is extensive. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Let me put my thoughts - why it was redone a few weeks back. As a start, I do understand this particular article was deleted a couple of years back as seen from the log. At that time (2006 - 2008), the enterprise business was evolving and at its inception. Then why it was redone - the ans lies in the editing of wiki pages of enterprise business of Orange and Siemens - see Siemens Enterprise Communications , Orange Business Services. As a natural progression to understand cross links, a separate VGE page was populated ( which it requires) with history ( and for future edits). Now the deletion nomination is bit out of logic and I would be surprised if the Enterprise division doesn't merit a separate article. If non-separate logic holds true - then all enterprise business division articles including BT Global Services need to be combined into the parent article (which is a most unlikely choice as a separate page is rqrd). So I would vote for a strong keep. Jean Julius Vernal 13:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP: CORP as there is ample 3rd party reliable coverage. Electric Catfish 22:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vodafone: though it definitely passes WP:NCORP, it is impractical to cover this particular branch in a separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?Rangoon11 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a subsidiary of Vodafone that copes with a segment of the scope of parent company. Both articles have significant amount of scope intersection and not much encyclopedic content on the subsidiary can be written. The general notion of WP:NCORP regarding subsidiaries is pretty straightforward: unless the article is too big, the subsidiaries, departments, etc. should be covered in parent articles. I see no necessity in separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some significant divisions ( matter of fact be it any article say a personality/company ) starts with few lines (barely few lines) which later conceptualise into a full fledged article. Agreed two years back this particular division may not (I say may not) have merited a branch out. Say in past twelve months, the carving out is in progress ( its existing operations and acquisitions) and a space is required to pen the evolution - in terms of future acquisitions, its geographical divisions, management changes, solutions ( the solution is different from a typical mere mobile network provider). And, it is not advisable to populate already crowded Vodafone page. The logic is same for any article (personalities, divisions, major subsidiaries), when the need arises to pen a couple of (separate unique) lines, create a branch out and leave to the rest to contribute. It may take some time, but leave a space to contribute. If we are planing (everytime) to delete and merge those few lines, then we arent giving a chance for others to contribute. This is pure common sense, the very reason it was recreated. The reason behind enterprise division of Orange and Siemens - the articles merited significant inputs, so it was given. Now if a debate start that we need to delete Siemens Enterprise Communications and Orange Business Services and merge into their parent company - wouldn't it be ridiculous?. Take another view - what if someone merged ( say Orange Business Services) three years back, would we have a space to contribute say in June 2012? Coming back to VGE, I do respect the inputs/thoughts from the 'merge' camp, but a logical outcome should be to keep it. Have a thought Jean Julius Vernal 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) work this way. Instead, the content should be split out once (1) the article has to be split otherwise and (2) the content is mature enough to merit its own article. Splitting out a stub and waiting for its natural development is just impractical: we daily delete such space wasters in AfD process, including those from year 2006 or so. And please, no WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST arguments. Also note, that this division is not even a primary candidate for splitting out: the history sections normally come first (if split is required, which is not the case with Vodafone). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. From 2007 - 2012, it was maturing in Vodafone and once the strategy is set with the Bluefish acquisition (Dec 2011) along with C&W acquisition (2012) it is no longer regarded as a stub. It has enough history / separate operational divisions / a clear separate solution strategy to merit a separate article. It wasnt my intention to bring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST arguments, but a need arose to explain the evolution of VGE (new) article, so it was mentioned. The need - a natural progression to understand the evolution "Enterprise" Business strategy from 2006 - 2012 in many companies. As a wikipedia user, we skip from one page to another, in search of the connected articles and references - atleast that is how we use - for personal knowledge gathering or professional case studies. If there is a lack of info, we users populate the content or fill the vacuum. And I found it wise to populate a new page, rather than crowd the parent article and including a reason it is not a stub. As seen in its operational divisions / history / solutions - there is a clear branching out. Jean Julius Vernal 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me. The current article is short and still is nearly (if not absolutely) equal in coverage to yet shorter Vodafone § Vodafone Global Enterprise. In fact I see neither development potential of the VGE article, nor any constrains imposed on VGE coverage by keeping it within Vodafone and redirecting Vodafone Global Enterprise and its common aliases (if any) there. Remember, the burden of proof in article splitting lies on those proposing the split, and this discussion is exactly the one that should have happened before the first edit on Vodafone Global Enterprise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic meets both the overall GNG and specific CORP requirements with ease. I can't see how the burden of proof is therefore on those who oppose a merge.

A merge of the article even in its current state would create an undue amount of coverage on the topic in the main Vodafone article, as well as a mess. It would also hinder proper expansion and development of coverage of the topic.

This is ignoring the fact that the article is capable of significant expansion using already available third party sources. And the fact that the company is shortly going to more than double in size as most of Cable and Wirless is folded into it.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this discussion is not a merge proposal, it is a validation of voluntary split, a third stage of WP:BRD process. And still you don't show why the development of the topic can't happen within Vodafone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate your thoughts (of Mr. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) and acknowledge your stand. Regarding the discussion to have happened now or earlier - it was started two years back - then it was redirected. As an user, an initiation was taken to branch out. And there is an objection, so we use the wiki method of reaching a consensus. A natural outcome. But we need a conclusion - so to make it more clearer, let us tackle this with some facts (in pieces). Please allow me to articulate - Fact no 1 : This is a business services division. A clear distinction and an unique factor from its parent Vodafone which is majority known for his mobile network and related services. Fact no. 2 : Operations and how it is geographically positioned. One example (just one among the numerous), Singapore - it is a place where there is no Vodafone network. It is structured to diversify its business services or Enterprise integration (EI) services into emerging markets. So what if a similar news Vodafone Global Enterprise Opens Regional Office in Singapore - a more significant news is released - example, Centre of Excellence is opened, in a country where Vodafone doesnt have network but would like to branch out using its EI services. Fact no. 3 Clear separate acquisitions for its VGE divsions , which it already done with a couple ( or atleast Bluefish). Fact no. 4 Solutions and services, future innovations related to EI , business services , unified communications solutions or which is separate from it core Vodafone business Fact no. 5 Splitting of assets ( of an acquisition) which will be highlighted in the history. Let us tackle these five facts as a start and I would appreciate your thoughts (Mr. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) on this. Jean Julius Vernal 19:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest:

Regarding fact no. 1: VDE differs from Vodafone in that it only serves a share of the Vodafone's scope. The distinction between those two legal entities is administrative.

Regarding fact no. 2—5: I don't see how the coverage would change within a section of Vodafone and Vodafone Global Enterprise. Well, I see the difference: separate article would violate WP:CFORK. Nothing more.

Frankly, I see no need in reiterating the same very arguments in several comments. You state that the topic can't be covered in Vodafone and I say it can. Unless you specify the reason why some content can land in Vodafone Global Enterprise, but can't in Vodafone § Vodafone Global Enterprise, there is simply no topic in further discussion. Nuff said. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So fact 1 concludes VGE is not a stub. It is not mere scope. Diversifying into a major profit making division starts from its administration . In your comments in facts 2-5, regarding WP:CFORK , quote, unquote, Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article. Which echoes what Rangoon and me are trying to project. It is time for a spinoff. Why we need to make the Vodafone article messy plus weight age wont be given to VGE in an already long article. Jean Julius Vernal 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at the position - Vodafone § Vodafone Global Enterprise, the structuring of the sub topic. Even if separate sub heading is given in Vodafone, it looks odd. Agreed from 2007 - 2011, but not in 2012 Jean Julius Vernal 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim that the content can't land inside Vodafone § Vodafone Global Enterprise because there is no proper place for this section? Invalid claim, as per WP:SUMMARY you'll still have to find an appropriate place for this section.

Vodafone is too long? Splitting out history section would help more: it's times bigger and less relevant to the current Vodafone most readers are probably interested in.

Also note, that Vodafone article should give the readers the overall impression of Vodafone's business. Given that VDE is operated as department (as opposed to asset), it is a vital part of the article to be split out. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section of the Vodafone article is fundamental to the topic, all major companies have a fairly long history section and the Vodafone history section has not yet reached a point where a break out article is required. Even if it were, a fairly long history summary would still remain in the main article, probably no shorter than the present history.

VGE is currently just under 3% of Vodafone in terms of overall revenues, considerably smaller than many of its national operations such as South Africa, India, the UK, Germany, Italy and Turkey. Moving the content of this article into Vodafone would unbalance the main article and create an undue (as well as messy) presence for VGE. And would also hinder proper development of VGE content.

VGE is a notable topic in its own right, but a very small part of Vodafone overall. Contrary to what you suggest VGE is also run as a separate business with its own dedicated management. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is simply invalid. How is revenue related to WP:DUE? Sources are relevant, and sources-wise there is no problem for VGE. And the statement that company's history is more important then it's present activity is somehow, well, strange: the topic of the article is a present-day company, not historic (defunct) one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing to Mr. Czarkoff : Aesthetics, readability, flow of thoughts - it is a valid claim. Even if we merge, and in a case we reach a point - we need to create a spin out coz of the flow of events ( which it already is ), a question arises to create a new page. We will be back to square one - prompt another user to be wp:Be bold - recreate the content - redo everything. Forsee it now and dont stress and stretch an already long page( it is long and loosing its aesthetics / clarity) Jean Julius Vernal 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing to Mr. Czarkoff : VGE is a division and pages already exist (even) for its subsidiaries. And I agree to your point, quote, unquote, Given that VDE is operated as department (as opposed to asset), it is a vital part of the article to be split out And yes using WP:CFORK, handle the subject in the main article as a condensed brief summary and spin out a new article. Jean Julius Vernal 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing to Mr. Rangoon11 : I agree to the points made - moving the content of this article into Vodafone would unbalance the main article and create an undue (as well as messy) presence for VGE. And would also hinder proper development of VGE content. VGE is a notable topic in its own right Jean Julius Vernal 21:02, 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. WP:SNOW, G3 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMOSR (MMO Skill Rating)[edit]

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

Entirely WP:OR. I assumed that googling "MMOSR" or "MMO skill rating" would bring up results, but there's nothing at all. I know we're not supposed to use the word "cruft", but this is gamecruft at it's finest. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding this article: MMOSAA (MMO Standards and Assessment Association), for the same reasons as above. I wouldn't be surprised if the author is the same person. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I found one "guild" that makes public mention of it on their website (Starfleet Dental), but not more than that. So it probably exists -- but something that is so carefully hidden a secret as to have no easily identifiable, reliable sources is not going to meet WP:GNG. -- BenTels (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fake. It's just something created by a member of Something Awful (Starfleet Dental is a SA group). Nothing like MMOSR currently exists. Shadaez (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Thunderite (talk) 21:14, 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 delete. Speedy G11, Highly promotional with no way of fixing it except rewriting from scratch--just like the previous incarnations of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cordys[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this global provider of software for business process innovation, neither in article nor in the wild. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hit the "news" link above -- the reliable sources jump out at you. -- BenTels (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't agree with you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article looks like typical corporate spam. However, on the Talk:Cordys page, in the News link that BenTels indicates, and in books such as BPM Excellence in Practice 2009, there's a significant number of discussions of the company and its approach, which altogether looks sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. However what the article does clearly need is (a) incorporating of explicit refs and in my opinion (b) ruthless pruning of the sections on things like their user conference. AllyD (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, most references discuss their software, not the company itself. If any software is notable, it should have its article, but the company is something very different. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes a company notable , but producing notable products? A single such does not mean the company is necessarily notable , but multiple products are the reason companies are written about. One cannot separate the company form the work it does--few companies become notable bassed only on their administrative structures. But that is not the problem here: the problem is promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usama Hasan[edit]

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

Does not have sufficient notability WP:N. Usama Hasan is a teacher, and an imam who had quarrel in the mosque he was based in due to power struggle which resulted. Nothing much beyond that.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 29. Snotbot t • c » 11:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I live just down the road from this chap. His case became a local cause celebre when he received death threats, and his teachings on evolution have led to coverage, including interviews, in the international media including BBC, Washington Post, and CNN. As the article notes he has also served in diplomatic missions to Egypt and Afghanistan on behalf of the Foreign Office. So he's actually quite prominent for a number of distinct reasons. For all of these reasons, this article isn't a deletion candidate. --TS 12:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being part of an entourage does not necessarily make himself a largely known notable person. Many MP, Lords, etc.... have staff, budding politicians, businessmen, etc... who accompany them abroad, but may not necessarily be themselves be prominent. Maybe if he was directly responsible for the mission, or did some prominent action that he was directly responsible and was publically attributed to him might make him notable. Asifkhanj (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically he's notable because of coverage in appropriate publications, and he's interesting because of his current prominence as an intellectual leader in both faith and science, and now in the interface between them. I can only agree with Tony Sidaway, this article is not a deletion candidate. Civis Romanus (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References exist in the article to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would regard his work (if correctly stated) in countering Islamic extremism as important. His role as an academic is probably insufficient for him to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the article in that case seems to have only 2 or 3 lines in terms of notability. The article does not state much in its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caiçara Esporte Clube[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the reason "the club competed in the Copa do Brasil (the Brazilian national cup) in 1991". My understanding is that competing in this cup would not be enough to make a club inherently notable. Because of how Brazilian football system works, the competition allows "lesser teams to have a shot at the title, since the best clubs are usually playing the continental competition" (quoted from the Copa do Brasil article). Winning the title, or coming runner-up, may well be enough to nudge into notability areas, but competing once and being knocked out in the first round does not appear to make the grade. The league the club plays in is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, and the coverage in the provided sources do not seem to be enough to meet the notability guidelines PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, regarding the Copa do Brasil, Caiçara Esporte Clube competed in the competition in 1991. However, only from 2001 to 2012 that teams competing in the Copa Libertadores (which is the continental competition in South America) did not participate in the Copa do Brasil (anyone can easily check this by noticing that in 1991 Corinthians competed in both the 1991 Copa do Brasil and in the 1991 Copa Libertadores), as the full text of the Copa do Brasil article clearly says: "From 2001 to 2012, the Copa do Brasil has been played in the first semester of the year. Due to the busy schedule in the first semester in Brazil, teams playing in the Copa Libertadores have not been allowed to participate in the Copa do Brasil in the same year. This has allowed lesser teams to have a shot at the title, since the best clubs are usually playing the continental competition.". But even in those years, the bigger teams competed, as anyone can verify by simply reading the List of Copa do Brasil winners page. Besides that, the competition is the most important cup competition in Brazil, it is not a lower-league cup. Second, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues page is clearly incomplete, as that page says that "The lists are currently incomplete" and it is a guide just for player and manager notability. So, there is no reason the delete the Caiçara Esporte Clube page. --Carioca (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is significant coverage of the club's exploits in the 1991 Copa do Brasil and it appears to pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Copa is the top domestic cup in Brazil. Playing in it should warrant notability as long as the club passes WP:GNG which I shall check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenalkid700 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:55, 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 The Tossers. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The First League Out from Land[edit]

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

I cannot find coverage of this EP that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. It doesn't appear to meet requirement for notability. Till 10:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Tossers The EP is not notable in itself PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tossers. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Individual article not warranted, but a redirect is reasonable. Gongshow ^Talk 16:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 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 redirect to The Tossers. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll Never Be Sober Again[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant coverage of this album in reliable sources. [5] [6] It does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS; not even Allmusic has reviewed the album. [7] Till 10:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite Thunder Records & Thick Records (two of their release labels) having websites, and despite having a rather lengthy discography, they simply do not meet the criteria under WP:BAND or WP:MUSICBIO. They have no releases on major labels, they have no charted singles, they have no certified records, they have won no significant awards...blah, blah, blah. This particular album release simply lands in the midst of nothing notable around the band. However, it does qualify for WP:NN and a deletion nomination... Ren99 (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Tossers - the album is not notable in its own right PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tossers. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Individual article not warranted, but a redirect is reasonable. Gongshow ^Talk 16:33, 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 keep. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Karakunnel[edit]

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

No RS showing notability. The books are not inherently notable (and wouldn't inherit anyway) and his scholarship does not appear to have attracted independent invention. Long-standing orphan, long-standing BLP concerns. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per well-reasoned arguments about the ITC and other notable items in the first AfD. It would be good to know in what ways the nominator feels like either the first AfD was wrongly decided or how Wikipedia or the article has changed since then. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- Since he works is in India (where the Internet is not necessarily well-developed) and partly in a south Indian language, the lack of comment in western media is unsurprising. That does not mean he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pelin Karahan[edit]

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

Long-standing orphan, long-standing BLP issue, no notability shown through RS. This has been gently suggested since 2009 and no action has been taken. No new sources have emerged since that time. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is a famous actress in Turkey and she is a notable person.--Reality 17:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in Turkey is fine with en.Wikipedia. Not being expanded or further sourced is a concern, but not one that requires deletion of a notable topic. And while they have not been (so far) used, it is incorrect to suggest that sources for improvement are somehow unavailable, as searches find her in hundreds from at least 2008 until now. WP:CSB, WP:NONENG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 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 merge to CyanogenMod. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ADW.Launcher[edit]

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

Contested PROD (although not by original author). Although there are a good number of reviews around, including in reliable sources, they do not establish ADW.Launcher as a significant piece of software so to me the product fails WP:NSOFT and therefore WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main launcher for CyanogenMod up to version 7. Although a standalone version has been released the main association is still with CyanogenMod. I think the best thing to do here is to merge with the CyanogenMod article. I suggest that the nominator might want to do that now and close the nomination. --TS 13:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to CyanogenMod: for now the notability of this entry is questionable due to the recentism problems and fast evolution of Android. I think keeping it with CyanogenMod article for a while would help to cover the topic with verifiable content and subsequently decide on its notability for a standalone article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either CyanogenMod or List of Android Launchers. There's no information in this article that actually would justify an "article" and I seriously doubt ADW (or any other third party launcher for Android) has enough notability to warrant its own article. As previously said, the only thing really notable is that it used to be part of CyanogenMod, which is covered already in the CyanogenMod article. Given that it's not CyanogenMod's launcher anymore (they're now using Trebuchet)...I don't see its lack of notability changing anytime soon. Gromlakh (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VibeAgent.com[edit]

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

Non notable domain name ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 07:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article and those that can be found from Google search are from 2007-8 and are effectively PR around the launch of this aggregator website. To meet WP:NWEB, I think one could reasonably expect something more solid. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Delete: the sources on topic are lacking depth, which would be required for determining notability. In fact, all of these are trivial mentions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe that this article should be deleted because of it isn't notable and other reasons.--Reality 17:45, 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 Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) --Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Hex (Wrestler)[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability, no proper source, reference Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:19, 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. WP:SNOW. If a redirect is desired it can be WP:BOLDly created. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable energy vehicle[edit]

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

Article lacks notability and its short content is blatant original research, and the content is technically wrong. The relevant topic is already covered in two existing articles, alternative fuel vehicle and green vehicle-- Mariordo (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This stub provides a definition that is non sense from a technical point of view, the term is not notable (a Google search restricted to news shows no hits - see here), and some websites (most of them not reliable sources, use the term to refer to hydrogen vehicles. As it is, the content is blatant original research. Also until recently, the article was orphan and it came to my attention precisely because one editor link it to the see also of the existing articles that properly cover this subject.--Mariordo (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Mariordo says, the article lacks notability and its short content is original research. Johnfos (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect topic adequately covered elsewhere, if the term has any merit turn it into a redirect NealeFamily (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this neologism/duplicate page to alternative fuel vehicle or green vehicle (Mariordo, is one of these pages a better fit than the other?) . OSX (talk • contributions) 04:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative fuel vehicle is a better fit, considering than green vehicles include fuel efficient conventional gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, which strictly speaking, are environmentally friendlier but not based on sustainable sources of energy.--Mariordo (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as concept is covered more accurately elsewhere. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a virtually unused name. The article contains no references, no facts, nothing to merit inclusion. Why wasn't this speedied? Ebikeguy (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to fail WP:GNG. Also WP:NOTDICT and WP:OR. This seems more like a category than an article. -- BenTels (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, this is a duplication of other articles. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This smells like an inappropriate fork to me. Belchfire-TALK 00:52, 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 SNOW KEEP, nomination withdrawn; and kudos to the nominator for conceding they were mistaken. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Laces[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indications that this band has met the criteria of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BAND point 1. Multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources: [8][9][10][11]. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – Just clicking on the Google News link for this AfD discussion provides plenty of indication that this topic meets criteria 1 of WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Some of the easily-available sources prove it: [12], [13], [14] (subscription required) and [15].

– Please consider source searching prior to nominating articles for deletion, per the suggestions at WP:BEFORE, Section D. This would help to improve the encyclopedia, because articles on Wikipedia are based upon their notability, per Wikipedia guidelines. Also refer to WP:NRVE, in which 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) 11:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Apparently I had a brain-fart when I nominated this one. My evaluation of the available sources was that they looked somewhat trivial; I realize that evaluation was wrong. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroot diplomacy[edit]

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

This seems to mostly be an advertisement for these people: http://www.grassrootdiplomat.org/ . Of course "grassroots diplomacy" is a real thing, but "grassroot diplomacy," without the "s," seems to be an invention of this organization. There seem to be no third party reliable sources which discuss "grassroot diplomacy" which aren't just using the term in the ordinary sense of the words as opposed to an actual movement or concept. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with alf laylah wa laylah; this article seems like a rather confused combobulation of grassroots diplomacy and the term espoused by http://www.grassrootdiplomat.org/ . However, the sources of the article that are not primary to http://www.grassrootdiplomat.org/ do not seem to support the term grassroot diplomacy. -- BenTels (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As laudable as this organization appears to be, it isn't well sourced enough to have its own article, and as noted as above, the article appears to be a confusing conflation of this organization with 'grassroots' diplomacy and citizen diplomacy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Belchfire-TALK 05:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.& others. Sourcing not sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and content seems to be mostly original research.--JayJasper (talk) 16:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Academy of Management[edit]

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

Appears to be a private business operation with no recognition and/or certification in the Indian tertiary education system. Fails WP:CORP. In the alternative, considered as an entity, fails WP:GNG. Shirt58 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not able to verify the existence of this institute even after an exhaustive google search. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Fails WP: GNG. -- Bharathiya (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Unsourced, so it fails WP: GNG, and it fails WP: CORP for this reason, as well. Electric Catfish 22:51, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Lady Gaga songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:FANCRUFT. Other than PerezHilton.com (a blog), the only other sources are from the BMI repertoire which do nothing but prove that these songs in fact exist. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy this may qualify under CSD:G4 as page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Even if it doesn't, this list still fails WP:N as pointed out in the previous AfD. Till 01:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously? If whomever deletes this article, please delete all articles similar to this such as List of unreleased Cher songs, List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger, and every other article listed under the unreleased category on Wikipedia.--MrIndustry (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WAX, and most of those articles should also be considered for deletion due to poor sourcing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't poorly sourced at all. It might be a nutshell of information all in one, but the general public does not know how to search a song database, which is why majority of these articles exist. If you search for an unreleased song, Wikipedia will come up, not BMI, ASCAP, ISWC. People can't find this bulk of information without knowing where to look.--MrIndustry (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the still valid reasoning from the first AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? All these other artists have unreleased song pages, this page just needs to be cleaned up a bit. DON'T DELETE IT.-talk:MrIndustry|talk]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.160.204 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC) — 68.38.160.204 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources on the internet discussing Lady Gaga's unreleased discography, just because they're not in the article yet doesn't mean they don't exist and can't be added. Since this discussion was started you can see sources have been added, not just from blog websites either, and I'm pretty sure if someone wanted more you'd just have to do a quick search to find more.92.238.200.254 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — 92.238.200.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. At what point do a bunch of unreleased songs get mentioned enough in the press to gain notabilility? Very rarely and apparently not this time. Hint. I note there is no List of Lady Gaga songs which could include the contents of this article.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An awful lot of WP:WAX / WP:OTHERCRAP arguments; "This got this so that should be this and this should be that because that got this..." Comparisons/arguments of this nature fail the Wiki test. A list of Lady Gaga's "unreleased" material is therefore distinctly WP:NN. Ren99 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pure OR, being based upon BMI licensing applications and such. Is there any published sourcing whatsoever to make this list verifiable? That said, one of the great things about WP is its ultra-cruftastic coverage of popular culture... So if this is kept under IAR, I wouldn't cry. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be happy to accept BMI as verifiable source. However, BMI does not signify whether a song is recorded in a version that is "releaseable," which pretty much drives a coach and horses through the article title and the contents.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are unreleased songs. They're not really meant to be releaseable. Anything that's on BMI/ASCAP/SESAC/ISCW is a song. That's what this list is.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the PROs have a piece of paper that claims that any royalties for performance should be paid to the persons named. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you're saying? You're saying the song therefore exists. I use these databases every day for my job. They're reliable as can be.--MrIndustry (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An occasional reliable source mentions an unreleased song or two, and that's about it - there is no coverage of this as a group. The keepers here are mostly making unpersuasive 'other stuff exists' arguments. As to the remark that 'one of the great things about WP is its ultra-cruftastic coverage of popular culture' - no, just no. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my point was very valid.--MrIndustry (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't, all you said was 'seriously' and listed a bunch of other articles similar to this one (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Till 01:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should try reading again.--MrIndustry (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Seriously? If whomever deletes this article, please delete all articles similar to this such as List of unreleased Cher songs, List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger, and every other article listed under the unreleased category on Wikipedia." Till 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This article isn't poorly sourced at all. It might be a nutshell of information all in one, but the general public does not know how to search a song database, which is why majority of these articles exist. If you search for an unreleased song, Wikipedia will come up, not BMI, ASCAP, ISWC. People can't find this bulk of information without knowing where to look." Look at every comment before you state your opinion.--MrIndustry (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse—whether it's useful because "the general public does not know how to search a song database" is irrelevant, because for a topic to be suitable and/or notable on Wikipedia, there must be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Till 15:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An issue I have with this list is that, as Richhoncho noted above, the BMI sources establish only that a particular song was registered, not whether or not a song is unreleased ... which is the whole point of the article. Compare this list to List of unreleased Disney animated shorts and feature films, which has problems of its own, but at least books have been written on the subject. I'm not seeing where the topic of "unreleased Lady Gaga songs" has been discussed in detail, and I'm not finding information beyond BMI registration for individual songs either, with few exceptions (e.g., from the Perez Hilton/Huffington Post/Idolator blogs referenced in the article). All in all, I don't believe there's enough coverage to warrant a list at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 05:22, 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 merge to Mid-West Region, Ireland. The articles do cover the same material so a merge is appropriate. There is a question, briefly alluded to in the discussion, but not fully dealt with, as to which title is more appropriate - Shannon Region is used by sources rather more than Mid-West Region. I'll close as merge to Mid-West Region, Ireland, and then look at renaming that article to Shannon Region SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Region[edit]

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

Nominator's rationale Apologies for all the confusion and thanks to those who have left messages. Really, this is a most unsatisfactory process and needs to be fixed. Anyway. The article mimics Mid-West Region, Ireland. Also, the areas listed, County Limerick, County Clare, North Tipperary etc all have their own sections on visitor attractions and geographic features. The article is pointless duplication and has no official status. It's just a random grouping of certain Counties of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing nomination; discussion was redlinked in the log. I've left a message on the nominator's talk page, I expect they'll be along shortly to provide their deletion rationale. I remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion at this time, not my nomination, the actual nominator was User:Laurel Lodged (dont know how my name got crossed with hers. perhaps a Ghostbuster crossed the streams:))Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, don't know what happened there! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shannon Region may consist of smaller geographic entities that all have their own articles, but it does not appear to be a random assortment of counties. There is coverage of the region's economy, including the tourism industry, and appears in travel guides, and is called out specifically by the Irish Tourist Board. The coverage in multiple independent reliable sources indicate that Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are satisfied for this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The word "Region" in the title implies that it some official imprimateur; it does not. The article itself says that the region is also called the Mid-West Region; if this is true then the latter article has preference and this article should be deleted; if it is not true then the reference needs to be removed. There are two portions of two counties that the article claims are part of the region - bits of County Offaly and County Kerry. These bits fall outside the Mid-West Region. However, they overlap nicely with the geographic remit of the Shannon Development company. So this raises the question of whether this article is just Shannon Development by another name? If so, it should be deleted and let Shannon Development do the job. If not, then what extra bits does it have that are in neither of the other articles but which are so unique and notable as to belong solely to this article? In my opinion, the answer to that question is "nothing". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources quoted The first source seems to use the remit of Shannon Development. The second and third sources contain the phrase "Shannon Region" only - they do not define the remit. The last source uses the phrase in the context of the middle to lower stretches of the River Shannon and specifically mixes in Athlone which is County Longford and Roscommon. So at best, it would seems that this article should be a re-direct for either Shannon Development or the Mid-West Region. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or at least redirect if not delete. This article is largely redundant with Mid-West Region, Ireland and if the so-called Shannon region is "unofficial" then this article would seem superfluous. Peppy Fazoo (talk) 00:22, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos[edit]

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

WP:Listcruft, indiscriminate. Number-one singles are inherently notable by definition and that's why there are lists for those. Number-two singles are quite trivial and do not require such a list. Till 15:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this might be going a bit far. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based reason to delete has been provided as WP:Listcruft is just an essay which only amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The general concept of the list is notable per WP:LISTN, as evidenced by the Independent feature and other works such as The Billboard Book of Number Two Singles. Warden (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It backs up WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it's main point of argument and that's policy-based. Till 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability assered by Warden. A line is drawn, but how is number ones inherently notable and number twos quite trivial? The list is not indiscriminate, all or almost all entries meet the notability guidelines for its own article per common selection criteria. The topic itself has actually gotten more notable since the raise of reality shows and its winner almost always taking the Christmas number one spot. KTC (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because number-ones are just that, number-ones. Number two is trivial, just like number 6, 19, 43, 124, etc. Till 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was already nominated for deletion here, and the primary reason for keeping is that bookmakers are now taking bets on the outcome of the number two slot as well as for the number one. Since this has not changed, I'll stick my neck out and say keep. — foxj 08:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which notability criteria states that 'taking bets' on a chart placement warrants a list about that particular number? Till 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere in the article does it establish why No 2's are notable - whether at Xmas or otherwise. If somebody could establish why No 2s are notable I will change my opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Number twos... LOL. Statυs (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that song's are referred to as either a "number one", "top five" (not very often), "top ten", "top twenty" or "top forty" hit. Statυs (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There's one lone newspaper article dealing with serious songs being upstaged by novelties "in the week in which Christmas Day falls", which is only a subset of this list. What next? List of thirteen ranked songs on Halloween and Friday the 13th? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage of this topic in multiple sources - I have added some more citations. Warden (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of no intrinsic value. Delete now, before we end up discussing List of UK Singles Chart New Year's Day number threes! Emeraude (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some UK singles are notable for only getting to number 2 (Vienna (Ultravox song) being a very well known example), but not specifically for Christmas. A List of notable UK number 2s (if you'll pardon the scatological pun) might be worthwhile. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The arbitrariness of this list borders on parody. Not to mention that there's little notability here related to them being #2 Christmas songs. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to find more sources which discuss this topic - I have added some more. Warden (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read some of the references in the article and [16] and [17] do provide enough coverage to prove this subject meets the General Notability Guidelines. Dream Focus 00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What needs to be said about the number two singles can be done on the relevant articles. Creating a list about it is pretty nonsense if you ask me, I have been on Wikipedia for a long time and this is the first time I have seen a list about number-two singles. Till 01:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What relevant articles? I analyze what was in the sources. Think of this is any other topic. Something gets significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it can have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 07:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're correct, it isn't, hence why I already based the nomination on policy (WP:INDISCRIMINATE etc). The relevant articles are those singles that were number-two eg. 'x peaked at number two on the week of the Christmas number one'. Till 09:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that in the past this topic has been bludgeoned to death in previous AFD nominations that have received "no consensus." Now, this is just my opinion here, and I'm an American so take that into account, but it appears that the number-two position has at least some notability given the sources. While I'd generally agree that continuing down the list to #3, #4, #5 etc. would be arbitrary, and no source has actually tried to compile statistics or establish notability for those numbers, #2 seems to have enough to support it. Considering several Christmas classics and very popular songs have ended up at #2, songs that have become even more popular in the long run than the #1's, I believe it's notable enough to keep around. Again, just my opinion. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Colonel, Dream and J. Myrle Fuller. A useful article about a culturally important topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSUSEFUL? Till 13:54, 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. without prejudice towards restoration based on play this season. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack King (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he has signed for Preston North End. Since he hasn't actually played for them, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

INCORRECT! bOTH PLAYERS HAVE FEATURED REGULAR IN PRE-SEASON. MONAKANA ALSO PLAYED AS A TRIALIST BEFORE HE SIGNED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaPlayerX (talk • contribs) 02:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind the season starts late in England due to the olympics, Our season now starts 2 weeks on monday! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaPlayerX (talk • contribs) 02:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DaPlayerX (talk · contribs) posted the following to the talk page of this page. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He played just yesterday in a pre-Season match against AEK Athens. Along with Jack King

He was on trial with us before the end of the season for four weeks, before actually signing in may, same time as Jack King.

And as the football league start date has been moved to the 18th of February, how else can I confirm HE IS A REGISTERED PRO FOOTBALLER!

Delete both - fail WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Playing in pre-season warm-up matches does not meet the criteria -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - The English season is less than a month away; if they do play for PNE, we'll have to re-create the articles. I suggest that we wait for PNE to play a couple of games before deciding. If they play, we keep the articles, if they don't, we delete. VJ (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would take an admin about 3 seconds to restore the articles if necessary. We don't keep article on the basis that the subject might theoretically become notable in the future -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More References to follow - With both Monakana's & King's excellent contribution in the last two friendlies, More Notably, the 1-0 win on Saturday (28th July 2012) against Greek Giants AEK Athens^[1]^[2], Where both players featured with outstanding performances. and the 4 - 1 victory over AFC Wimbledon Yesterday (31st July 2012)^[3]

^[4], Where Monakana made the starting XI after his contributions in the Athens game, and became responsible for the build-up in 3 of the goals. I would say it's safe to say they have cemented themselves a place in the starting XI. And will probably both feature in the |League Cup Match against Huddersfield on the 13th August 2012, before the league kicks off on the 18th. DaPlayerX (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Match reports are routine sports journalism, making them insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG. As already stated regardless of how well or poorly either of them played, playing in a friendly does not confer notability, and should either of them make their debut on 13 August the articles can be restored then. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, clearly fail WP:NFOOTY for now. Also any coverage including match reports fail WP:ROUTINE. Both players haven't received individual independent coverage to pass GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 16:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Martin (academic)[edit]

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

Article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability. No cited sources. Google search uncovers only primary sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO Dolphin (t) 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dolphin (t) 02:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His bio here and at CMU makes him look more like a mid-level academic administrator than someone with either the high research impact or top-level administrative position that WP:PROF demands. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF does NOT demand those things. Read the Criteria section. He only needs to meet ONE of them. He does. #5 (named chair). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per WP:PROF#C5 -- according to [18] he now has a named chair and is Dean of their School of Fine Arts (no longer interim). CMU's drama program is near the top in the country; I don't see the type of work that most academics do, but I think that the named chair, full dean, and top-ranked program make it a clear WP:PROF notability pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that #C5 refers to named chairs given for the personal merits of the holder, and not to ex officio named chairs for deans etc, which this one looks to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence to back up your understanding, because the guidelines don't distinguish? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that David's interpretation would be reasonable if we knew it were an ex officio chair, but I don't think we do. For all we know he was in line for a named chair for his research and its availability coincided with a larger turnover that also left the deanship open (there are named Deanships, but this is not one of them). I think that speculating why a researcher got a chair (is it the research quality? or because she was well liked, or because of whom he was sleeping with, etc.) is a bit too close to original research for my tastes. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, no independent, notable sources regarding his research. As a matter of fact, I don't see any published research. Kind of makes WP:ACADEMIC a hard sell. Yes, he is currently a dean at a major university. Great. But, I would have voted for keep if he acquired that position while publishing, distinguishing himself (e.g. fellowship) in some way. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC makes clear that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." Therefore, the announcement by CMU is a perfectly acceptable, reliable source But it was also published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the city's major daily newspaper. Also, published research is not necessary at all. WP:ACADEMIC is not only not a hard sell, it actually proves Martin's notability. Read the Criteria section. He only needs to meet ONE of those criteria. He does. #5 (named chair). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to his n.chair at Carnegie Mellon University (a highly rated US university) I think his presidency of the Association of Arts Administration Educators is sufficient to show notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:54, 18 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have much faith in the AfD process. One of the reasons for this is the fact that "decisions" about what articles make the cut seem to be made haphazardly. Sure, reasoning is looked at, but in the end it seems that power by numbers is the game. With that in mind, the fact that dolphin51 and others note the lack of substantial secondary coverage of Martin is one of the main reasons why this article ought to be deleted. Of course, the keepers can just keep voting to keep and say he has a chair at CMU and that is enough and that'll probably do it. Funny how AfD is the underbelly of this "encyclopedia." No wonder so many editors bolt!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jim -- you noted your reasons in your delete vote above, but what would you expect the research publication path of a superstar arts administrator to be? As far as I can see, he's the only prof. of Drama management in their super-highly regarded school, so I don't see any independent evidence that CMU has lowered any standards to appoint him. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I think this discussion proves that this decision is not being made haphazardly at all. That's not to say that there haven't been, and won't continue to be, inadequate AfD discussions. But what I see here is good-faith, thoughtful input. And the fact is that Martin does hold a named chair at a major university, which is not in dispute. That by itself establishes his notabiltiy per WP:ACADEMIC. WP:ACADEMIC also points out that the official announcement on a univeristy's website is considered a perfectly reliable source. Major universities don't go around making announcements about appointments that never actually happened. Having said all that, absent the named chair Martin holds, I was originally leaning toward recommending deletion. But that was before I read the guidelines with regard to the importance of the chair, and then read CMU's description of him as "the founding dean of arts management." I would've looked into that pretty impressive statement more had I not discovered that Martin's holding the chair was enough to establish his notability. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only way I see him passing the notability test is per criteria 5 of WP:ACADEMIC: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." He does hold a named chair, but it's an intermim postition. Is holding a named chair enough to establish notability, when nothing else establishes it? If so, is holding an INTERIM named chair enough? Absent this one factor, I would not hesitate to recommend deletion. Thoughts? By the way, when I see puff terms like "superstar arts administrator" and "super-highly regarded school," it puts a giant red flag up for me indicating that notability can't be established based simply on the subject's own merits. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that he has now "been named the Stanley and Marcia Gumberg Professor and Dean of the College of Fine Arts (CFA), effective July 1" [19]. That is it is no longer interim. I think his managing Directorship of the Classic Stage Company might also be important. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, looks like the chair is permanent, but that he'll continue as interim dean of the College of Fine Arts. The line that stood out most to me in the CMU announcement was that Martin is "a prominent arts management scholar and practitioner known as the "founding dean" of arts management." Wow, founding dean of arts management... that's a pretty powerful piece of information and, if accurate, certainly establishes his notability in academia, particularly when it's combined with holding the chair. I wish that statement was from a source not directly connected to Martin, but it's never nevertheless credible and from a highly-ranked school (and top-ranked in drama). --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's now clear, from an objective standpoint, that Martin passes the notability test based on the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, which says that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Criteria 5 is: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." Martin holds a named chair at a highly-regarded university, so he's notable. The CMU announcement is a reliable source per the notability guidelines, and it was also published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess this comment is directed to the editor from Ohio, who seems to be intent on reminding me and others to read WP:PROF and WP:GNG over and over, as if none of us have, or that it is some type of esoteric knowledge he is clueing me in on. Yeah, read it. Thanks. Also read: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE). Somehow I don't see--from an "objective standpoint" or otherwise that Martin's so called "superstar" administrator status as a chair of the Drama department at CMU as notable. It doesn't have the same feel as the chair of NAS or other examples noted in the guidlines. Again, though, these are guidlines, not rules, so there are exceptions. Did you read that, too? Then again, just being a dean of a school is not enough to be notable. I;m sure he does a great job. He started programs and did all sorts of great administrative stuff, but...that in itself isn't notable. If it were, every dean of every major college would have a WP page. Also, for someone whose been in academia so long, he only has three peer-reviewed publications on his resume. Not impressive nor notable.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I agree that if you take away his named chair, he likely does not pass the notability test. That's where I was originally. (Although I am interested in looking into the description CMU attached to him, when they called him the "founding dean of arts management.") I also agree with you that the puff terms like "superstar" shouldn't be taken seriously. The sole reason I voted to keep this article is because WP:ACADEMIC is very clear and unambiguous: "Academics/professors meeting any ONE of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." It says "are" notable, not "may be" notable. Martin passes C5, so he's notable. That's purely objective. You sound like you're angry about the entire AfD process and that you have little faith in it. I understand your frustration based on a number of AfD discussions I've seen. Maybe you should step away from AfDs for awhile. Just a thought. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 11:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarial Society of Turkey[edit]

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

This article isn't notable. It is just a normal society and there is no differences between other socities and this. Reality 06:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is big number of google hits and other national societies are largerly represented on wikipedia--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per above.--Zoupan 13:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Neither the number of google hits nor the fact that other articles about societies exist are valid reasons to keep an article. See WP:WAX and and WP:GNUM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsFionnuala (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:GOOGLEHITS. MsFionnuala (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, no evidence it has received enough in-depth news coverage to pass WP:NCORP. Though if someone knows enough Turkish to find sources in Turkish (I can't see any), I'll consider changing my recommendation. The article on Turkish Wikipedia is equally unsourced. Sionk (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Org was founded in 1951, seems like it's not going anywhere. Let's promote WP:Worldwide view when we can, and not increase our WP:Systemic bias if it can be helped. Belchfire-TALK 05:42, 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.

^ "Preston North End 1 - 0 AEK Athens". Preston North End. Retrieved 2012-07-28.
^ "Preston North End 1 - 0 AEK Athens". Sky Bettting. Retrieved 2012-08-01.
^ "AFC Wimbledon 1 - 4 Preston North End". BBC Sport. Retrieved 2012-08-01.
^ "AFC Wimbledon 1 - 4 Preston North End". Preston North End. Retrieved 2012-08-01.

[1] "Preston North End 1 - 0 AEK Athens". Preston North End. Retrieved 2012-07-28.

[2] "Preston North End 1 - 0 AEK Athens". Sky Bettting. Retrieved 2012-08-01.

[3] "AFC Wimbledon 1 - 4 Preston North End". BBC Sport. Retrieved 2012-08-01.

[4] "AFC Wimbledon 1 - 4 Preston North End". Preston North End. Retrieved 2012-08-01.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]