Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 July	1 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Keep Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Marczyński[edit]

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

Unsourced, pre 18-Mar-2010 BLP. Article does not establish why subject meets WP:N. Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No sources and not notable, not to mention poorly written.Michael5046 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Until yesterday this was a biography of a deceased artist, also on the Polish and German Wikipedia. Then a SPA dumped a semi-coherent BLP about a youthful handball player /graffitist over it. I'm going to restore the status quo and if someone really thinks that the sportsman/graffitist merits an article, they can start it in the normal way rather than by fouling an existing article. AllyD (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, suggest early close I've reinstated the article on the subject who it covered from 2004 until yesterday, and also added a couple of initial references. As this is no longer about the non-notable individual, I'm contacting the proposer to suggest an early keep close? AllyD (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the proposer, and after AllyD's explanation, agree to keep the article and early close this discussion. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't believe the criteria are met for me to execute a non-admin closure of the discussion, so I'm looking for an admin to do so. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

It does under speedy keep as I withdraw the nomination. Doing that now. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a request for Michael5046 to change his mind, so we may fully qualify for speedy keep. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the article had been changed. Will change my vote to keep. Michael5046 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With that, the article qualifies for WP:SK, so I will perform a non-admin closure of this discussion. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:25, 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 close. The article merger process for duplicate articles does not involve either AFD or the administrator deletion tool in any way or at any stage. Neither does turning an article into a redirect (or vice versa). This is a mis-use of AFD for something that ordinary editors can enact and discuss on talk pages without any need for administrator involvement or tools. AFD has quite enough traffic as it is, without wasting participant time and effort on things that don't even need a deletion tool at all and that editors can do for themselves. Also note that notability is not addressed solely with deletion nominations, and there are plenty of venues (such as appropriate WikiProjects) for seeking third opinions on disputed mergers without abusing AFD for that purpose. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homonegativity[edit]

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

Similar to heterophobia this seems to be a concept that was once on its way to becoming more than a neologism. Homonegativity is variously used - and a Homonegativity scale was even employed, a few times - but seemingly every use has been folded under what is commonly understood as homophobia. It seems there is little variance between the two even in scholarly usage. Homonegativity is just a neater or more plainly understood word than homophobia which is a faulty construct like other social -phobias like xenophobia, etc. It's a word that has generally gone out of use as homophobia has gotten the lion's share of attention.

We have a good explanation at heterosexism that places this issue in context:

Given this lack of semantic transparency, researchers, outreach workers, critical theorists and LGBT activists have proposed and use terms such as institutionalized homophobia, state(-sponsored) homophobia, sexual prejudice, anti-gay bigotry, straight privilege, The Straight Mind (a collection of essays by French writer Monique Wittig), heterosexual bias, compulsory heterosexuality or the much lesser known terms heterocentrism, homonegativity, and from gender theory and queer theory, heteronormativity.

So though there are reliable sources that have used the term, they conflict in what it means and how it's used. And they all seem to fold into homophobia which is a term that has become more widespread and inclusive. And this term doesn't seem to have any one definition that differentiates from homophobia, it's just a more rare term (among several as noted above) that's generally gone out of favor. So I think this still fails the notability threshold and if needed, WP:NOT. Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I forgot to add that I think this should be deleted, with anything really notable possibly added to homophobia and a redirect to homophobia left in place. Insomesia (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator is actually proposing merger not deletion. Note that there are hundreds of scholarly papers about the topic. The extent to which this overlaps with other topics is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. It seems like autism and autism spectrum, which are separate articles. Or xenophobia and chauvinism. And so on. Warden (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My explanation may have been too long here. I'm not really suggesting any merge because there is a lack of anything to merge except that this is a term that has been used in place of homophobia, but homophobia is a fine article needing no additional information. In fact it already acknowledges that this is one of several terms that has been used in place of homophobia but now doesn't seem to be needed. That is the nature of words. The sources that exist don't even agree on how this is any different than homophobia, they don't even agree with each other. Insomesia (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well-sourced and lengthy article and clearly some people believe it's different to homophobia. Even if it has gone out of favour or is less widely used than "homophobia", those are not in themselves reason for deletion. A merge might be possible if both articles were shorter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually not well sourced or lengthy. And though some believe it is different there is no one agreement to how exactly it actually is different. The homophobia article is actually well sourced and lengthy and has no need to be shortened. There is nothing to merge, that's why I think a delete and redirect is appropriate. Insomesia (talk) 12:15, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignat Ignatov[edit]

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

No sign of independent sources on the topic. No reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Kirlian there is independence source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbreht (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mention in independent reliable sources found after Google, Google Books or Google Scholar searches. Appears to be (self?)promotional in nature. Clearly fails all of our notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ignatov appears to be a "researcher" in alternative medicine. The most informative source I found is this site, which is hosted by the Scientific Research Center of Medical Biophysics, a center that he founded and owns, and about which I could find no independent information. On this site he claims to have received several medals, none of which I could verify independently. Indeed, the only related medal I found was the Vernadsky medal, which was first awarded the year after he claims to have received a Vernadsky prize (possibly they are different prizes). There is a little bit about his research in Kirlian photography#Research, with no independent sources for any of his claims. The bottom line is, no independent sources for Ignatov or any of his claims. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the prizes of Dr. Ignatov there is copies of the diplomas and number of the diplomas. Only lower has a right to discus this topic. The copies of the diplomas are in CV of Dr. Ignatov:

http://www.medicalbiophysics.dir.bg/en/ignat_ignatov_cv.html

Only in justice system is possible the estimate the activities of the people. Dr. Ignat Ignatov is biophysicist. Please, show the registration for ""researcher" in alternative medicine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbreht (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable stub created by an editor using two accounts. Sockpuppetry isn't a grounds for deletion, but lack of notability certainly is. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppetry can be grounds for deletion. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I can't decipher the titles, there are two works in the catalog of the U.S. Library of Congress listed under the author's name Ignat Ignatov. Both appear to be Bulgarian in origin and can be seen here: http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?hd=1,1&Search_Arg=Ignat%20Ignatov&Search_Code=NAME%40&CNT=100&type=quick&PID=FLZYJFlXpTMz0pUDHETBN_eAn_Mt&HIST=0&SEQ=20120802005609&SID=1 If these works come from this author, then their inclusion MAY be signs of notability and that we simply aren't seeing it doing English-language searches? Celtechm (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't appear to work. Be aware that there is at least one other Ignat Ignatov from Bulgaria (an artist who moved to California). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither Euromedica nor CPCBW (which account for 7 of the 10 of his primary-author publications) are peer-reviewed. I was able to find one citation to the 2005 paper; everything else has been ignored. The multiple awards and prizes appear to have been made up out of whole cloth. I suspect his books and his institute are also fictitious. Garamond Lethe 16:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Garamond Lethe, the Scientific Research Center of Medical Biophysics has official low registration in Bulgaria and EU. You are not able to have this source of information, because you are not part of justice system in Europe. The are clear lows in Act of Copy right for the books. The books of Dr. Ignatov has all right to be books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbreht (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few more citations trickling into the article. The cites to "Water" resolve to what appears to be a Russian alternative medicine site. No indication of peer review. No indication that these papers have been cited by other researchers. In short, no indication of notability. Garamond Lethe 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The lack of citations for his papers in Google scholar (indeed, the lack of evidence that those papers even exist) argues for a fail of WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? I don't think the sockpuppetry should be a reason for deletion unless it is so out of control as to make proper maintenance of the article impossible, but I don't see it as a positive sign either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ignatov activity

Dear Garamond Lethe, Thnak you very much for your efforts. Dr. Ignat Ignatov has substantial contribution to show how one alternative methodic is working. Please, see point 3. Also he has reliable results with on the topic origin of life in hot water and mountain water and longevity. The Law of copy right is not shows the level of publication or selection of publications. Dr. Ignatov has copy right for real scientific achievements. My comments are: 1.The Bulgarian National library sent Dr. Ignatov 2 books in USA institutions: Comment While I can't decipher the titles, there are two works in the catalog of the U.S. Library of Congress listed under the author's name Ignat Ignatov. Second Ignat Ignatov is artist and he has not books. He has paintings.

2. "I suspect his books and his institute are also fictitious." The Scientific Research Center of Medical Biophysics (SRCMB) has real law registration in Bulgaria. The head of SRCMB has been a consultant at the National Centre for Public Health – Ministry of Health with director Prof. Miroslav Popov.

3. Dr. Ignat Ignatov makes research in alternative medicine. This don’t means that he agrees with all methods in alternative medicine: 3.1. Homeopathy. There is not result after Avogadro number. Also he has proofs that in homeopathical remedies there is effect from electromagnetic devices for preparation: http://www.medicalbiophysics.dir.bg/en/homeopathy.html 3.2. Bioresonance therapy like metaphysical method. Please, talk Bioresonance in Wikipedia. The phenomena bioresonance is different. 3.3. "Memory" of water is not correct. The correct is "Informationability" of water 4. With google you are able the see the diplomas for awards of Ignatov: http://www.medicalbiophysics.dir.bg/en/ignat_ignatov_cv.html

5. Over 80% of information for Dr. Ignatov is in Russian. In Russia in inpendennce scientific site Everything for water Dr. Ignatov is including in Top 5 of the subject water. http://www.o8ode.ru/article/onew/biograth

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Battomi (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine in EU

  Dear  Garamond Lethe,

In Europe there is process for the research which methodic is works and which not. Again Dr. Ignatov does make that in Bulgaria. The link is to EU news later: http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/newsletter/75/newsletter_en.htm Complementary and alternative medicine for the healthcare needs of EU citizens Dr. Ignatov in EU project: http://www.medicalbiophysics.dir.bg/en/therapeutist.html#euheals Alternative medicine is reality in EU and only medical doctors and scientists are able to say – this methodic is works. Site in EU commission: http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_10_01_08_en.html From outher side Dr. Ignatov has fundamental research with reliable scientific methods: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battomi (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine in Bulgaria and Russia

In Russia and Bulgaria the alternative methodics have officially registered like laws with collaboration of scientists, medical doctors and organizations like Scientific Research Center of Medical Biophysics, Bulgaria, Institute Traditional Folk Medicine “ENIOM” and Federal Scientific Clinical and Experimental Center of Traditional Methods of Treatment and Diagnosis, Russia.

Public activity of Ignat Ignatov of the topic water

Ignat Ignatov is founder of the International Days of Mountain Water and Healing Tourism in Teteven, Bulgaria. The organizers are Scientific Research Center of Medical Biophysics and Teteven municipality. This event help to a lot of people to understand which water is more useful for human health and longevity. For one scholar is not only important scientific publication, but and public activity for the people. The health and the life have not price. Ignat Ignatov was organized like optional subject medical biophysics in highest schools in Bulgaria http://www.medicalbiophysics.dir.bg/en/mountain_water.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battomi (talk • contribs) 10:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion only account?

I am beginning to think this is what we're dealing with. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think an SPI needs to be launched at this stage also, the editor has 3 accounts and is not distinguishing that they are all the same user. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least. There could be more which I haven't found. See: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mbreht. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Extra[edit]

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

Unnotable time-filling continuity for Nickelodeon's British network which solely exists as WP:ADVERT content with no links out or in to speak of, and seems to have nothing written about it. Article editor DylansTVChannel (talk · contribs) abandoned their account after most of their articles were taken to deletion and now edits under DylanGLC2011 (talk · contribs), so that account will be warned. Nate • (chatter) 03:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unsoruced. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland); it would deserve a mention there if any reliable source can be found. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's nothing linking to it though. Who would search for something that has no connections to any article? Nate • (chatter) 13:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People do search for things using search engines or the Wikipedia search function (and its auto-suggest feature), not just by following blue links in Wikipedia. It is something that people may search for, e.g. if they want to know who presented it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nickelodeon (UK and Ireland) in "Current spin-off channels" section. The channel does seem to exist (link) although there is very little information about it anywhere, certainly not enough to make it notable. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a channel, but promotional spots airing on on the main Nickelodeon service to fill time and promote shows. The concept you mention is just a video on demand service that solely exists as a barker channel to promote services in an automated form. Nate • (chatter) 00:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It's worth a very brief mention on Nickelodeon (UK and Ireland) somewhere, but certainly isn't notable enough for its own article. Nor do I see any need for a redirect. CodeTheorist (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. No sourced content or incoming articles warranting a merge/redirect. -- Trevj (talk) 17:24, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Jade[edit]

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

There's nothing notable about this person and the entire entry reads like a PR or marketing effort. That's not the idea behind Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaminmedia (talk • contribs) 23:28, July 9, 2012‎

Note to closer: I have refactored this nomination to include the standard AfD and the {{unsigned}} template. This nomination is not listed in a daily AfD log so I am adding it now. Please consider this as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Also, the sourcing is as poor as I've ever seen in an article with these many references. I must have commented on 100s of discussions at AfD over the years, and this is one of the worst. For example, Note 15 does not even have anything to do with the subject and does not even mention her in passing! Most of the other references are social networking sites, or Faux News, and the like. I can't see any evidence that she's notable. Just to be sure, I looked at Google News and found nothing at all, except false Ghits about Bianca Jagger and Jade Jagger. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going to be as harsh as Bearian, but this is indeed a stellar example of notability masking and wikipuffery. Them From Space 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The article has lots of references, but sadly none of them can be considered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Google doesn't turn up any reliable sources either. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and ban anybody who's ever worked at it This article is a nightmare of wikipedia manipulation, with almost 40 sources confirming close to every word in the article, a professional-looking picture, somewhat encyclopedic language, all this for a run-of-the-mill training instructor that never, ever will be notable enough. complainer (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in question has been a most interesting, and at times entertaining, read. It is clear that, having gone to some amazing lengths to try to establish notability or any rationale for the page, an article on Bianca Jade at this juncture is not something the community — editing users and non-editing users — will want, much less need. The fact that the page is essentially "owned" by a few users (User:ShanaScala, User:Nbon91, and, to some (also considerable) extent, User:PRRfan), with one user going to particularly extreme lengths to defend subject and/or merits of the article on another user's talk page. At least two of these user's contributions more or less reflect those of a single-purpose account, and it is evident that there is the possibility, however slight, that these editors may not be the most useful, neutral parties in editing the article.

If it is policy to block individuals for extensively working with an article such as this (or repeated messing with Wikipedia in bad faith), with the deletion of "Bianca Jade", it may completely be unnecessary to block individuals that have worked on this, or at least the single-purpose accounts. Page protection after deletion, if that is to occur, is definitely worth considering as is a AfD for the article "Logan Kurtz", which suffers similar issues (and is quite significantly and non-objectively, even favourably, edited by one User:Logansfv, who may or may not be the subject of the article, thus comprising the article's integrity). --[[User:Qwerty_Binary|Qwerty Binary]] ([[User_talk:Qwerty_Binary|talk]]) (talk) 08:19, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toukir Ahmed[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Also COI issue. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 02:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Daruchini Dip, which appears to have notability, refs and etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have played a significant role in multiple notable films, which would mean he passes WP:ENT. Press coverage refers to him as "Renowned actor", "popular actor", "popular TV-star", etc. It is therefore reasonable to assume that high quality sources exist, although not necessary in English/available online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ThaddeusB; it would appear that the subject of the article is at least reasonable well known and covered to the point of being notable. Ducknish (talk) 18:56, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue expansion and sourcing. I note that the article was authored in July 2009, and edited by individuals other than User:Mohd. Toukir Hamid (same guy as topic? Maybe so... maybe not.) who made two very minor and noncontroversial edits to the article in January 2012.[1][2] Even were these done by the subject of the article, those two very minor edits made three years after the article was contributed by someone else did absolutely nothing to promote Toukir Hamid. I see no issue with COI. That said, the article subject has been the recipient of coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG,[3] and his career in Bangladeshi film and television meets WP:ENT. Even if WP:UNKNOWNHERE, notable to Bangladesh is fine with en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not sure what the target would be, but any interested party is welcome to redirect this to a relevant page. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tak (Stephen King)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A villain from a pair of connected Stephen King books, The Regulators and Desperation (novel), that does not seem to have any out of universe notability. Unlike articles on other notable King villains, such as Randall Flagg, there is no sort of critical analysis or real world reaction to the character, just pure plot summary with a smattering of OR. While searching Google Books does come up with some hits describing the creature in various Stephen King guide books, these pretty much only talk about it either extremely briefly (just happening to mention his name as the villain of the books) or in a pure plot summary manner. Per both WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NFICT, articles on fictional elements and characters need to have more than just plot summaries to be notable, and I am unable to find anything that would allow this article to be anything more than that. Rorshacma (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tagged this for a copyvio speedy, as it's taken from this website. You might want to look at Seth Garin, though. It isn't copyvio as far as I can tell but it does suffer from the same questions of notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Villains Wiki is licensed under CC-BY-SA, so it's content can be re-used here (or our content can be re-used there). WilyD 09:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, regardless of the result of the attempted Speedy, the notability concerns from my nomination still stand, so there's that. And you're definitely right about looking into the Seth Garin article, since doing some investigation, I'm finding even less coverage for that character than this one. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect might be useful but I'm not sure which article to have it go to. As far as the character goes, there's some coverage but nothing that shows him as a notable character outside of the fictional universe it is a part of. It's not like Jack Torrance, where it's shown up on multiple lists and whatnot. The most I've really found is where he's mentioned in books about King's universes, but nothing that would show individual notability. On top of all of that, the entire article is pretty much a regurgitation of the plot from various books and is also pretty close to original research and theory, such as the character being described in a similar manner as Pennywise the Clown's true form was described. Even if sources were out there, this would have to be entirely re-written to be encyclopedic and neutral.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do to a lack of sources to WP:verify notability. No objection to a redirect if a suitable target can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Desperation (novel). Ordinarily I'd suggest a redirect to the first novel he's in, but The Regulators and Desperation (novel) were published simultaneously, so it's hard to pick one with priority, especially as both articles discuss the character. But since Desperation was filmed (under the same title), I'll hazard a guess that it's better known, as well as being alphabetically first. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 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 North Rhine-Westphalia state election, 2012. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Audehm[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indications of meeting WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Audehm is an economist with some published books, who has run for office in North Rhine-Westphalia as a candidate of the minor Party of Reason, but who did not win said election. He has since left the party.[4] WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did he really leave the party? Can't see that in your article. But I think, he is notabel because of his publications. --188.174.98.236 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the nom is quite right that little seems to come up on him, so he fails WP:GNG. In the secondary criteria, the books don't seem to have received sufficient attention or notability for him to meet WP:ECONOMIST. Unsuccessful political candidate means he fails WP:POLITICIAN, however the last section of that does say: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." North Rhine-Westphalia state election, 2012 would be the obvious target however the party aren't even mentioned there, therefore I believe in this case a redirect and brief mention of Audehm in the Party of Reason article would be the most appropriate way of dealing with this article. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Rhine-Westphalia state election, 2012. as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanzang (fictional character)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG. Article does not have independent reliable third party sources, as set out in notability guidelines. Referencing is not optional so without sources I propose that this page be not kept Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — subject is certainly notable, though it is admittedly odd that the page is unreferenced. I could make a point of adding reliable source references (though it may need to wait a week or two). Alternately, we might consider merging this content with the main article on Xuanzang as a section discussing adaptations of his story in literature and art.Homunculus (duihua) 13:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sourcing present in articles is optional; sourcing existing is not. Given the age of the reference, I'm suspicious that the latter is true, and cannot support merging (deletion is not a viable outcome, per WP:ATD) until and unless a sincere search has proven fruitless. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable. Surely there's a great number of references particularly applicable to a central character of one of the Four Great Classical Novels of the most populous nation on earth, the one whose "journey to the West" is the basic storyline frame; a story with countless spinoffs & adaptations and influences on Chinese popular culture. (See List of media adaptations of Journey to the West & Journey to the West in popular culture.) The state of the current article is no reason to delete, and surely Homunculus will be able to do the work eventually and deserve our thanks. Not a good idea to merge with the real person's article. We (properly) have (separate) articles on Macbeth the real person, Macbeth the character, Macbeth the play, Lady Macbeth, even lesser characters like Banquo etc. This & the other main characters are quite comparable.John Z (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing proving the existence of references without a doubt in your comment, and as notability is not inherited your recommendation to keep is thus premature until sources are actually found.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The current featured article, Poppy Meadow, is a minor character in a soap opera. The article in question is a major character in one of the greatest works of oriental literature. The nomination is not policy-based as our core policy makes it quite clear that referencing is entirely optional, being only required for quotations or controversial points. If such references are required, the remedy is to add them, not to delete the entire article. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid recommendation. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument and WP:NOTPLOT does actually require "discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary" in articles about fiction. WP:N further elaborates on this and establishes that if no reliable sources allows to "discuss the reception and significance of notable works", then the article doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Simply saying "add sources" is not a valid reason to keep the article. You have to prove that sources discussing the reception and significance" do exist, and you failed to do that, Warden.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support the call for more references, but this undeniably a notable character, a major part of a very famous novel. We should fix it, not delete.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to fix it is to find sources that discuss the reception and significance of the character. You should first look for sources before recommending conservation, maybe these sources don't exist.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:15, 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) 04:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Contortionist[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local band of questionable notability. Google news search on "The Contortionist" "progressive metal" shows only three results, only one of which appears to me more than a minor listing. No significant claims of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt no indication of notability, fails WP:MUSICBIO. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who declined the request for a speedy deletion of this article. Sources include [5] in the Arkansas Times, [6] in Under the Gun, [7] in Noisecreep, [8] in Blabbermouth.net, [9] in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, and [10] indicates that the band's latest album charted on the Billboard 200. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)}

Keep and improve – Meets criteria #1 of WP:BAND per [11], [12] and criteria #2 of WP:BAND per [13] (scroll down in article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the above sources and the existence of others (e.g., [14][15][16]), there appears to be enough coverage for this group to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 03:33, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nu gaze[edit]

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

Article was nominated for deletion ([17]) by 121.222.124.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for the following reason "I've nominated this page for deletion as there is no distinction between what this article covers and the shoegaze article." Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has previously been nominated for deletion - the result was keep - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu Gaze. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a recognized genre. If the distinction between nu-gaze and shoe gazing needs to be sharpened up, sharpen it, don't nom for deletion. Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per User:Rich Farmbrough, that was my opinion when I created the deletion page (etc) for User:121.222.124.249 but I was waiting for a comment by someone else before I weighed in.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alley Catss[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Contested prod tag.) Alley Catss does not meet the notability requirements explained at WP:MUSICBIO. Pichpich (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to prove notability, all I can really find are self-promotional. Ducknish (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this project in reliable sources; only social networking sites (YouTube, Bandcamp, Tumblr, last.fm, etc). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 06:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources presented in the article are not reliable third party sources, and as Gongshow said, searching brings up nothing except personal sites. Rorshacma (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Rizzo[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be notable; doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO, and I can't find any more than incidental coverage in independent sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability. Just a few local newspaper pieces in Buffalo about his company. If he's notable, everyone who owns a business is notable. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. It appears to promote a business rather than having a notability for Wikipedia.--BMWcomputer (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only are most of the sources being used not reliable sources, they are purely about the company and don't even mention the man. Searching for other sources brings up nothing useful. Rorshacma (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Rossant[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist turned public relations professional, now head of events promoter. Only two sources, of which just one (in "Swiss Style Magazine") counts as coverage of Rossant per se, and notability of that publication is dubious. The other is not about Rossant but is about a house he restored in Normandy. In my judgment this article fails to meet the GNG. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 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. Also, sources are not required to be available online. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not picking up any significant secondary coverage of this person in Google. There is a mention in passing in an article in L'Express. There is a Liberation citation but it appears to be written by him. The Wikipedia article was written by a person with such intimate knowledge of the subject that the ages of his children are given, suggesting the article was either written by the subject or someone close to him. Hence if there was any other significant coverage available I think we would be seeing it in the article. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is called an absence of evidence argument, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, some coverage, but a very weak claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources per:

Swiss Style Magazine article
The New York Times article, which covers work Rossant has done
Espace Abonné article. (Beyond passing mentions, written by Sibyl Vincendon.)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Swiss Style article comes even remotely close to being "significant coverage" per the guidelines. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "guidelines" are those? As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". The NY Times article is more than a trivial mention (arguably an entire article about the topic), so it is "significant coverage". Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. In addition to sources already listed above, a look at the first page of Google news hits shows an NPR interview while Rossant was 'Business Week' magazine's Rome Bureau Chief", a BusinessWeek reference to the book that Rossant wrote, a "brief article" at Advertising Age, and four different French sources. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baylor Barbee[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indications of notability. Claim of "top 5 ranking in several Amazon and Kindle categories" cannot be verified, and wouldn't really qualify for WP:AUTHOR anyway. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, though it can be proven, i removed the sentence in question.

L1feLessonsLearned (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As near as I can tell, the book is self-published by the author's own company and therefore attracts no inherent notability -- I can find no evidence that an arm's-length third-party expert source has reviewed the book. After a search, I can't find any way in which this individual meets the general notability guideline. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 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 redirect to Fallout (video game)#SPECIAL system. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIAL (role-playing system)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 18:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of it's usage is within the Fallout franchise, and not featured in any other notable titles. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – It has sufficient coverage at Fallout (video game)#SPECIAL system, so I'd redirect there and get rid of the fork link. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Doesn't appear to have any notability independent of the game/series. Better suited as a subsection in the Fallout article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. And by done, I mean merged & redirected. --Niemti (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Does not appear to have notability at all, and is better suited for the Fallout article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Already covered in detail in the Fallout article, no reason for a separate article, not independently notable.CaSJer (talk) 17:03, 2 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. Further discussion about title and scope can continue on talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs with home-grown players policy[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD; this appears to be non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. This has come out of a discussion at WP:BLPN - please see a related CfD. Giant Snowman 16:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think such a list would be interesting, but unfortunately WP:INTERESTING is an argument to avoid in AfD discussions and not a criterion for notability of a subject. – Pee Jay 19:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the BLP noticeboard, the right answer here is to rename the article to home-grown player rule and rewrite it to be about UEFA's, the English Premier League's, and indeed the Hurlingham Polo Association's (Yes, it's not just Association football.) home-grown player rules. Here are two sources to start you off, but even a modicum of effort with what's above ⇗ will turn up more, including books on sports law and resolutions of the European Parliament. Uncle G (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "HPA to introduce Home Grown Player Rule". Polo Times. 2011-04-08.
- Miettinen, Samuli; Parrish, Richard (Winter 2007). "Nationality Discrimination in Community Law: An Assessment of UEFA Regulations Governing Player Eligibility for European Club Competitions (The Home-Grown Player Rule)". Entertainment and Sports Law Journal. 5 (2): 2. doi:10.16997/eslj.68.
Comment - there is already an article on Cantera which is about Spanish youth academies, this information is definitely notable though. This article maybe isn't the best form to have it in but it should be somehwere on wikipedia. Maybe Segregation in football could be the artice title (or a variant). That could include Rangers and a Danish second division club I remember reading about which wouldn't play Africans (I'm sure some others as well). And possibly issues with South Africa and the U.S. I don't think the current name is particularly good though because the term "home-grown players policy" isn't the correct one. A club could play a team full of home-grown players that weren't necessarily from there own country. And many clubs have policies on producing as many home-grown players as possible, just to benefit the team rather than for any other reason. Adam4267 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was originally known as List of ethnically nepotistic football clubs but it wasn't clear enough what the article was about. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A ridiculous title but to be fair it does actually represent the subject better than home-grown players policy which isn't what this article about. In my opinion, this article is (or should be) about clubs who include or exclude certain groups of players based on a cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, religious, racial (etc.) identity. Or Segregation in football (Segregated football clubs?)

Comment - This article is nothing to do with any actual "home-grown player rule". It's to do with clubs only buying/playing players of a particular nationality/ethnic background. Bilbao only buy/play Basque players, but those players do not have to be "home-grown" by Bilbao themselves. Furthermore, this is not a "rule" per se, it's just a policy that particular clubs abide by. – Pee Jay 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As PeeJay said. Where is the stuff on home-grown. I thought home-grown meant came from your Academy. Plus I do remember (forgot who) that Chivas bought an American born Mexican into there team once. So not really "home-grown". --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this seems similar to Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs, which was deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns about the ambiguous meaning of "home grown". Number 5 7 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's only titled home-grown because people suggested it should be, I'd like to keep the article but under a title similar to List of football clubs with nationalistic selection policy or similar. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the original title of 'List of ethnically nepotistic football clubs', your proposed third title doesn't actually make any sense. Giant Snowman 12:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Clubs with certain player signing policy. But Steaua for example isn't known for that. The chairman might change his mind in a year. So should the club really be on the list? -Koppapa (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly rewrite per Uncle G). I'm the one who opened the CfD on Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs. But I think, as Uncle G writes, that there is room here for an article, and (apparently unlike him) see no reason why that article can't be a list. The fact that certain clubs have a policy of only hiring certain kinds of players is notable, as shown by the fact that newspapers write about it. We haven't found an ideal name for it, but that's not a reason to delete the article wholesale - "home-grown" isn't offensive the way "nepotistic" was. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "home-grown players" is misleading because clubs like Chivas or Bilbao do not only employ playing staff that were born locally (or only playing staff that were trained by the club's youth system). I am wary of listing clubs that appear to have this policy (adherence appears to be selective in most cases) and much prefer an article discussing FIFA or various FA policies on the matter like UncleG suggested. Jogurney (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep WP:NOTESAL The clubs exist, the clubs have policies that dictate certain hiring practices, those practices have been discussed in reliable sources. The criteria for the list needs to be explicit and tight so there is not any subjectivity on if a particular team should be included or not. Additionally for a list such as this where membership might be controversial, reliable sources should be included on a per-entry basis Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 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 Moist (Canadian band). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Pearce (Canadian musician)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band member, no real claim to individual notability, no reliable sources. Suggest delete or redirect to Moist (Canadian band). Hairhorn (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I'm not finding anything showing this guy as notable outside of Moist or David Usher's solo work and I can't find anything non-self-published about this Rye band of his. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moist (Canadian band). I can't find significant coverage to establish notability to warrant an independent article. A sentence about his work with David Usher can certainly be added to the band's article along with the rest of his former bandmates' activities after their split. Gongshow ^Talk 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Corvus[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources, could be an autobiography as well Mdann52 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again), no evidence of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:19, 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 Salted for non-autoconfirmed users. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osw3[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation from speedy deletion (second time), subject lacks notability, likely a promotional article Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt nonsense and not notable Seasider91 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable linux distribution. No sources in article. Google turned up very little apart from the project's own website. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt neither current, nor past name trigger any reliable sources. The next recreation should happen within WP:AFC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator; note original author is a confirmed sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Webtre/Archive) with a related page already deleted.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan Aksoy[edit]

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

Non-notable fighter - basically three fights with 2 losses. Only source is a web-site which itself says no fights.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Peter Rehse (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No fights for a top tier organization, nothing in the article or in a Google search to indicate notability.CaSJer (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject of the article fails WP:GNG and does not seem to be a notable fighter. Ducknish (talk) 19:46, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no independent sources and the subject doesn't meet any notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as the source is unreliable. Electric Catfish 00:37, 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. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Monro[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Uncertain notability. MrX 03:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep His works (mainly his French biography of Calamity Jane (Calamity Jane. Mémoires de l’Ouest) and an exhibition on the same subject) attracted the attention of important French media: [18], [19] [20] (L'Express), [21] (Paris Match), [22] (Libération), [23] (Metro International) etc. It is true that the sources discuss mainly Calamity Jane, but I think the researcher could be mentioned here as well. I can't find any reliable sources discussing his film works. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:18, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep He seems to have got quite a lot of coverage as an expert on Calamity Jane. In addition to the above, I found a short article in a non-online magazine (Christelle Gérand, "La féministe du Far West", France-Amérique; 2/1/2011, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p4, 1p) which is largely about Monro, discussing book and exhibition based on his collection of Calamity Jane memorabilia; this online review[24]; a stamp collecting magazine that claims to have an interview with Monro[25]; and an article on the exhibition that briefly praises his book[26]. On the other hand, it's a very short article and could be merged into Calamity Jane if other people feel it's not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing looks good, coverage is available for more about his book; multiple independent sourcing over time(2007, 2011) = Notability. So, expansion and improvement is possible, so deletion is not warranted. See WP:BEFORE. --Lexein (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per [27], [28]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 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 brains eaten. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Zombie Hunters[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than a year ago I prodded this thing then lost track of it. Article has never had anything showing enough notability to deserve its own Wikipedia article. Only sources used are off topic (not even about this webcomic), fail WP:RS, are primary sources/not independent, or some combination of those problems. This topic fails WP:WEB, is essentially acting as free advertising, and therefore should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy is probably right as I wrote this with classmates for a class assignment. Good experience editing, but not a good product. I've removed the spammy and adverty info but left the potentially useful information. It's now only a stub with basic information about the comic and the author. It may be that the info could be condensed and moved to some other place, and delete the article. I've no interest in the existence of the article for its own sake. Igomes (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't have the reliable sources to show notability. Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barely even a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:20, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Mejin[edit]

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

Article subject doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or any other notability category. The two articles I've read about him are both primary sources; I couldn't find any secondary sources at all. None of his books are listed on WorldCat. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed to find enough reliable coverage for this author. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC & therefore becomes WP:NN Ren99 (talk) 09:43, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources or coverage to pass WP:GNG. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:33, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PEN Translation Fund Grants[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article cites no sources other than publications from PEN-TF itself. Google turns up a lot of links to PEN-TF and off-hand mentions on other sites. No real secondary sources forthcoming. Seems like a non-notable organization at this time. BenTels (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated to include secondary sources. These include major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, magazines such as Wired, and industry publications such as Publishers Weekly. Please check the article to evaluate whether these sources meet notability standards. Assessment of this article may require specialized knowledge, as the organization is renowned in the field of publishing and has numerous chapters worldwide. Downandoutinberghain (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the announcement on the U.S. Department of State website, added as a secondary source. Downandoutinberghain (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nice additions. I reckon this fixes the problems. It is not up to me to make a final decision on this AfD discussion, but I don't see anymore objections to this article. -- BenTels (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Hope it gets taken off the deletion list. If there's anything else that needs to be done, let me know. Downandoutinberghain (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This subject obviously requires specialist knowledge. This is a professional member organization for writers, editors, and translators that has been around for 90 years and counts Nobel Laureates among its members. This organization is common knowledge to anyone who can name only a handful of the most prestigious literary awards in the country.

Credible secondary sources have been added, and notability concerns have been addressed. Can we please remove the article from the deletion list?

Also, please follow the proper notification procedures in the future. Its5150time (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far a it is possible to understand the politics of Wikipedia, my understanding is that it is at this time not the idea to simply remove articles from the deletion list. However, I doubt that it is necessary; with the changes made to this article I expect this nomination will fail and the article will be maintained.

As for the procedure, I followed the procedure detailed here. However, you are correct that I overlooked the notification; apologies for that. -- BenTels (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Abundant sources now linked in article by User:Downandoutinberghain. Welcome! Nice rescue work! Also welcome to Wikpedia pagecreator User:Its5150time! The current version ([29]) bears no resemblance to the version nominated ([30]). Even the nominator now agrees this passes NOTE and VERIFY. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been cleaned up, and is in a considerably better shape than when it was initially nominated for deletion. User:Downandoutinberghain deserves to be praised for work in improving the article.--SGCM (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and the sources added by User:Downandoutinberghain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Arutt[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet general notability requirements. Although there are a number of citations they seem to mostly be primary sources. The refs for her acting career seem to be from her hometown area newspapers of local girl does good. As far as her career as a psychologist goes all the sources appear to be primary. No doubt this person has been on television a number of times as a forensic psychologist, but there is no known secondary source for this. Perhaps merge article to here: List of former child actors from the United States Wlmg (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress meets WP:ENT for career under WP:NTEMP. We do not expect nor demand that someone who left acting must somehow remain in the news a an actress. Her television career began in 1979 and ended in 1991. Her Young Artist Awards nomination for "Best Young Actress in a Family Film Made for Television' was in 1985. Her first film was as Lauren Daly in Primal Rage in 1988. Now as a real-life forensic psychologist, she has appeared as an expert in 2009 for the TV series In Session, and again in 2012 for the series Studio B. Interestingly, now that she is not a child actor she is even getting coverage for her expertise as a forensic psychologist by such as CNN.[31] But still, and not being too concerned of the addresable issue of the article not making use of them, a little WP:BEFORE shows her childhhod acting career can easily be verified in such non-primary sources as USA Today, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Times-News , Los Angeles Times, News and Courier, Washington Post, Daily News of Los Angeles, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Montreal Gazette, and even such as Merced Sun-Star and Anchorage Daily News. [32][33] Her career has turned in a different and sourcable direction, but notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENT. CNN is a reliable source. --Artene50 (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes CNN is a reliable source, but if you check the references in the article there are no less than six cites that are from CNN. I see the problem here that they all are primary sources of transcripts of Cheryl Arutt interviews. Dr.Cheryl Talking, but no one talking about Cheryl--Wlmg (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One might hope that CNN has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy even when sharing interviews... but that's the recent stuff and can be sourced directly to the projects themselves. Her earlier work as a child actress establishes WP:ENT and is verifiable away from the CNN interviews of her as an adult. Even if the article does not make use of the other sources listed above to verify her early career, it is verifiable none-the-less as having recieved some amount of attention. WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS: enough past and current coverage to meet WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:54, 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 no consensus. Without prejudice toward a future Merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes[edit]

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

List of encyclopedic information missing out from what the usual "List of episodes" should have. Includes only date of telecast and episode titles and plot; all unreferenced. The plot is also written in a advertisement manner, (What will happen?!) also gives writers opinions (However, it could have been divided into two episodes.), gives trivial info (Registration number was Mum889956671566787, Stops on Kajal's face, Stops on Malini's face, Stops on Amir's face, Stops on Koel's face). Such a garbage fan-forum article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't need to, as that's not the proper analysis here; it makes zero sense to speak of the "notability of the episodes as a group" as LISTN would ask somehow separate of the notability of the series of which the episodes are parts. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a list of episodes is an integral part of the topic of a TV series, the proper standards are instead WP:WHENSPLIT and (less importantly here) WP:LISTPURP#Information. So unless it is unverifiable (can that be the case for any TV series broadcast by a major cable network in India? the nom seems to think so, I don't know), it should either be merged to the series article or remain a standalone list. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Postdlf is substantially correct. The principal guidance document is WP:SAL. Our normal custom and practice with TV shows is to merge back to the main article (Dhoom Machaao Dhoom) or keep as a standalone list. Bearing in mind WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, I cannot see how it could possibly be compliant with our guidelines to turn this into a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean we should merge it back in the main article and then delete it from there as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think we delete anything that is merely unreferenced? postdlf (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Practically we don't. But ideally we should. Shouldn't we? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The fact that something's unreferenced is certainly not an indication that it should be removed. Factual, uncontroversial material should typically be kept in some form.—S Marshall T/C 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is this all factual? Is it verifiable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume you're asking about WP:V, Animeshkulkarni, rather than for a discussion about the finer points of epistemology. I've spent a great deal of time reflecting on WP:V. I was one of those involved in drafting the current text, and it was me, personally, who wrote the phrase "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"—which I suspect is what you're alluding to.

WP:V refers to contentious material. It means anything, and I quote, "challenged or likely to be challenged". It does not mean uncontroversial statements of fact. Wikipedia policies are supposed to be applied carefully, thoughtfully and on the basis of good editorial judgment. They were never meant as a way of removing perfectly accurate, non-promotional, non-defamational, copyright-compliant material from our encyclopaedia. It is good editorial judgment to leave such material untouched and concentrate on the problematic stuff. Unfortunately WP:Editorial judgment is still a redlink, and I wonder if my next policy-related effort should not be to make that blue.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh! Founding father here!)

I understand that "uncontroversial" statements of fact do not require sources. Here the show itself is the primary source and we have to believe in good faith on whatever is written here is true. But are our standards gonna steep so low that the whole article is okay to be unsourced? Also "uncontroversial" is a relative term. Plus i don't know if we should keep such poorly written article. Ofcourse someone can rewrite it. And someone should have do it since 2009 had it been any notable at all. Not a valid point to gauge notability, i know. There can be a new user just registering who would clean this all and make it a FL if you like. But till then do we keep such articles? Maybe your editorial judgement essay should write about this. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't advanced an argument that this episode information is unverifiable or that the series is not notable. So you're using a lot of words without saying anything relevant to the issue of deletion, with a lot of simply incorrect assertions along the way (you insisted "...as we in general don't keep anything that is unreferenced on Wikipedia", then you acknowledge "Practically we don't [delete content merely for being unreferenced]. But ideally we should." Then why did you insist in the first place that we did?). Now you say, "Of course someone can rewrite it." Then this AFD should be closed as "keep". postdlf (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine! Keep it. Amongst all the garbage some more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cant close the AfD now as some editors have voted for deletion. Or else i would have closed it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexus Amanda[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artist that doesn't seem to have been covered by any major sources, hasn't released anything notable. Ducknish (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing plenty of mentions on social networking sites (YouTube, Tumblr, and Facebook in particular), but I'm unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 18:29, 2 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 Nomination withdrawn. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Difficult Mission[edit]

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

Tagged this with a notability tag four months ago, but I believe it is time for a discussion about this film. My main beef about this article is that I could not find enough reliable coverage for the film. The sources in the article appear to be nothing more than forum posts. I do sincerely hope that there's more coverage in Arabic, because otherwise I don't see this film being notable enough for an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Star Times Maktoob 6R63H Filfan and whatever other Egyptian language sources exist. We have a duty per WP:CSB to encourage and enlist assistance from Wikipedians abe to read and translate Egyptian-language sources, and not toss an article based upon our inability to read sources in their original tongue. And hey... just what is the Arabic title anyway? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the startimes parts are the forum posts, which are generally not notable. I'm not even sure what the Arabic title is, but hopefully there will at least be some reliable sources if we knew what was the Arabic title. Sadly, I'm not seeing any actual reliable Arabic sources yet. Yes I know that we should counter systematic bias (I am against systematic bias myself), but if no reliable sources can be found, online or offline, then with or without systematic bias the film still isn't notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:35, 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, Courcelles 00:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and a failure of notability guidelines, unless reliable sources can be found (those posted are forums and thus not reliable). Till 08:20, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ah! The Arabic film title "مهمة صعبة" translates as "A Difficult Mission" or "A Difficult Task". And while searches for such a common Arabic phrase is itself "A Difficult Mission", it IS do-able. The following news articles in Al-Ittihad and Al-Riyadh discuss the film in detail:
[34] "A difficult task," a controversial film deals with the corruption of power and money

[35] A difficult task: failed to convince the viewer, despite the quality of scenario

[36]A difficult task for Ola Ghanem at the fest.

These are not blogs or forums and actually comprise some in-depth coverage of this 2007 Egyptian film. Help is requested in digging for more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. Thanks MichaelQSchmidt. It appears that there are good enough Arabic sources that will prove useful in writing an article. As such, I am withdrawing this nomination, and I am encouraging other editors to improve the article, as well as those of other Egyptian films. Good job! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German Cabrera[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails N:FOOTY as he has not played in a fully-pro league, nor is there proof he has and he obviously fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested by User:Wistolkio because "player is a semi professional does not mean page should be deleted!" --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 31. Snotbot t • c » 14:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Someone should probably explain to the article creator that we have notability criteria. – Pee Jay 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSPORTS, a couple of minor mentions in Spanish-language media but well short of meeting WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 07:05, 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 redirect to Two Steps From Hell. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty (Two Steps From Hell album)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no indication of WP:notability. Does not appear to be an album as such, more a demo for potential or actual clients of the company. No significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Two Steps From Hell as a non-notable trailer. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Dynasty album is mentioned as reference on the Wikipedia pages of the Capellen Orchestra, Petr Pololanik (internal links recently added) and is also listed as reference on the official Capellen Orchestra page. The album isn't only a promotion item of TSFH, but is also reference material of various musicians involved in the making of it. Wtfitsadinosaur (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a WP:reliable source so being mentioned on a wiki page does not make it notable. The Capellen orchestra page contains a link to the two steps from hell website only and nothing more - and that link is dead anyway. noq (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 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. Much of the discussion has been off-topic, but two things seem clear: that the Universal Life Church World Headquarters is a different organization from the Universal Life Church, and that there is consensus that the ULCWH doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Universal life church world headquarters[edit]

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

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

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

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

Spammy article about the headquarters of the Universal Life Church, and much of the article is actually devoted to the latter. Most of the references are press releases. A redirect has been reverted. Nothing warrants an article about the headquarters that's distinct from the one on the organization as a whole: this ain't the Holy See. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Universal Life Church" WIKI page already has tags showing that it is both outdated as well as illustrates need for expert attention and has outdated information. It should be deleted AND The wiki Page created "Universal Life Church World Headquarters" SHOULD BE APPROVED AND its' replacement. The Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI Page is factual, with citations and current information and should be KEPT! In any event, in summation the Universal Life Church & The Universal Life Church World Headquarters are Two VERY Seperate entities. Best Case Scenario here would be to delete the Universal Life Church WIKI page as in part it is using the Incorporated and Registered Non profit name of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters and keep the Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI page. Case in Point as Well is that the WIKI page for the Universal Life Church has noone updating it and no credible, expert information Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)PastorBodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Actually, BlanchardB, this article does not appear to be about the Universal Life Church discussed in the other article (at least, if you catch it when the editors of this article aren't trying to overwrite that page with this one), but about a totally separate organization that has a similar name (a common situation in the religious world). --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other Universal Life Church as the article states was founded in 1959 as LIFE CHURCH. "Universal Life" is a long standing Christian/Catholic name that has seen many Churches named such over the years beginning in 107AD when St Ignatius of Antioch first termed it, using the word katholikos from the Greek Language which means universal. The Headquarters as stated and authenticated by the IRS, the State of Florida and as cited in the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc. NO WHERE is the Universal Life Church that started as LIFE CHURCH noted by authoritative figures as Headquarters. The Secretary of State requires of organizations to use their full name of incorporation and not deviate from the name of which they incorporated under. Modesto is not Headquarters, Carrabelle is.JordanFrancis (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete per nom. This version is non-notable. Another version of this article Universal Life Church World Headquarters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was speedy deleted a day or two ago. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As Per Wikipedia Guidelines User:Me123567, "If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn". This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable". Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete -- Fails notability guidelines at WP:ORG. No sign of significant third party coverage. Gnews has 4 relevant hits, all self-generated (do not confuse the Modesto Bee hit, which is about the ULC, a separate organization). Ghits is a sea of self-generated hits (mainly press releases) and databases - nothing that conveys notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NatBertler you are incorrect, it appears they meet the guidelines at WP:ORG the Better Business Bureau of North Florida definitely meets the criteria and DMOZ meets the criteria as cited on the page http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Universal_Life_Church/ http://www.bbb.org/northwestern-florida/business-reviews/religious-organizations/universal-life-church-world-headquarters-in-carrabelle-fl-90010212 In addition look at their staff page and see redirects from a great many websites, which clearly would be considered 3rd parties. JordanFrancis (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI page has also created on its WIKI page in question here additional notable third party references inclduing the Honolulu Star Advertiser - http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=140395493 as well as an accepted Wikipedia page devoted to Lisa Williams - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Williams Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- In addition to the above I assert that the true issue contention here is that the Universal Life Church World Headquarters WIKI page should be afforded the opportunity to address and, if necessary, revise any editor concerns regarding "Notability," or other content issues first as opposed to an immediate move toward deletion of a page. Should the WIKI editors look at other WIKI pages, for example the other Universal Life Church page, along with other numerous encyclopedia pages which have nothing to do with the ULC, they will note that there are correction and other revision requests but no "deletion," notes. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No to all the above claims. The Better Business Bureau entry is a database entry, and database entries do not indicated notability under Wikipedia guidelines. The DMOZ is both a database and publicly editable, so it fails as a reliable source and doesn't provide significant coverage anyway. WP:Wikipediaisnotareliablesource. The Star Advertiser piece appears to be about Universal Life Church, not World Headquarters. You are being afforded an opportunity to address the questions of notability - it's this discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Natgertler - You are assuming the Star Advertiser piece is about the Universal Life Church. You are incorrect. It states in the article and I quote: "(There are several variations of the name and ministries associated with “Universal Life Church.” They are not affiliated with the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, a Christian organization based in Carrabelle, FL., which upholds traditional marriage between a man and woman, according to the Rev. Daniel Chapin, national vice president and head pastor of the Aloha Church of Kapolei.)" You will note that article uses Universal Life Church throughout the article, but it is only an abbreviated form of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. This article is huge in the fact that it clearly SEPARATES the two Churches. This validates the differences and clearly identifies Headquarters as in Carrabelle, FL. This article identifies Daniel Chapin as the vice president, if you go to the staff page of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, you will see Daniel Chapin as vice president: http://www.ulcnetwork.com/staff-2 The significance of this article again is huge, it complies with Wikipedia with respect to Notability for this page and it differentiates between the two which is in contrast to blanchardb spammy claims. Also you failed to mention Lisa Williams Wikipedia Page and how it mentions the Universal Life Church World Headquarters and specifically a date of ordination. This also complies with notability. By itself perhaps not, but in conjunction with the Star advertiser of Hawaii, clearly however minimal it may be it meets the criteria of notability. I compare edits, both you and Me-123567 have made excessive edits on the Universal Life Church page, with Me-123567 it appears to be hundreds. It appears Me-123567 has been sanctioned for prior edit wars regarding the page. Obviously there is ties with the Universal Life Church. The author of this page DID NOT put in or request a redirect of the Universal Life Church page to this page yesterday and he only requested deletion after someone requested deletion of this page. There is definitely room for two pages here. One for the Universal Life Church and one for Universal Life Church World Headquarters. In fact I believe the latter is better written and is better cited.JordanFrancis (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - A one-sentence parenthetical aside is not "significant coverage". And the fact that Lisa Williams has a Wikipedia page is irrelevant not just because notability is not inherited, but also because WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Universal Life Church. If the previous contributors assertions are correct, it should be rename both with a dab-suffix to distinguish them, my suggested merge target becoming a dabpage -- I have to express doubt as to the alleged size of this denomination worldwide at 18 million adherents. It is conceivable that 18 million accept its doctrinal basis, but that is nothing even close to membership. I suspect that the site cited is merely recycling the church's own exaggerated claims. I would like to see something that gave a breakdown of this figure between countries to show whehter it is credible. I agree that teh article under discussion reads far too much like an advert. I have little idea whehter the HQ is notable: it appears to include a seminary, but we are given no indication of its size. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the Universal Life Church claim 18 million ordained? This is not a deltion page for Universal Life Church or its talk page. This is the page for Universal Life Church World Headquarters, a completely separate entity.JordanFrancis (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You are correct in determining the size of a Congregation it is not contingent on, 18 million ordained ministers, ordination numbers do not define size of a congregation as ULC Modesto attempts to claim and adherents.com does not corroborate membership but it publishes their claim of ministers ordained. With the ULC World Headquarters you need to see who is behind it, it is setup as if it were a part of the the Holy See, an ordained Roman Catholic Bishop is its leader. The ULC World Headquarters in Carrabelle is just that the World Headquarters. It has affiliate Churches throughout the world, and it broadcasts on its live 365/24/7 radio station. It is set up nearly verbatim to the Vatican. With respect to membership, you can take the individuals who belong to affiliate and/or charter churches, you could consider social engines, you could consider the listening audience. There is many tangibles to be considered, but again ULC World HQ does not make membership claims or talks of ordaining 18 million ministers. 12:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I am the '"Expert" that the other Universal Life Church page seeks. Let me explain, you make mention of the Modesto Bee article. There was actually two Modesto Bee articles, if you read the one, Andre Hensley who is the President of Universal Life Church, Inc., of Modesto, CA. clearly states how he doesn't really want to follow in his Father's footsteps, he would just assume being local Pastor for the ULC Church in Modesto, CA. Also there is a letter floating around on the internet where Andre clearly states the ULC Seminary is just a "Known site" that it is not an authorized ULC site. He states in addition that ULC.NET a sole proprietorship led by Kevin Andrews is authorized to sell ULC items and that it is the only authorized site, other than ulchq.com This is why the ulchq.com site has not been updated for almost seven years. It is also why the Universal Life Church page cannot be updated, because Andre Hensley chooses not too. As stated in the Modesto Bee article and by Andre himself, he does not want too. Instead what is happening is that Amy Long who operates "Quest Ministries of the Universal Life Church and ULC Seminary, Inc." which can be corroborated by the Secretary of State in California, is looking to keep the Universal Life Church Wikipedia page updated and catered to her ULC Seminary, which is a fictitious name. The ulchq.com site was last updated before Lida Hensley passed in 2006. Only Andre Hensley can answer the why for his actions since, just maybe Andre Hensley has a conscience, something Kirby Hensley never had. Kirby Hensley was on his way to jail, but it was his death that prevented such and led to a million dollar fine levied by the IRS against the ULC of Modesto. The Universal Life Church page should be updated, but it won't be because the ULC in Modesto does not want too and this should be noted, as it stands right now folks are being deceived to think otherwise to enable Amy Smith Long to prosper. In the Universal Life Church World Headquarters you have an organization thriving and growing. There is notability to those without blinders who refuse to take them off because of a loyalty to a Church that is really no longer there. Kirby's Church is no longer. Again Andre has a conscience and appears to be doing what is right. Wikipedia needs to let Kirby Hensley rest in peace and to give Andre Hensley what he truly wants.11:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - WP:OTHERSTUFF. Read it please. This AfD is on the merits of Universal life church world headquarters and its notability. not the other article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, that an organization is "thriving and growing" is not a criterion for inclusion. Organizations may be dead and still meet our inclusion requirements (otherwise we'd have to ditch our article on the Roman Empire), and, likewise, they may thrive yet not be notorious enough for Wikipedia to give them coverage. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that was the only reason cited, no it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. However the fact Lisa Williams is ordained, the fact this Honolulu paper did publish an article and that this Church has ordained former politicians and judges, including the ordination of President William Clinton, that is clearly notability. What other Church ever on this planet ordained a former President?There is clear bias for this other ULC, several of you who do not support inclusion have a history of multiple edits on Universal Life Church page, of reverting pages or changes when someone attempts to correct it.JordanFrancis (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Recommend speedy deletion in accordance with G11; subject lacks established notability in accordance with topical notability guidelines for organizations or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. While the organization's title indicates that they may have a global presence, no actual reliable or independent sources are provided to support this claim. Additionally, the ordination of individuals that may live in other regions or countries is not indicative of notability based on a national or international scope of activities. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend Dispute Resolution I propose Dispute Resolution for both Universal Life Church and Universal Life Church World Headquarters. Because of the competitive nature, multiple edits and reversals by some I do not believe we can reach fair resolution regarding either site without resolution.JordanFrancis (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The only cited sources that would meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources are the newspaper article about civil unions and the story about the death of Judge Staples. But neither of those articles is about the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, and neither confirms the accuracy of the majority of the information in the article. If we remove all the information in the article that isn't in reliable sources, we are left with almost no article. User:JordanFrancis, almost nothing you've said in this discussion has been at all relevant to the question of whether this organization meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. All you need to do is provide us with the newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books that have been written about this organization. It's pretty clear that you're an active member of the organization, so if the sources exist, you're the person here most likely to know where those sources have been published. If no one else is writing in any significant way about this organization, then Wikipedia can't be the first. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Site Fisherqueen obviously didnt read the above text from the Honolulu Star Advertiser nor read the entire article on their site about the Universal Life Church as it clearly discuss the Headquarters site in question here. I propose the site, Universal Life Church World Headquarters, be kept on the WIKI page. Given that there is clearly confusion in regards to the two seperate ULC entities and given that Wikipedia's informative/encyclopedia nature, perhaps having up both pages will serve to clear reader confusion as well as provide accurate updated information. To me the Universal Life Church World Headquarters appears to be truly notable and informative. Has anyone bothered to read the Honolulu Star and its article distinguishing from the Universal Life Church World Headquarters? If a syndicated National Newspaper is not notable I do not know what is. Also, according to the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, main link as posted on their current WIKI page there are verifiable links and webpages which appear notable to many individuals and organizations which refer to the organization and its reach. See http://www.ulcnetwork.com/outreach-2as well as http://www.ulcnetwork.com/staff-2 Julieanne123 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)julieanne123Julieanne123 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Julieanne123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I was only able to read the beginning of the article, as the rest required registration. The beginning indicated that the main subject of that article was not the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. Have any articles been written anywhere that do have this organization as their main subject? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've fixed your links so they can be seen. However, neither of them seems to be a helpful source- one is a dead link; the other is the ULC Network's own web page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UNABLE TO DELETE

I do not know how I can be misinterpreting this incorrectly, wherefore I say this pretty much puts asunder any talk of deletion of this article.

WP:INHERITED - "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed.'"

WP:NRVE - "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanFrancis (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the wording "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed" do not appear in WP:INHERITED. I have checked every version of the page since April, and it did not appear in any of them.

Regarding Delete Requests. Secondly, even if those words did appear, or some other words that you are paraphrasing, you seem not to have realised that WP:INHERITED is a section of a page entitled "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" (my emphasis). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses newspapers, magazines only as examples, independent verification is not limited to such venues. Please keep this in mind. Wikipedia itself considers Lisa Williams to be famous and unique to allow her a page within Wikipedia. Lisa Williams appears on this Churches worldwide radio network, national TV and has public speaking engagements throughout the world. Actor Max Ryan is also a minister. William Clinton became an ordained Minister. These Ministers are all well documented. Danny Bonaduce has indicated on Facebook and on his radio show how he is an ordained Minister with the ULC World Headquarters.JordanFrancis (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are all acceptable notable 3rd parties.

Whats On TV in the United Kingdom? Worldwide - UK Publication (Independent 3rd Party Review)

http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/video/youtube/search/ulcnetwork

Lisa Williams https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150808013565588

JordanFrancis (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore it appears that Walmart and the Universal Life Church World Headquarters has an affiliate agreement providing home shopping for Shutins. http://www.ulcnetwork.com/apps/blog/show/11825124-universal-life-church-walmart-we-offer-free-shopping-for-shutins

This maybe a blog, yet the largest retailer in the world has a written agreement with this Church on file. Obviously Walmart would add 3rd party notability.

Also this Church with Dr Jerry Epperson in Seoul, and as a Chaplain the US Armed Services as indicated on the website offers 3rd party notability. http://ulcnetwork.socialgo.com/members/profile/418 JordanFrancis (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Spritual Networks

It is understandable how posts would not be deemed notable, however with that said, the followers of these pages are calculated by third party from clicks by people who choose to follow the organization.

On Facebook Over 20,000 followers - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Universal-Life-Church/147869338562220 No other Universal Life Church comes close.

Nearly 10,000 followers on Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/ulcnetwork

Over 3,000 followers on Google +, nearly 1000 on Spiritual Networks, 2,000+ on Shoutlife.

This clearly shows just how huge a following they have. On their ULC Radio Network they average 10,000+ listeners a month.JordanFrancis (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have added the below references so as to address some of the editors concerns regarding 3rd party reference including to the [Make A Wish Foundation] recognition of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters further establishing notability and International Influence ^[1] We have also included the [Walmart] Corporation ^[2]. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Church Vice President, Daniel B Chapin and the Church plant of another outreach ministry in Hawaii through Public Television Additionally, the Universal Life Church Church World Headquarters, Vice President, Pastor Daniel B Chapin claims activity in establishing ministries across the nation including the Aloha Church In Hawaii and holds weekly public television broadcasts from the islands there through "Olelo Television Network.^[3]

Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're stretching it, We don't evaluate notability by counting tweets. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not BlanchardB, however there is a good deal of other items added for evaluation. Simply because tweets does not meet the guidelines, the others do. Again I bring up..... as you have no answer. AN ARTICLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO DELETION IF FAMOUS PEOPLE ARE LISTED.

WP:INHERITED - "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed.'"

WP:NRVE - "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate

The Olelo Telivision Network, with Lisa Williams and the ULC World HQ is now mentioned on their Wikipedia page as well as Lisa Williams. Listed are famous people in addition including an ex president, a Hollywood actor and others. Added is a UK TV Network Publication who lists videos.JordanFrancis (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should go back and re-read, more closely, the pages on which WP:INHERITED and WP:NRVE appear, and also WP:ORG, which is the basic notability criteria. You have seriously misunderstood those guidelines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE

Preface: ULCHQ is a fraudulent and misleading organization. Allowing a Wikipedia Page on ULCHQ would hurt the overall credibility of Wikipedia. The fact that their name includes ULC (Universal Life Church) is misleading because they don’t share any of the same fundamental ULC beliefs, notably religious freedom. They are a Christian based organization tarnishing the ULC doctrine and its ministers through religious exclusion and bigotry. The inclusion into Wikipedia would hurt all ministers ordained through the original ULC (Modesto) as well as other legitimate ULC’s. I know that this could be look at as an opinion and since Wikipedia is all about NPOV and reliable sources I will cite actual reasons for deletion.

Reasons for Speedy Deletion

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Clearly there is a lack of reliable third party sources for ULCHQ to cite. Therefore, they must augment and try to fool Wikipedia through linking to their own site for reliability. This page is exclusively promotional and doesn’t present any NPOV content. Wikipedia is entirely being used as a promotional tool for ULCHQ.

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). There is nothing of any significance presented in the article that will help Wikipedia readers gain clarity on what the ULCHQ does. Much of the content is misleading. For example, “The Universal Life Church World Headquarters claims to believe in and Support the Christian Doctrine of Faith Stating The Following Beliefs” section. These are all just Christian doctrines nothing new or notable. Nothing that indicates importance.

Also the “Vocations” section says: “The Universal Life Church World Headquarters is unique in the sense that it is perhaps the only Church in the world with both an online and offline presence that offers ordination, following an individual's baptism, as a Non-denominational Faith Based Minister and/or Holy Orders as an Independent Catholic Priest with succession and lineage to Jesus Chris”

Then cites itself. No reliable source on uniqueness, just a wild assumption.

The ULCHQ page as I see it violates all the core content policies. There is no NPOV. No Verifiability and no Original Research.

Please delete this page and continue the Wikipedia precedence of balanced and impartial pages. DavidOff1234 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the last post is biased toward the other ULC in Modesto and personal opinion does not warrant a page deletion on Wikepedia. The Editors of the ULCHQ page have obviously added even in the last few days reliable sources to theior unique work as an organizationother than their own website and show their importance. 173.22.26.53 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)jillc173.22.26.53 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the promotional aspect, this is a fine line at times which I think we all understand. This is not the forum for personal opinions but constructive focus. I think the information provided is simply factual evidence which can, yes be seen by some as promotional. But clearly much of the information provided is verifiable and even increasingly so the last few days with 3rd party sources (see above links). Additionally the goal of this forum as outlined by Wikepedia is to offer aide to keep a page not simply randomly deleate a page due to disagreement with doctrine, tenets, etc.... And the information provided on the page as I see it is offering additionally information on an organizations service and service reach while differentiating an important difference structural between two ULC entities. The oabove user David opts for a "Speedy Deletion," but the editors previously noted it worthy of discussion - Not speedy deletion as it does not meet the criteria for such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.26.53 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far in this discussion, I have seen it claimed twice that WP:INHERITED says that "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed." But I can't find that quote anywhere in WP:INHERITED. I would also question why it has been claimed that Bill Clinton was ordained as a minister in this church, because that is not mentioned in this article, nor have I seen it mentioned in any reliable independent sources yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Metropolitan90 That quote is there, keep reading.

Regarding Bill Clinton, obviously you are showing your connection to the ULC Modesto, just because the ULC Modesto uses celebrity ordinations on Wikipedia, this does not justify or require other ULC's to do so. Wikipedia is not designed for promotional purposes. For this page to be deleted a consensus must be reached, not a consensus by numbers, but a consensus of all contributors. I can't speak for the author, but it appears to me he or she is looking to appease Wikipedia policy concerning promotion. Using celebrities is a promotional tool, if documentation becomes necessary, I'm sure such can be provided.

What I see here on this is a page is a war being waged by individuals loyal to the ULC in Modesto. Many of these DELETE REQUESTS are from those who are extremely active on the ULC Modesto page. Ideally Wikipedia's desire is to see a creative discussion and suggestion to retain a page rather than to delete a page. These calls for DELETE'S only defies Wikipedia's objective and they indicate a non neutral stance, competitive in nature and with intent of waging war against the Universal Life Church World Headquarters.

The author of this page and I have have added a great deal of notable, 3rd party information and there is reason to believe and/or to expect even more over the coming months, pending a potential review process if such becomes necessary. This Universal Life Church World Headquarters has a place on Wikipedia.JordanFrancis (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:INHERITED does not say that "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed." At least it doesn't as of this writing, and if someone tried to add that statement, it would be an incorrect statement of Wikipedia guidelines. I have no connection to the ULC in Modesto other than that I had heard of it before this AfD began, whereas I had not heard of the ULCHQ before this AfD began. Regarding Bill Clinton, you are correct to say that a church does not need to have celebrity ordinations to be notable. However, you yourself wrote in this edit, "the fact ... that this Church has ordained former politicians and judges, including the ordination of President William Clinton, that is clearly notability. What other Church ever on this planet ordained a former President?" You went on to repeat in this edit, "William Clinton became an ordained Minister. These Ministers are all well documented." I personally do not know whether President Bill Clinton was ordained by the ULC in Modesto or the ULCHQ or by anybody at all. I have not seen any reliable sources stating that he was ordained or which church ordained him if he was. But if he was ordained by the ULCHQ, someone needs to provide a reliable source that says so. And if he was not ordained by the ULCHQ, then he is not relevant to this AfD and should not have been mentioned in the first place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close AfD without prejudice. The nomination here is based on an incorrect premise, namely, that this article is about the headquarters of the Universal Life Church. It is not. This article is about a different denomination from the Universal Life Church based in California (ULC). The Universal Life Church World Headquarters (ULCHQ) is based in Florida and shares the ULC's practice of ordaining anybody online, but differs from the ULC in that the ULCHQ promotes a specifically Christian doctrine rather than the ULC's teaching to "do only that which is right" which accommodates any religious or nonreligious belief system. If someone wants to renominate this article based on the idea that the article is not sourced to independent reliable sources, they should be able to do that separately. I would also recommend that the closing admin move this page to Universal Life Church World Headquarters with correct capitalization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, I think everybody's treating this AfD as a discussion on the notability of the Florida-based organization already. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Metropolitan90 - You are making changes to the site obviously to help and it is appreciated, however, please note that in regard to your edit on the Star Advertiser, you need to read the full article prior to your statement that it refers to the Modesto, Universal Life Church... Here is a Direct quote from the full article - please amend your changes to the ULHQ site and the Star Advertiser link. You are assuming the Star Advertiser piece is about the Universal Life Church. You are incorrect. It states in the article and I quote: "There are several variations of the name and ministries associated with “Universal Life Church.” They are not affiliated with the Universal Life Church World Headquarters, a Christian organization based in Carrabelle, FL., which upholds traditional marriage between a man and woman, according to the Rev. Daniel Chapin, national vice president and head pastor of the Aloha Church of Kapolei." You will note that article uses Universal Life Church throughout the article, but it is only an abbreviated form of the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. This article is huge in the fact that it clearly SEPARATES the two Churches. This validates the differences and clearly identifies Headquarters as in Carrabelle, FL Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked up the full article on a library database, and you are correct to say that the ULCHQ is mentioned in the Star Advertiser article with the quote you provide there. However, I do not believe that the rest of the article has to do with the ULCHQ. Here are some quotes from the article: "Of the 153 couples joined in civil unions in the first seven weeks this year - through Feb. 17 - 118 took part in ceremonies officiated by a religious denomination, and the other 35 were in ceremonies in which a judge presided .... Of the 118 religious ceremonies, 69 were performed by officiants affiliated with the Universal Life Church. .... All but eight of the 153 civil unions have been for same-sex couples ...." The quote from Daniel Chapin which you quote above indicates that the ULCHQ believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, yet the Star Advertiser article is about civil unions, most of which were performed for same-sex couples. If the ULCHQ does not support same-sex marriage, I would be surprised to find their ministers performing at least 61 civil unions for same-sex couples in a single state in a period of only seven weeks -- more than one a day. It seems more likely to me that most of those civil unions for same sex couples performed by ministers of the "Universal Life Church" were performed by ministers of the ULC of Modesto or other "Universal Life" groups rather than the ULCHQ. The Star Advertiser article is a source establishing that the ULCHQ exists, is based in Carrabelle, and is not to be confused with other "Universal Life" churches. But it is not a source that supports the claim that "Universal Life Church World Headquarters ministers are also involved in officiating over numerous faith based weddings throughout the United States, including Hawaii according to the Honolulu Star Advertiser." The Star Advertiser article does not mention specifically that ULCHQ ministers have performed any weddings in Hawaii. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User: Metropolitan90 - In regard to your question in regards to the "Importance" of cited article reference to the instructors of the ediucational courses offered by the ULCHQ, please note that this is important on two levels. 1) Shows the distinctive educational service offered through the ULCHQ by instructors of eaccredited Universities. This is distinct and notable as well as informative for WIKI readers to know and further establishes uniqueness of ULCHQ Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it make the ULCHQ distinctive and unique to sell the same courses on DVD and CD that anyone can purchase from the publisher, whether or not they have ever heard of the ULCHQ? In fact, is there any evidence that Prof. Amy-Jill Levine or Bart D. Ehrman (himself an agnostic) have ever even heard of the ULCHQ? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User: Metropolitan90 - Additionally, you noted an edit on the first section of the ULCHQ WIKI page that there was not found a citation on the 1982 founding of the ULCHQ as noted by the BBB. Please note that there is in fact a notation and this factor is included in the citation provided atthe bottom of the cited page. Thanks. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does say on the BBB site that the ULCHQ started in 1982, but I don't see where it mentions that it was founded in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User: Metropolitan90 - Thank You for your input and time. We are making progress here in discussing and creating a clear, concise WIKI page for the Universal Life Church World Headquarters. This is, and should be, the goal collectively to better clarify and provide obviously needed and important information regarding the ULCHQ in general as well as its seperate identity from other ULC organizations for WIKI encyclopedic readers. Editors of the ULCHQ WIKI page are working diligently and will make edits to ensure your, and others noted, constructive edits are succinct and paralleled by the cited third party sources and will clarify the changes and information as addressed in recent discussion. Again, obviously the value of having the ULCHQ page included in Wikipedia is being uncovered.Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the courses from Professors of accredited Universities, the uniqueness is while they maybe available from the publisher as any text maybe, they are not available at the cost ULC World HQ can offer them for. The publisher does offer discounts once in great blue moon. The ULC World HQ offers them at 50-70% below the publisher retail price. Furthermore, ULC World HQ has instructors on staff that will assist the respective individualsJordanFrancis (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another unique factor and this should not be overlooked, but the ULC World HQ has a medical advisory board, that includes a college professor and medical professional on staff of a hospital in Canada. http://www.ulcnetwork.com/medical Dr Joel has written many articles and has included the ULC World HQ in his articles. While Dr Joel is from Canada, there is no mistaking the professionalism this man brings the table. And I quote Dr Joel's resume;

"Rev. Dr. Joel Lamoure is a multiple national and international award-winning Associate Professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Medicine at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry (SSMD), and Assistant Director of CME-Department of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario and Teaching Associate, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto. In his hospital clinical practice, he serves as a psychiatric pharmacist at London Health Sciences Centre, Victoria Hospital. On the research side of the bench, Dr. Lamoure is an Associate Scientist at the Lawson Health Research Institute, affiliated with the London Hospitals. He is an Accreditor with Accreditations Canada specializing in medication management and mental health with an interest in infection control and ambulatory care. There are almost a dozen Ask The Expert publications written in Medscape written by Professor Lamoure. Starting in December 2008, Joel took over as the Medical Psychiatry Consultant expert for the Canadian Journal of CME and Pharmacy Mental Health expert for Pharmacy Gateway (Canadian Healthcare Network). He has recently been inducted into membership with the European Congress of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP).

He has won the Western Teaching Roll of Honour in Medicine for the past 5 academic years, the most recent being the 2009-2010 academic year . He has also won the UWO CME Award in Medicine for 2007 and the University Of Toronto Teaching Award in 2006. He has published over 100 journal papers, poster abstracts, methodologies of practice and consultant reviews on mental health medications and their impact to the patient and their quality and quantity of life. (Publications)

Joel was awarded a Fellowship in the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists (Geriatrics) in 2000, and completed his D.D. in 2011 with the Universal Life Church. Areas of interest and research include medical conditions that overlap and augment the severity of psychiatric disorders, patient care deliverable models, medical metaphysics and impacts of alternative treatments and psychopharmacology.

Rev. Dr. Lamoure is a listee in numerous publications recognizing his work including the Canadian Book of Who?s Who (2008, 2009, 2010 Centennial Ed, 2011 editions), and the prestigious referenced Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in Medicine in the World? (7th, 8th and 9th International editions starting in 2009, Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in the World? for 2011 and 2012 and the Marquis Book of ?Who?s Who in Science and Engineering? for the 2011-2012 edition."JordanFrancis (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First Rules of Wiki 1.neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The arguments given by JordainFrancis and Pastorbodhi1 are all links back to the very site in question. In fact I would not be suprised if both of these "individuals" are Michael Cauley himself as they seem to have the same jumbled writing style that is meant to confuse. No new information here and no third party unbiased reliable sources to back up these claims. The claim to be in a retail relationship with Walmart, is a link to the ULCHQ own page where they have filled out a form to be an affiliate (which anyone can do) and the last notes by JordanFrancis about the notability of Dr. Joel Lamore and the ULCHQ having a "medical advisory board" are very questionable looking. It appears this doctor was given a random title within the church but other than that has nothing to do with it... there is no ULCHQ medical advisory to be a board member of. This is a person pursuing their own self interest by writing a confusing article to convolute the subject. It is some strange form of self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyrickter (talk • contribs) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Rileyricketer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Rileyricketer This Editor Here Is Obviously Both A New Editor And New To This Discussion & Wiki in general. Visiting the previous editors discussions as well as the other 3rd party links from the ULCHQ Wiki Site will only serve to educate this editor and other parties that not all the links provided link back to the ULCHQ site, e.g., the Star Advertiser, OLELO Television, et al. This individual also did not do the research which prooves the ULCHQ Advisory Board's existence. Nevertheless this is not really the issue here. The ULCHQ WIKI page is notable and necessary if only to provide needed lines between two known ULC Organizations and the services that it provides seems certainly worthwhile. Even more pertinent here is that progress is being made to create a WIKI page which offers good citations, notability of services offered by the organization, etc., offered by unbiased WIKI editors. Simply Deleting A page such as this would be a disservice to the WIKI community. Move To Keep Page Without Prejudice. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhiPastorbodhi1 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A bit rich coming from an account only itself created six days ago! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on WP:INHERIT Someone has been falsely quoting repeatedly from WP:INHERIT as saying "An article is not subject to deletion if famous people are listed.". The only place the term "famous people" appears on that page is in "Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable."... and to use that as an argument for notability overlooks the very title of the page: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~ Huge conflict with requirement for independent source which defines bias as self published sources. This is PURELY cited with self published links and pr releases directly from the church itself, needs to be tagged *THIRD PARTY* for deletion. There are no links that support this topic being inherently notable anywhere other than on their own site and in their own PR releases. CONFLICT OF INTEREST this is a vanity article for the financial gain of the organization. The age of my account doesn't have anything to do with the validity of my argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rileyrickter (talk • contribs) 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioning of names alludes to a hidden agenda, a lack of neutrality and Church of Scientology of which Wikipedia banned a few years ago. Look at those requesting delete, they are all active contributors to the Universal Life Church page.

NatGertler you are just looking to argue, again the objective of Wikipedia is not to see this page deleted, but rather to work together to make revisions. Metropolitan appears to be the only neutral contributor and who looks to comply with Wikipedia. Articles in Wikipedia look to inform, you are looking to compete, ultimately promoting the other page.

These entities are clearly different, they are each unique and each have their place here within Wikipedia. I will say this and metropolitan will attest, I was going to look to shut down, to delete the other Wikipedia page. I chose not to because it is not very professional nor the correct route to go. It is not the correct route to go for biased supporters of the other other ULC page to be Wiki Editors and to come on to this page and trash it, or to call others names or to ridicule.

Metropolitan and others have stated the tag should be removed from this page, I agree and my advice is for the Universal of Life Church Modesto for you to concentrate on your page. You are so busy knocking ours, you are only taking away from yours by doing so.

Wikipedia is not the place for my ULC is the better ULC...JordanFrancis (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material you are making up about me is both inappropriate and false on the face of it. When I point out that someone is inventing a quote and using it to misrepresent WP:INHERIT, it's because someone was inventing a quote and misrepresenting WP:INHERIT and those falsehoods should not steer the conversation. Are people who were editing the ULC article now editing this one? Yes, because after someone tried to destroy the ULC article and replace it with a promo page for the ULCHQ, this deletion discussion was mentioned on the ULC article's talk page, so it gained their attention. Does someone editing the ULC talk page make them inherently biased to ULC? Of course not. I do not limit my edits to pages for things that I support; I've edited thousands of different pages of Wikipedia, and have been editing it for over half a decade now. I have no connection to the ULC, nor have I any reason to promote them. Your description of the "objective of Wikipedia" is not well informed. If you don't want people who disagree with you to be able to edit your page, then Wikipedia is not the place to be putting it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to support Nat in principle in this discussion. Nat Gertler has not said anything in this discussion that was inappropriate for an Articles for Deletion discussion, and he should be treated with good faith here by the other participants in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Close AFD Without Prejudice~~ - Contrary to RileyRickters note that, "There are no links that support this topic being inherently notable anywhere other than on their own site and in their own PR releases," It was noted in the above that there have been numerous 3rd party additions to this WIKI site to verify its independence and notability including the Honolulu Star Advertiser, Olelo Television, and the European Television inclusion of the ULCHQ on their page along with verifiable references to the page's uniqueness and contributions which justify keeping the ULCHQ Wiki page including references to Make A Wish Foundation and the Better Business Bureau. Since There Does Not Seem To Be A Consensus Here and The Argument By a Few Seems to Be Circular, and given the changes made by editors of the WIKI page the page should be kept and the AFD tag removed from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastorbodhi1 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Protocol note: To make the discussion easier to read, each participant should make only one recommendation (!vote) for how to deal with the article. Since Pastorbodhil previously made the same recommendation, the duplicate was struck. —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler - I assure you no one set out to destroy your page, neither myself or PastorBodhi1 had anything to do with it. It was BlanchardB who attempted to destroy it by claiming it was outdated. It is quite evident you are not willing to work with us, so be it. If this page is taken down we will appeal. There is no reason why two pages cannot exist for two completely different organizations. If you deem us not worthy of Wikipedia, where is it the other ULC is? I am not amused by accusations or name calling by editors who are to remain neutral.JordanFrancis (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. This discussion is not about the merits (or lack thereof) of the other article; it is about the article on the Universal life church world headquarters. At the end of the discussion (7–10 days from initial listing), an administrator who has not otherwise been involved will evaluate whether there is consensus, based on the discussion here, to keep the article or delete it. (If the administrator feels there is no consensus, s/he may relist it for extended discussion or may close the discussion as "no consensus", in which case the article will stay up.) Any appeal would need to show that Wikipedia's discussion guidelines were not followed in the course of closing the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the disputes are personal, and I believe third party intervention will agree. There are no issues or disputes regarding this page from any editor that has not actively posted frequently on the Universal Life Church page, not a one. Any new names are new accounts. But again every editor who has taken issue here has past connections to the ULC page. NOT ONE editor without past connections to that page has an issue with this page.

With no disrespect intended, but we need a neutral 3rd party review and also the same review of the other page Check out: WP:CONADMINJordanFrancis (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan, I do have an issue with the ULCHQ page, and I deny that I have actively posted frequently on the Universal Life Church page. Please point out any edits I made to that page or related pages before this AfD began on 31 July 2012. If you can find any, I will apologize. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, for that matter, neither has Rileyricketer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler - Correct me if I am wrong but RileyRickter's account was just created.

Metropolitan90 - Exactly and you've voted to remove the tags and reinstate the page.

This is an attack, NatGertler by his own self admission stated this was discussed on the Talkpage for the ULC, and it is because someone took down the ULC page. That was not us. This display is clear and rest assured this administrator will be checking IP addresses and noting the newly created accounts. It is wrong! This is a retaliation because of what some editors think we did to their precious ULC page.

Yes CFred it is about content, not about retaliation. What went down with the ULC page has no bearing on this attack of our page. Metropolitan has offered suggestions, and we've met those, we've also added other notable content. I think it would be in the best interest of all to remove this tag now, rather to bring an administrator in, because surely that administrator will take a much closer look at the other ULC page too. Wherefore it may not just be our page that is removed, it maybe the other as well.

I suggest to research Church of Scientology and what Wikipedia opted to do and I believe they will do the same with the ULC of Modesto. For the record as The Monastery has so diligently pointed out, I possess data bases for both the ULC Modesto and the Monastery of their Ministers which includes IP addresses. I will tell you right here and now there are matches I don't need to await an administrator.

We are not taking away from Wiki page, if anything we are distinguishing between the two and is in the best interest for all parties.JordanFrancis (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JordanFrancis:

Here is the edit where you deleted all of the information about the ULC, filling its page instead with information about ULCHQ]. Here and here are the edits where Pastorbodhi1 attempted the same thing. So your claim that that was "not us" runs into problems.
Your suggestion that the tag be removed and this AfD ended does not have a procedural basis. There clearly is not an extant consensus for such removal that would support a WP:SNOWBALL.
Your assumption that an administrator will take a look at the other page is not based in Wikipedia procedure (that other page is not currently under AfD, and even if it was, its likely a different admin would be involved in closing it).
Your statement that people should not want admins looking at the other page is bizarre; those of us who have worked longed and diligently on Wikipedia have not done so to avoid having the work looked at.
Your assumptions about why experienced editors are involved in this AfD isn't well grounded in fact nor in the history of edits.
Your belief that the admin looking at this AfD will be investigating IP addresses is not grounded in standard Wikipedia practices. If for some reason an admin were to be looking at the edits of IP users in this discussion, the only ones they'll find are this, someone taking the against-deletion stance.
Your claim that "not a one" of the detractors here wasn't a frequent editor of the ULC page has yet another exception; I just checked the thousands of edits that User:Blanchardb has made over the past year, and not a one of them was on the ULC page.
I recommend that if your goal is to prevent the deletion of this page, you ground yourself in knowledge of Wikipedia procedure and guidelines, and not in inventions and attempts to rewrite history. The administrator's job in the closing of an AfD is to find a consensus within the accurate arguments made on the basis of such guidelines. The considerable effort you're putting into painting an invented personality for those who disagree with you is not time well spent if preserving the page is your goal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler - It was BlanchardB who initially did the change (revert) of the ULC Page, it was not us. Yes after BlanchardB did it, we attempted to revert such back after some one else undid what BlanchardB did. We put no NO redirect from that page to this page.

BlanchardB reverted and redirected the other ULC site initially, because he felt the two were the same and that the other was outdated, he saw the tags and because of that he made the change at his discretion. PastorBodhi1 nor I made this change or redirect initially and you know it.

After they were switched back BlanchardB started the deletion of this article for as he categorized spammy tendencies. You responded and corrected him as follows:

"**Actually, BlanchardB, this article does not appear to be about the Universal Life Church discussed in the other article (at least, if you catch it when the editors of this article aren't trying to overwrite that page with this one), but about a totally separate organization that has a similar name (a common situation in the religious world). --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Excuse my mistake for not including BlanchardB. BlanchardB and Metropolitan90 are the ONLY TWO editors or administrators who have made no edits of the ULC page. But you yourself corrected BlanchardB and Metropolitan90 again has suggested to remove the tag and reinstate the page.

ALL OTHER EDITORS by your self admission has ties to the other ULC Page and who have played a major role and has had a keen interest in maintaining that page, which happens to be a competitor.

My contention is that they, as well as you NatGertler have ties to the ULC in Modesto, or specifically to Amy Smith Long. The same IP addresses show up in the data bases on ulc.net, ulcseminary.org, themonastery.org or ulchq.com They match including yours.

This prohibits you or any of these editors from remaining neutral in evaluating this page, you all have ties to the other ULC. The only two who don't BlanchardB and Metropolitan90

You may know who I am, but do not think for a minute I do not know who you are.

The only requests for deletion are coming from those with ties to the ULC Modesto. Yes BlanchardB initiated, but he initiated such for spamming, which you corrected.

I quote you: ":*Your claim that "not a one" of the detractors here wasn't a frequent editor of the ULC page has yet another exception; I just checked the thousands of edits that User:Blanchardb has made over the past year, and not a one of them was on the ULC page."

This quote of yours is an admission - you admit that everyone other than Metropolitain90 or BlanchardB HAS ties to the other ULC Page.

You further admit this assault of editors requesting delete of this page stem from retaliation, because you feel we redirected your page to ours. This is a war and you are the leader, quite apparent instructing these others to become involved.

Take away you and your pro ULC Modesto Ministers and there is NO issues with this page by any other editor that can't be fixed and that this page not be deleted. You are looking to delete it out vindictiveness, retaliation and to diffuse your competition. You have clearly admitted this in what you have posted hereto. You show your lack of neutrality and I believe an independent administer will see through your little games and frankly you are creating a bigger risk for deletion for the other ULC page.JordanFrancis (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is an impressive blanket of falsehood. That the same message claims both that BlanchardB did the change to the ULC page and that he has never edited the ULC page is an achievement. But it is not a technique that is apt to move things forward, nor is inventing "admissions" on my behalf, particularly ones that not only are not derived from but which actually contradict things that I've said. (I've already listed a third dissenter who does not match your claim about "not a one" who was not involved in the ULC page. Want a fourth? User:Cindamuse, whose post here is signed "Cindy".) I suggest that you start looking around at other Articles For Deletion discussions, and learn what arguing techniques gain traction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors & Contributors - Allow me to clarify that I personally made no purposeful edits to any other ULC WIKI page with the exception of This WIKI page, The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc., which has been in discussion here. It was my understanding that original Delete/Copy/Paste modifications to the Other ULC page was made by other WIKI Editors. This being noted, we could continue the verbal volleyball discussion in this regard, however, it is my contention and goal as an editor/contributor to attempt to keep an unbiased view and create an informative and professional WIKI page for the Universal Life Church World Headquarters; which is both succinct and meets the demands of an Encyclopedic page as defined by WIKI. To this effect, please note below the current and past edits/modifications I have done on the ULCHQ WIKI page. While It appears to me, personally, that there may be potential, definitive Editorial bias from other WIKI Editors, I could be wrong and, regardless, this should not interfere with the creation of a ULCHQ page so long as the page meets WIKI standards for creation. This should remain our focus and good faith edits to do so have been made by myself. I trust that collectively those individuals involved in this discussion to date, coupled with any new editors who add to this discussion in the future will refrain from personal attacks, assumptions, etc.... Now, returning back to the edits made to create a positive, verifiable, informative and unique page so as to avoid page deletion and create the recognition the organization I believe deserves, please note some of the modifications made which I believe add credibility to the site :

1 - Edited WIKI Page To Ensure All Information Was Factual and Unique To The Universal Life Church World Headquarters 2 - Added 3rd party references to the ULCHQ WIKI page as required by WIKI to show organizations merit and uniqueness including references made to the ULCHQ by the Honolulu Star Advertiser, The Better Business Bureau, the Olelo Television Network as well as reference to the ULCHQ own site (Doing So Is Often Standard Across WIKI pages. However as per WIKI guidelines, the ULCHQ site is not the sole reference point). Please note that these, along with the PR Releases as published and referred to, are valid references as they require verification outside of the ULCHQ as well prior to public posting, which was indeed accomplished. 3 - Created informative information for this WIKI page so as to meet WIKI standards of uniqueness and importance including the information provided on the ULCHQ home based credential courses and outreach programs including the WALMART food program (Which while available to any organization to sign up as a part of is only provided by the ULCHQ), the Youth Ministry (Which is unique to the ULCHQ) and the Children's Miracle Network (3rd Party Reference To Honors Certificate and Program Information is provided on the page) 4 - In all of the above information on the ULCHQ WIKI page was included with consorted attempt to avoid promotional bias.

All of the aforementioned asserted, as I have alluded to in previous posts, the ULCHQ page should be kept (Amended As Necessary) and not deleted. In part, this is true if only to differentiate between two very seperate organizations with very seperate and unique histories and current programming. The general WIKI public I would undauntedly assert researching the ULC in general will find provided information on both ULC pages, including this one very informative as they research the phenomena of online ordinations and online church ministries. Thank you. Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify that I personally made no purposeful edits to any other ULC WIKI page with the exception of This WIKI page, The Universal Life Church World Headquarters, Inc., which has been in discussion here. Then who was using your account when it added the for tag to direct readers to this page, when it added the PROD tag, and when it added the AfD tag? Those edits do not look like ones which you would've intended for this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler - I Cannot Answer Definitively Your Question posed regarding who may have been, "Using My Account..." As Far As I Know I Am The Only One With Access To My PastorBodhi1 Account. Regardless - We Move On, Hopefully..... copy and paste of previous comment removed .Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)pastorbodhi1Pastorbodhi1 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pastorbodhi1, this discussion is not like a spoken conversation - your previous comment is still on the page and readable, so it is disruptive to copy-paste a second copy of it here. For that reason, I've removed your second copy of your comment. Of that comment, only your point #2 is relevant to this discussion, because that's the only point that addresses the notability of this organization. However, almost all of your points there are incorrect- press releases do not meet WP:RS, nor does the Better Business Bureau or the organization's own web site. The newspaper articles you cite are not primarily about this organization. I propose an experiment to you. Make a copy of the relevant article in your sandbox. Remove all information that is not in one of the two newspaper articles cited. Now, look at the article. Is it still useful as an encyclopedia article? If the article is deleted, it will be only because there is not enough information in reliable sources to put in a useful encyclopedia article. That won't be any kind of judgement of the organization, but only a reflection of an encyclopedia's need to have verified information from independent sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the promotional tone can be fixed with a lot of pruning and editing, but the lack of notability and reliable secondary sources cannot. --bonadea contributions talk 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a lot of WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK going on here, on both sides of the argument. User:Pastorbodhi1, User:JordanFrancis, and User:Julieanne123 are all editing from the same IP. User:Rileyrickter and User:DavidOff1234 are likewise editing from the same IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked I hope no one minds, but I've taken the liberty of blocking all the people identified by User:Jpgordon as meatpuppets/sockpuppets. That might help simplify this discussion, so that it could be refocused on the question, "Is the Universal Life Church World Headquarters notable enough for Wikipedia to need an article about it?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, with things becalmed, let's do a quick run-through of where we stand. There doesn't seem to be any general support for this being the same organization or directly related to the Universal Life Church, so the original objection is moot, and I don't see much traction being gained by the suggestion that the articles be merged. So what we're left with is whether this subject meets the notability guidelines, and that's been argued with primarily these sources:

The Better Business Bureau source is just a database listing, so that does not convey notability. Any business that has ever had a complaint and possibly some that don't get listings.
The Star Advertiser is a reliable source, but the article just has one parenthetical aside about World Headquarters. That is not significant coverage.
The DMOZ source is both a user-editable source (and thus not reliable) and merely a listing of links (thus not significant coverage).
The Wikipedia source is a user-editable source, and thus not reliable.
The Olelo Network is a public access network, which means that anyone can get something on there, it is neither a reliable source nor a significant one; it's pretty much the TV equivalent of having a page on Facebook.

So I'm still not seeing notablity established. Am I overlooking anything? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, much of the above discussion is of little or no relevance, for various reasons. However, if we sift through all the chaff and look at those parts of the discussion which relate to the question "are there reliable independent sources showing that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines?" then the answer is a clear "no". Nat Gertler has summarised the relevant points pretty clearly in the post above this one. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with NatGertler & JamesBWatson but would add (i) One mention in a reliable source does not necessarily establish notability and although external does the Star Advertiser really qualify as a sufficiently knowledgeable source to back notablility (furthermore, which ULC is it refering to?); (ii) The sbwire references seem to be recycled press releases from UCLWHQ itself; (iii) I contacted Dr Ehrman and he replied immediately denying all knowledge of UCLWHQ – see [37] for details and I have deleted the claim from the lead section. This last makes me feel the article also infringes WP:PROMO Jpacobb (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ http://www.ulcnetwork.com/outreach-2
^ http://www.ulcnetwork.com/apps/blog/show/11825124-universal-life-church-walmart-we-offer-free-shopping-for-shutins
^ http://olelo.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=30&clip_id=25595

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Carpenter (1752-1847)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An utterly typical soldier and glass maker with no real claim to notability. At least one of the sources appears to be primary, and the others appear not to be anything but trivial coverage. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources showing are fully adequate to pass GNG for verifiability. Whether the nominator feels this is "utterly typical" or not is neither here nor there, so long as the subject is the object of coverage in multiple, independent, published sources — as this appears to be. The title of the piece needs to be tweaked if kept. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:BASIC per the sources in the article. Links to the sources, if any are available on the internet, would be an improvement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating I looked for all the sources on the internet, and couldn't find any. I'd like to see if there's any significant coverage in these sources, which is more important than being mentioned in multiple sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In Feb 2011 the question of notability was brought up on the talk page of this article. Talk:Thomas Carpenter (1752-1847) I voted Keep then and I vote Keep now, for the same reasons. How many times do we need to vote on this? Jrcrin001 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I did a quick check on line and found another secondary source within a minute ... Heritage Glass Museum. And here is another: Gloucester County, New Jersey - History & Genealogy - GLASS & GLASSBORO Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:16, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonia (United States)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Colonia (United States)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this page is woefully lacking, and appears to have been that way for quite a while. It's not helpful, and should be seriously edited or deleted. 98.207.129.65 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 31. Snotbot t • c » 13:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic, subject of extensive scholarship and public policy (random examples from Google: [38][39][40][41][42][43]), and the article has cites already. If the article needs improvement, that's true of most of the articles on Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it not required that AfD nominations be made by registered users? Procedurally close this, if so.. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The barrier to unregistered editors nominating an article for deletion here is a technical one, they cannot create a discussion page, but a registered editor can do that on their behalf. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - In addition to my query above, this nomination presents no valid rationale for deletion. Carrite (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Arxiloxos. This is a notable concept and rich enough to support an encyclopedia article. Since Arxiloxos gave a few random examples from google books, I'll give a few from scholar: [44] [45] [46].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep – AFD is not clean-up. 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. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - For the above reasons. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:42, 2 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) 11:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines and the Spratly Islands[edit]

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

The article explicitly excludes non-Filipino points of view therefore it should be deleted. STSC (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary statement 1. - The basis of my reason is WP:YESPOV requiring "the relative prominence of opposing views". STSC (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary statement 2. - The overall undertone of the article is nationalistically glorifying the Philippine involvement in the disputed Spratly Islands, therefore the best course of action is deletion. STSC (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on the stated rationale for deletion; I don't see explicit exclusion. See WP:DUE, WP:OWN, and WP:SODOIT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to the statement of the article's creator, "Non-Filipino viewpoints regarding Philippine occupation of several islands are not included in this article." And the article was constructed in such a way that non-Filipino views were not included. STSC (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It passes Wikipedia:Content_forking#Acceptable_types_of_forking. Questions regarding the article's neutrality can always be worked on through subsequent editing. That's a better alternative than deleting the article altogether. Xeltran (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Acceptable content fork. Exclusive POV is not an attempt to evade NPOV, but is due to length of the article. Cursory reading shows article is well-sourced enough, worded neutrally, and does actually include opposing opinions and rebuttals where available. Though that's probably limited due to language differences in the involved countries, i.e. a Filipino editor will usually not be able to understand Chinese sources; though the opposite is less true as much of the Philippine media is in English. Scope of article is defined from the start, so the reason for the absence of parallel Chinese, Vietnamese, Malaysian, etc. government policies or activities are quite obvious enough. See Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV. Quoted below, emphasis mine.

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.

It can not be merged into the mother article. But that, in itself, is not a reason for deletion.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of "acceptable" content fork cannot stand particularly Spratly Islands is a hotly disputed territory involving multiple nations and I don't think a content pork for such controversial subject can legitimately exclude the opposing views and remain neutral. Any attempt to evade neutrality by using "acceptable" content fork is gaming the system - WP:GAME. STSC (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Although the content could be merged into the articles such as Spratly Islands or Spratly Islands dispute, the amount of referenced content is so large that it would be subject to WP:TOOLONG, and require that the content be split per WP:SIZERULE. If there is this much referenced content, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Outright deletion is too hasty. This article has 57 cited sources (as of this post), many of which are reliable. Rather than deleting the entire work, perhaps editors can consider improving it, per WP:PRESERVE. Of course, performing research and copy editing requires much more time and energy compared to simply deleting the entry in entirety. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually promoting the Philippine occupation of the disputed islands (e.g, the "Construction policy" section), and it is unacceptable under the neutrality policy. The best course of action is deletion. STSC (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion is not a substitute for Cleanup. Quoting the NPOV FAQ, the NPOV policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. The article can just be rewritten over time. Xeltran (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have wanted to copyedit the article but it's a fundamentally unacceptable POV fork clearly nationalistically promoting and glorifying one country as shown in the above example. (See WP:PROMOTION). It should be deleted according to the deleton policy - WP:DEL. STSC (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some essay-like points in the article that could be original research and synthesis. Copy editing can correct these matters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, I agree that the article is not written in a neutral point of view. The article is supposed to be discussing, and not promoting the Philippines' point of view of the Spratly Islands dispute. However, the article does have a lot of sources to back it up, and as the article is too long to be merged back into the main article of the Spratly Islands dispute, it is an acceptable POV fork. What should be done, instead of outright deletion, is to carefully reword the article in such a way that it is presented in a neutral tone, and reactions from other Spratlys-related articles can be included. Also, there should probably be more sources from non-Filipino sources, preferably Chinese ones, especially for the responses. And this opinion is coming from a Filipino editor! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:47, 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 redirected to SKS. NAC. Cliff Smith 18:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SKS (Semi-automatic Rifle)[edit]

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

An editor attempted an improper page rename (deleted content on SKS and pasted here) , turning the original page into a disambiguation, without properly moving and history merging, etc. The original edit was undone L1A1 FAL (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I just decided to turn it into a redirect to SKS instead, so disregard the AFD.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:24, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Crawford[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Prod reasoning was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Prod was removed on grounds that Rangers are a fully pro club, that is correct but the League and match they play in are not fully pro in fact Rangers are the only club in SFL3, due to coverage Rangers receive it is highly likely some players will meet GNG but this player does not at this time. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above not notable but probally will be as the seaosn progress--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i might change this to keep https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=robbie+crawford+footballer check them out see if any fit the bill for notability--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - most of those are stats sites and several refer to Ayr's Robbie Crawford or other Robert Crawfords nothing substantial that i can see.Blethering Scot 12:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as original PROD'er. For the reasons explained in the nomination, this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT at this time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis MacLeod (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 Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Prod:Never played in a Fully Pro League[47]. Also does not meet WP:GNG. Rangers play in Third Divison and todays match against Brechin is a second division club again not fully pro. Prod was removed on grounds that Rangers are a fully pro club, that is correct but the League and match they played in are not, due to coverage Rangers receive it is highly likely some players will meet GNG but this player does not at this time. Blethering Scot 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i have found a few reliable sources on this one jsut needs to be updated and soruced correctly--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs more than reliable sources it needs enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. At the moment its no where near only routine and primary sourcing and from what I've found when looking there isn't much in depth coverage. Will wait and see what you've found.Blethering Scot 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

at least one is idenpent but ill try pos tthem later--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Lewis+MacLeod+(footballer)%22&num=50#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Lewis+MacLeod+(footballer)&oq=Lewis+MacLeod+(footballer)&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.5981.7349.0.7787.2.2.0.0.0.0.82.161.2.2.0...0.0...1c.8KoESQl2Qw0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=8f43c5bd048b596f&biw=1280&bih=797

check those if none are suitable ill change my vote to delete--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is possible that maybe Rangers players should be considered to meet WP:NFOOTY in the future, obviously at the present moment Macleod doesn't meet GNG but maybe in the next few weeks or months Rangers players will mostly meet GNG. Obviously that's WP:CRYSTAL at the moment but something to consider. Adam4267 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why it would be decided that "Rangers players should be considered to meet WP:NFOOTY in the future". They play in the Third Division, which is not a fully pro league. I don't see why an exception should be made just because they are Rangers. If their players meet the GNG, then fair enough, but I don't see why we should consider them a special case when it comes to NFOOTY..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant that if we see in future that the majority of new players do meet GNG then it should be considered adding them to the NFOOTY criteria. Or at least having an acknowledgemt that the players shouldn't be AFD'd. Not saying this will happen but if it does then maybe it should be considered. Although if you look at Barrie McKay who played one game for Rangers last season, he has an article and MacLeod doesn't. The only difference is that McKay made his debut a few months earlier. But neither actually meets GNG. I do think it suggests there's a flaw in our system. Adam4267 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If any Rangers players in the new season are deemed to meet the GNG then they can be be kept on that basis, otherwise there's no need to tamper with NFOOTBALL, a guideline that deals with subject-specific notability. And the difference between McKay and MacLeod isn't just that the former made his debut earlier, it's that he made this appearance in the top tier of Scottish football (fully pro and hence passing NFOOTBALL), whereas MacLeod made his debut in a cup competition with the club in the fourth tier (not fully pro and hence failing NFOOTBALL). Mattythewhite (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - While that might make a difference in NFOOTY terms there is no difference in GNG. McKay doesn't meet it and neither does MacLeod. Adam4267 (talk) 12:47, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tandoor Chef[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG, was declined multiple times at the AfC projects, but moved by the creator. mabdul 11:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half of the references are misplaced wikilinks, making it almost certain that this is an autogenerate article, and it wouldn't be notable even if it weren't. complainer (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mdann52 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only news hits for this brand which are not marketing or pr pieces are passing mentions at best. The same appears when searching for book references. Fails notability. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:15, 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 speedy delete as a mistake by the article's creator. Xe created hi:काल करे सो आज कर some seventy-six minutes after creating this page. Clearly xe realized that xe had created the page on the wrong Wikipedia. Let's not tie ourselves in knots over this. What the mistake left behind is now gone. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

काल करे सो आज कर[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOT. This is a story (maybe fictional) in another language. The last sentence is promotional for a TV show ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 10:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it's in another language Seasider91 (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That it's in another language is not A2, but if there is an article in that language on the appropriate wiki. The article has no equivalent, so A2 is not applicable. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 11:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not remotely suitable as an encyclopaedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete Something in the English Wikipedia should at least use Latin characters in the title complainer (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it's not one of the criteria covered by the policy on speedy deletion. Besides, that would be easily dealt with by just renaming the article, so it could not reasonably be taken as grounds for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I bow to the logic and change it to simply "delete" but I stand firm on this point: people can't start putting foreign entries on the English wikipedia and then demand that only people proficient in their language decide on their merit. If this is a worthy article in Hindi, there's hi.wikipedia.org but, in the current form and with the current title, it doesn't belong here. complainer (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - For what it's worth, my own view is that not being in English should be a speedy deletion criterion. The amount of time and effort it sometimes takes to try to figure out what a foreign language pag is about and whether it should be translated or deleted is often considerable, and in my experience such articles usually finish up being deleted anyway. Also, sometimes the foreign language hides attack pages or other material which should be speedily deleted, and putting it in a foreign language so we can't tell is unconstructive. It's simple: if you want to post something on English Wikipedia then write it in English, or at the very least get it translated before posting it. If it's not in English then it doesn't belong on English WP. However, simply having a foreign language title is a different matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hindi Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the first to mention the possibility, I have to say that, thanks to the wonders of google translate, I now think, again, that this article should be speedily deleted: it is just some kind of old half anecdote half fairy tale. complainer (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two problems with "Move to Hindi Wikipedia": (1) it's not a useful article, and probably doesn't belong on any Wikipedia, (2) whether an article is acceptable on Hindi WP is for the editors of Hindi WP to decide, not us. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:10, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Guys from Andromeda[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 18:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:CORP. sources are not so reliable gaming websites, lacks coverage in mainstream reliable sources. ~~let's see if my AfD followers turn up at this one.~~ LibStar (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As creators of the Space Quest series, Murphy and Crowe are definitely notable; if they had pages for themselves, this one would perhaps not be needed, but they don't. The form of this nomination is also horrible: you are not to have "AfD followers turn[ing] up": wikipedia work by consensus, not by cliques. complainer (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what LibStar is on about. Just don't get involved in this. It's silly long-term feuding that goes back years. Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - All right, I probably don't want to know, but this is a nomination, it's a very clear and public proces, and it has to respect form. In this context, that sentence is completely out of line. complainer (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's also out of line that some editors engage in WP:WIKIHOUNDING and follow me to deliberately vote against me in AfDs. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should absolutely report the incident and, if it is at all in my power, I'll stand behind you in that. I'm just saying this is the wrong forum. complainer (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make a call yet, but I disagree with the nominator's claim of "unreliable gaming websites". Most of them are deemed useable from the consensus on sources over at WikiProject Video Games. There would have to be a better rationale presented for me to support a delete !vote... Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources include:
- Having a subsection in relation to Kickstarter project articles:
  - 1UP.com
  - Game Industry -- Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per list of reliable sources that provide coverage on the subject, that I listed above. Passes the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

these sources are all from gaming industry media, I would think more mainstream press coverage would establish notability. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not a requirement of meeting the WP:GNG. Significant coverage from reliable sources is. Not "mainstream coverage". If we applied your reasoning, we'd have to delete half of the video game articles out there, because only Eurogamer and IGN were providing previews, and not USA Today and the like. Note "mainstream" is not once found at the link for the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it relates to reliability of sources WP:NEWSORG. "reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact". gaming industry websites some of which look like blogs are definitely less established. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link is only relevant to identifying reliable sources. There's already consensus, per prior discussion in the related WikiProject, that sources such as the ones I've given above, are reliable. None of the more specific guidelines, like WP:NSONGS, WP:NBAND, the links you keep giving, etc - none of them trump the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes but coverage relates to reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My whole argument is that these are reliable sources that help meet the GNG, so I'm not sure how that's a counterpoint to what I'm saying. My point is that, regardless of your familiarity with the sources in question, there is prior consensus in favor of their reliablility. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, there is too much focus on the nature of the sources in this discussion: I don't really think that the existence of the company, the titles produced or the persons involved are doubted by anyone. The issue is whether it is notable; if this notability is established by the wrong means is something that should be taken to the talk page, not to an AfD discussion. Just my two pennies, here. complainer (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I follow your line of thinking. On Wikipedia, notability is established through significant coverage in third party reliable sources. To say we're spending too much time on sources, is like saying we're spending too much time on evidence at a court trial. It doesn't make sense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For now, I think WP:BEFORE applies. Its not the best article on WP, but it shows signs of potential. It has a lot of things wrong with it: Smells of press release, reads like a resume of the people involved with very little mention of the company, messy layout with no narrative flow and its in need of extra sources. - BUT, the majority of sources are reliable and have been agreed upon by consensus at WP:VG/RS. Following the principle of WP:BEFORE, I think the article should have been tagged, left for a couple of months and then nominated if no improvements were made. I have tagged the article with reference and cleanup tags. - X201 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that it does require a lot of clean up. I'll try to do some... Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's still far from perfect, but X201 and myself have made a lot of improvements to the article, including adding many of the sources listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is significant coverage in several reliable sources, so it looks like it passes WP:GNG. If the consensus has established that the sources are reliable, then they shouldn't be discounted just because they're not mainstream.CaSJer (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May not be the best article, but passes the GNG CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. --pcj (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes GNG. A couple more sources from technology websites:

The Verge
TechCrunch

– Jopo (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources don't seem unreliable to me. They seem to be mainstream online gaming press. Especially Gamasutra, which is the online branch of the trade publication Game Developer Magazine. The two guys are notable both for their old work for Sierra and for their new venture which has gotten a lot of attention. APL (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing wrong with it that I can see. The Two Guys are notable, for their work on Space Quest if nothing else. I don't think the sources are objectionable. Flow (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moosin: God of Martial Arts[edit]

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

On notability grounds Peter Rehse (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article merely gives the results of a fight card for a non-notable MMA promotion. There are no sources given that are independent and anything but routine sports coverage. Jakejr (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteThere is a little bit of independent coverage - USA Today covered it - but the coverage looks to be entirely routine, and the promotion itself is non-notable.CaSJer (talk) 17:51, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rogent Lloret[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On notability grounds Peter Rehse (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks sources and the subject fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters (WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts). Jakejr (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like he only has one fight for a top tier organization, so fails WP:MMANOT. No other significant coverage to justify inclusion.CaSJer (talk) 19:02, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Steddy[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional piece on a small business owner that does not show how she is notable. She lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is a press release, a Small Business Development Corporation promo piece (not a RS) and two local interest pieces. I found one more local interest piece (Grahame Armstrong (5 April 2009), "Steddy as she goes in a crisis", The Sunday Times). Nothing significant. (Note that this is one of multiple articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Third member of a self-promotion cluster that must be nipped in the bud. The only citation that could establish notability doesn't actually mention the subject at all. complainer (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per complainer.Michael5046 (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 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) 11:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth Diet[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional piece on a lifestyle that does not show how it is notable. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. It was created with multiple references but they were for the most part deceptive (some have been removed). Most did not verify claims made or are not independent reliable sources or were just links to organisations homepages. Some are dead but a look at the links suggests more of the same problems. The "critisicms" section is pure synthesis, taking unrelated articles and trying to connect them to The Earth Diet (one article even predates the lifestyle by almost a decade). The only links that verify anything about this Diet are by the creator. I found nothing better. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about The Earth Diet this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Second member of a self-promotion cluster that must be nipped in the bud. Citations are stretched to refer to the subject, or simply non-notable; nothing actually establishes notability. complainer (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't there be a workgroup to identify and unravel this kind of cluster? complainer (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite aside from being a dog of an article - it doesn't even describe the diet beyond the most inane generalities - all the refs are either self-published or do not mention the diet. GNG fail. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:31, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Earth[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional piece on an organisation that does not show how it is notable. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:ORG). Was created with multiple references but they were for the most part deceptive. Most did not verify claims made or are not independent reliable sources or were just links to organisations homepages. One is dead but a look at the link suggests more of the same problems. Given the deceptive and promotional nature of this article and the lack of independent coverage about I Love Earth this article should be deleted. (Note that this is one of multiple deceptively sourced articles by a blocked spammer creating a walled garden around Liana Werner-Gray). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a self-promotion cluster that must be nipped in the bud. All citations are pretty much self-referential, and there is nothing that actually establishes notability. complainer (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems extremely for promotion purposes and very little WP:RS. Zappa O Mati 03:08, 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 redirect to Stephen King. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi King[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy declined in 2009. Fails WP:GNG per WP:NOTINHERITED Curb Chain (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete -- Notability cannot be inherited from her father. She is apparently minister of a church which is presumably NN, since there is no article on it. Summary NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notabilty per Wikipedia guidelines seems to be lacking. And listing the works of Stephen King at the bottom of the article seems to be wholly inappropriate. The article is not about him. She has to earn her own notability.--Zananiri (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're referring to the navbox, as her article is listed there it is entirely appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephen King where she's mentioned multiple times. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agree, delete/redirect: Even though there are sources, those are all founded on the fame of her father. -- Kace7 (talk) 03:20, 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. Sandstein 08:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Twohy[edit]

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

Article on an director/writer/producer who falls short of WP:FILMMAKER. Has lots of credits but they are mostly assistant roles. Those that are are in non notable productions. Twohy lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Being an assistant director or production assistant in numerous productions, even in many actually notable productions, does not meet the criteria set by WP:FILMMAKER. A mere handful of acting credits in minor descriptive or uncredited roles fails WP:ENT. Lack of any award wins or nominations fails WP:ANYBIO. Lack of any sort of reliable coverage at all fails WP:GNG.[48][49][50] I can appreciate that Mr. Twohy appears to be a longtime worker within the television and film industries,[51] but without any sort of note by media or peers, he simply lacks notability enough for Wikipedia. We have a failed WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rock noir[edit]

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

Original reasearch and WP:COATRACK for Belladonna about a genre not present in notable sources, except in statements of Belladonna's members and by other musician in which there is not a connection. Louisbeta (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's face it, the combination of rock and theatre (when we subject that to Rock noir), has existed at least since the time of Alice Cooper and Kiss. If we are going to boot Belladonna for claiming that the fusion of rock and theatre exists, then we had better make room for kicking out Alice, Gene, GWAR...and those guys obviously are valid under the WP:BAND, etc... Ren99 (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did you actually read the topic? Rock noir is born in 2006 (accordly to the article). How Cooper and Co. could be involved? Moreover, Cooper and Kiss are not really close to "rock noir" claiming, as in the article is clearly written.--Louisbeta (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the term "Rock noir" may be "coined" by current claim, but the use of the stylistic and theatric motif has existed far beyond 2006. The point here is that performers have been using the format for ages, and that simply criticizing a contemporary definition does not erase the use of the genre for many, many years. It's a historical look-back, and it applies. Music didn't start in 2006, people didn't just start applying theatre to music in 2006, and denying that "Rock noir" has existed for a significant time fails to view that very history. Sid Vicious didn't invent putting clothes pins in his shirts for the look, it's attributed variously to Johnny Hell, but that does not mean Sid is less famous for making it prominent. Logic tells us to expand the article to include the various histories, not drop the information as if it did not exist. Ren99 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with you but we don't have to do or have original research (as you know, we don't create information, we collect it): so, if we found reliable 3rd-pary sources talking about rock noir in a organized way, we could keep it. I did my research and I did not found (moreover, principal contributor to this page is quite single-purposed (this could be not a English word, sorry), so the suspect of a RO grows).--Louisbeta (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to consider a simple selfish-circumstance for a single band, but if the name is coined simply for personal exposure then it fails the WP:COI & WP:SELFPUB. However, the article is presented as a genre, and not in reference to a single entity. Additionally, there is no original research in defining a performance mode, only in developing one. The theme is not original, and has been used artistically for years and mimicked by many artists. So since the material is not original research, it is not in conflict of interest, and it is not in self-publication by a single source, then I would imagine we'd need a better reason to delete it for being a valid idea than simply that it has not been previously included. Ren99 (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that then article is well presented, in order to avoid the COI, but how can you say "there is no original research in defining a performance mode", if the definition is merely invented by a band? (the Italian soruces are quite clear about it: they invented the name of the genre in order to be "more original", but a lot of commenters (also in voice talk) say that their genre is identical to gothic rock). Moreover, I have to repeat: we don't creat informations, we collect them. Where is a 3rd party indipendent source describing rock noir as a notable genre? --Louisbeta (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RO. No 3rd-pary sources.--Louisbeta (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make more than one bold !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of reliable third party sources (music stores and forums are not reliable sources) indicates that this fails WP:NOTE. The argument that there is a long term link between rock and theatre only undermines the case for this being a recognisable genre.--SabreBD (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. Total absence of any reliable, third party sources discussing this "genre" in detail. Articles about the one band do not support the creation of a new genre (we'd have hundreds every day if we included them all) and claims about a long-standing link between rock and theatre still do not justify "rock noir" as being an accepted as a term for that crossover by the music press. Ultimately fails WP:GNG. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:20, 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. Sandstein 08:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini Mobile Technologies[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 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gemini is a little company run by Mike Tso" that, and also the fact that the article is completely unsourced and does not assert notability in any shape or form. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two things - 1. Cursory search reveals a company that has a significant web footprint. Article author should be able to provide references if they exist. AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY 2. The article, as written, seems to draw upon insider knowledge that is not public information and should not be listed here (true or not). May be a speedy deletion on that basis, especially if content was posted to defame. Celtechm (talk) 05:23, 2 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) 04:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andala rakshasi[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability according to the general notability guideline and notability (films). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. The article is terribly written, but a Google News search shows multiple non-trivial hits for this film. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved by MichaelQSchmidt and Krzna. Coverage by reliable sources satisfies GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the poor writing of its newbie author has proven addresdable.[52] Now time to expand and source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue improvements. The film will release on August 10, and multiple sources speak toward the topic.[53] The original article was poorly written, yes... but in following up on User:Gene93k's comment, it was easy to ascertain that the topic meets notability criteria for films even with the original article in need of attention. We do not delete notable topics if concerns prove addresable[54] and, as the topic DOES meet WP:GNG and WP:NF, I would ask the nominator to consider withdrawing his deletion nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The article is poorly written but there are many articles on the web related to the film that I believe would help improve this page - Krzna (talk) 19:55, 2 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. Sandstein 08:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All-Soviet Peace Conference[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a single line page with no references and no reliable sources. Does not meet notability guidelines. Goalisraised (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - This is a shade after my period of expertise, but I've never heard of a conference by this name, the article does not mention a date, and the phrase "All Soviet" is absolutely unused (as opposed to "All Russian," which was a 1920s and early 1930s expression that meant the set of nationalities of the Soviet Union including the Russians and all other national groups). I suspect a hoax, quite frankly. Nothing worth saving here in any event. I feel strongly about this one, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this title is a mistake rather than a hoax. Looking on Google books, a number of volumes including WEB DuBois' autobiography mention "an all-Soviet peace conference in Moscow" or a similar form of words, sometimes capitalizing "Peace Conference" (see e.g. William Edward Burghardt Du Bois The autobiography of W.E.B. DuBois: a soliloquy on viewing my life, Karin L. Stanford Beyond the Boundaries: Reverend Jesse Jackson in International Affairs, Eric Porter The Problem of the Future World). It's possible someone took this descriptive phrase to be the actual name of the conference. If someone can find out the actual name of the conference and more about it, maybe we could move this article, but at the moment it's not giving any useful information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I'll strike the Speedy part of Speedy Delete. This (purported?) conference should either be identified or the piece deleted, however. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, I think I've figured out what this was supposed to be. In August 1949 the Soviet Peace Committee was established in Moscow, per THIS. Ordinarily, unless a convention is seminal, standard practice is to write on the organization and to discuss its conventions, conferences, congresses, etc. in the context of that. There is no doubt that the organization is notable, and I wouldn't doubt that the founding conference couldn't be sourced out, but this uninformative sub-stub needs to go away, I think. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Soviet Peace Committee is already showing as a blue link. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 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 Speedy Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki does not have a large number of articles. TheChampionMan1234 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-referenced article about a notable Wikipedia. The lack of a "large number of articles" is not a valid argument for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe speedy. Nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion, and the article already cites multiple sources, so notability appears to be established. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination does not propose a policy based rationale for deletion. KTC (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. While the nomination is indeed not based in policy, since the article is here for discussion, I don't believe it's sufficiently notable - note that several of those "multiple sources" are Wikipedia links, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SK#1 no argument for deletion, no subsequent !vote for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki does not have a lot of articles compared with other non-English wikis like the German or Spanish wikipedias. TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-referenced article about a notable Wikipedia. The lack of a "large number of articles" is not a valid argument for deletion and their is no basis for comparison to the German or Spanish Wikipedias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion, and the article already cites numerous sources that make a clear case for its notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination does not propose a policy based rationale for deletion. KTC (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias - while the nomination is indeed not based in policy, since the discussion is here, I do not belive this is a sufficiently notable Wikipedia for a stand-alone article. Many of the 'well-referenced' references appear not to be reliable sources; among them are WP:ELNO Facebook pages and Wikipedia pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This has been discussed before and most of the sources are credible. --Ghaly (talk) 02:26, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki does not have a large amount of articles, unlike the French or Spanish wikis. TheChampionMan1234 03:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-referenced article about a notable Wikipedia. The lack of a "large number of articles" is not a valid argument for deletion, and there is no basis for comparing it to the French or Spanish Wikipedias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion; the number of articles in Scots Wikipedia is not particularly relevant to whether it deserves an article on English Wikipedia. On the other hand, its notability might reasonably be challenged, as it was in August 2007 when no sources were identified and the second AfD reached a "delete" result. However, the article now contains a solid source from Scotland on Sunday,[55] and HighBeam produced a similar, shorter one from the Daily Mirror,[56], so I guess we can say that this now passes WP:GNG, if barely. Additional references in reliable sources would obviously strengthen the case. Although Google shows a number of discussions on forums, I haven't found much else in RS sources, other than brief mentions in some Scotland guidebooks such as [57]. Additional background about Scots Wikipedia may be found at meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Scots Wikipedia, where an overwhelming consensus affirmed the legitimacy of the project and rejected an August 2011 closure proposal. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Scot I am not entirely convinced of the value of the Scots Wikipedia (as opposed to our having an article about it), but it seems like it is here to stay and the nominator's rationale is absurd. Ben Mac Dui 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination does not propose a policy based rationale for deletion. KTC (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all of the above. Nothing much to add really. --Deskford (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias - while the nomination is indeed not based in policy, since the discussion is here, I do not belive this is a sufficiently notable Wikipedia for a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep originator of current version. It has several mentions in online-discoverable UK media, specifically addressing its cultural significance. Proposer has given no valid justification, and I'm also not thrilled that I wasn't messaged regarding this proposal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:35, 2 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) 04:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BSR Screen Recorder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about software that doesn't have significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. I searched and could not find any. Sourcing in the article consists of primary sources and unreliable sources. The previous AFD was withdrawn although I cannot understand why. Whpq (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as reliable sources are unaware of it. Even if one comes with bullet-proof sources to establsih notability, the article has to be rewritten entirely to get rid of promotional tone, so deletion is the only way to go here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns nothing, no surprise for yet another screen capture utility. Msnicki (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I previously withdrew the AFD since I was less experienced at that time I had made a few bad AFDs. Looking over the article again I see no reliable sources and nothing to significantly distinguish the software from any other screen capture utility. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 16:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any notable coverage from independent secondary sources enough to establish WP:NSOFT and as it has been mentioned above, the article is written in a very promotional tone. --LoudHoward (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources or coverage given. --Artene50 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice toward a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of this singer's unreleased songs, none of which are notable. The article cites Youtube and music databases as references—both of which do not establish notability. Any unreleased songs that have been discussed by reliable, secondary and independent sources can be mentioned on the relevant page such as the artist's discography or the album. Till 02:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes, please. This is exactly the argument I was putting forth when MrIndustry (talk · contribs) insisted that the content be included on Lana Del Rey discography, so I shunted everything off to this page just to get it off of the other one. It has no place on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unlike many artists Lana Del Rey consists of many personalities which came before Lana Del Rey. I believe these songs are notable because they showcase her musical personalities before she was Del Rey. Most people believe she's a debut artist with 15 songs and she's not - this list shows that. The list is far too long and detailed to keep on another page. Ryulong, that was not your opinion when you moved the section to "List of unreleased Lana Del Rey Songs". I even kept your comments on my talk. Feel free to check them again. :) --MrIndustry (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, what you believe is irrelevant here, and secondly, perhaps you should have a thorough read of WP:N. Songs aren't notable because they "showcase" an artist's musical personality, they can only be notable if discussed by secondary, reliable sources. Perhaps backing up your argument with policy would help for starters. Till 03:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say "List of unreleased songs" are obviously welcome on Wikipedia due to the fact that List of unreleased Britney Spears songs being a featured article. Here's some independent sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15] I can get you even more if you would like. Tons of people use this page. It would be stupid to delete it.--MrIndustry (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reference section messes it up here, I have moved all the new references to the article.--MrIndustry (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article is a mess, but that's no reason to delete it. Each song appears to have a source beside it. How exactly can an unreleased song be notable? Unless it leaks of course, which most don't, as they are, you know, unreleased. I say that if an artist is notable and they have enough unreleased songs to warrant to fill up an article, then the article is appropriate. There appears to be hundreds of songs located in this article. There are two FLs of articles of a similar premise, List of unreleased Britney Spears and List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. Obviously both are on a higher level than Del Rey career wise, but that's rather irrelevant. Statυs (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Firstly I think the point is that "Sirens" was released, so the article can't make it's mind up whether it's released, unreleased or songs unreleased by "Del Rey" So the article is a mess before we start. Then we have the straight question, "Are unreleased songs notable?" The answer must be, generally "No." ("Are unofficially released songs notable?" is a completely different question). I am going to give the same hint as I did before, the unreleased songs contained in this article would fit very nicely in an article called List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey. This way nothing is lost and, perhaps WP is improved! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens was never released. You obviously didn't click the sources.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article says, "This is the first album Grant released under the name May Jailer." Either it was released or it wasn't. This AfD is becoming a farce, I have said all I wish to say. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's incorrect and needs to be changed. It was never released and was leaked.--MrIndustry (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As "This is the first album Grant released under the name May Jailer" was added by MrIndustry with this edit... --Richhoncho (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep The artist is undoubtedly notable and this is an important element of her story - her varied back catalogue of songs that show her musical development before she became successful. There is also notability in how many songs that have not received an "official" release have leaked into the public domain. RGCorris (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...Both of which aren't valid reasons to keep an article. Till 09:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey, and expand to include songs that were released. Statυs (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happy with that RGCorris (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only complaint I have with this is that there's too much on one page. I believe that's why Britney & Michael (above) have separate pages.--MrIndustry (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI vote that we keep this page since I do think that it is notable. Many people use this page, including me. I also think that the unreleased songs should have their own page since there are so many of them. teammathi 13:02, 4 August 2012 (CET)

Comment. You need to explain this. If LDR is not notable/important enough to have a list of released songs, how can a list of unreleased songs be notable? If a list of recorded songs for LDR exists then this article should be merged unless/until WP:SIZE kicks in. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think LDR is notable but I have never seen a list of released songs for anybody. You can read up on the released songs in her discography and the unreleased songs should have their own page. teammathi 17:24, 4 August 2012 (CET)

There a couple of 100 at Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers, and, generally, you will note, that there is no "unreleased" article without a "released" article. Also note these are not the same as discographies which are list of records released, which is something totally different. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I didn't see those. All right, then I agree to creating a list of released songs. teammathi 18:37, 4 August 2012 (CET)

I have started creating a List of Lana Del Rey songs. teammathi 18:51, 4 August 2012 (CET)

I believe this page should exist with released material.--MrIndustry (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page List of Lana Del Rey songs. teammathi 14:36, 6 August 2012 (CET)

Strong Keep: These unreleased songs are notable because Del Rey does perform unreleased songs at her concerts. She performed You Can Be The Boss at recent concerts because it was an outtake from Born To Die and the band knows how to play the song. I agree that the page is really messy and could be organised a little better but Britney Spears has a similar page: [of unreleased Britney Spears songs] so I don't see why Del Rey can't have one. I keep track of her unreleased music and I check back to this page often so it's definitely very helpful. Del Rey also mentioned that she was going to remake some of these songs and release them on a mix tape (though she announced that it was going to be delayed in favour of her new album release in November) so there is every chance that some of these songs will be re-incarnated and released sooner or later. Mpwilliams (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ATA. None of these are valid reasons to keep the article. Till 02:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Till, can you give us a valid reason why List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs should be deleted over Britney Spears' list? I'm trying to grasp why these lists are unacceptable, but her list is a featured page. Can you explain this to us?--MrIndustry (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MrIndustry why should LDR be kept when List of unreleased Rihanna songs and others have been deleted? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This question is redundant because I believe they shouldn't be deleted.--MrIndustry (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a cop out! However, the question is redundant - for exactly the same reason that your question related to Spears is. Since then, List of unreleased Lady Gaga songs and List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger have been deleted, amongst others. So the question is why should this list survive when precedent has been set? WP is an encyclopedia, not a place every piece of fancruft - and nobody has yet explained why this particular is list is generally notable. Oh yes, we have a few wishing to argue that it should be kept, but not one viable, realisable reason why it should be kept as a separate article. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that LDR's List of unreleased song shouldn't be deleted because those songs are very notable for her career. She still performs some of them and also plans to release some of them. That is why the page is notable and shouldn't be deleted. Very few people know about Lady Gaga's or Nicole Sherzinger's unreleased songs while LDR's unreleased songs are gaining more and more popularity. I for one, have never heard of any other artist's unreleased songs. teammathi 20:34, 6 August 2012 (CET)

It's not a cop out when your questions are redundant. Why can no one answer my question on why List of unreleased Britney Spears songs is a featured page? Her unreleased songs aren't even notable. Lana Del Rey's unreleased songs show her past career and various personas. The list COULD be included in List of Lana Del Rey songs but the section is far too detailed to be included. She has hundreds of unreleased songs. I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. The page is obviously very active.--MrIndustry (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think List of unreleased Britney Spears songs should be a featured article since there is hardly any text but that's a different topic. teammathi 22:00, 6 August 2012 (CET)

Merge. Now that List of Lana Del Rey songs has been created, whose title does not distinquish between released and unreleased songs I can see no reason why "unreleased" should continue to exist as a separate article. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can change the title if that's a problem. I just called it "List of Lana Del Rey songs" because that was the title requested. Every artist that has a "List of unreleased songs" also has a "List of songs". That's just what it's called here. I have never seen a "List of released songs". Also, I don't think the articles should be merged since the "List of unreleased songs" ist quite long and needs it's own page. teammathi 21:31, 6 August 2012 (CET)

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) 04:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a split off from Hydraulic fracturing, material doesn't really warrant its own article, but seems to be too long to merge into the main article. Most of this is either covered in Hydraulic fracturing, or Radioactive tracers, or the Radionuclides article. BarkingFish 02:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article based on the fact that Wikipedia is missing information on this aspect of hydraulic fracturing, and yet the main article does not warrant this level of detail on the topic. This article is similar in purpose to the article List of additives for hydraulic fracturing. It is information people would likely want to know, but you wouldn't want that level of detail in the main article. There is a link to it instead. I also wrote it because it was information I looked for on Wikipedia almost a year ago - and it wasn't there yet. There is more information to add - regulations, specifics about use, etc. Smm201`0 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping it, for the reasons given by Smm201´0. Sindinero (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on lucid description by User:SMM201`0. --Lquilter (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A very good and detailed article, delete is a last resort when failing all other guidelines. While it cannot be merged directly, there is plenty of reliable sources, prolonged coverage and detail that this article covers which cannot be reasonably merged to the main topic. Such pages may be summarized in brief on the main article with a link for the more detailed, as this topic is very broad and so is this article's subject is also broad in comparison to reports and singular radionuclide findings done by industry and government level reports. It condenses obscure esoteric reports into something more concrete for the interested reader and does so without technical jargon. This supporting article is important to the fracking topic and thus it is important to Wikipedia's scope of coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was insisted that the main article is Hydraulic fracturing. While it is true that Hydraulic fracturing is the umbrella article for all hydraulic fracturing topics, the main article in this case is Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Beagel (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. The topic probably deserves its own article (although there may be discussion what is the best title for it). However, at its current stage there is potential issues of WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAP and WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main article is hydraulic fracturing because the focus of this article is additional information and detail about the identities and nature of the specific radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing in general. The article also includes some information about the health impact and regulation of the various radionuclides (not just the environmental impact). This information helps to provide a complete picture. This discussion problem is more appropriate for the article's talk page however. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete No plausible claim of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagles F.C.[edit]

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

Not notable, no refs, with common name I was unable to find any refs on either GHits or GNews, even with Iraq and Iraqi as modifers. Originally created at AfC but declined as unreferenced, then moved to article space by creator. CSD A7 removed 3x by creator and IP. GregJackP Boomer! 02:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 05:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - there's no credible claim to notability, no sources, no media coverage, and not even a mention of what league they play in. Also, how were they able to win the 2011 Sharjah Cup when they were founded in 2012? ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 08:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, could well be a hoax as well but unsure. Giant Snowman 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable football club as they have not played in a FPL or notable cup Seasider91 (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Charles Richardson[edit]

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

I have found zero third-party sources to confirm this biography. The only link I could find that wasn't a business directory was this irrelevant obituary for another individual with the same name SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:37, 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, BusterD (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only seems to be referenced by the Chi Omega-related sources, which only identify him as one of the founders. This doesn't seem to be sufficient for notability. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability.--BMWcomputer (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no reliable sources. There aren't any sources to prove if he was a more noteworthy person in his time. --Artene50 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Morgan[edit]

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

Celebrity stylist. Questionable notability per WP:BIO. The sources in the article are mostly linked to her own website (and insofar as they purport to be copies of third-party coverage, the links don't work). Google News finds only a few passing mentions. Sandstein 06:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 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, BusterD (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail using WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENT and WP:Artist. "Celebrity stylist" is far from a precise term, anyone can claim to be one. A passing reference in NY Daily News is the closest thing to coverage here. Claims about "top 50 stylist" from WWD is associated with a broken link to the subject's own website and searching WWD.com shows no references to Mia Morgan. PantsB (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On balance, the arguments of the Delete voters are stronger. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer (sports)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Rationale was "Unreferenced article on an unnotable concept in sports. Basically states that sometimes teams score straight after the other one does." Wikipedia is not a dictionary/indiscriminate collection of information. One source is a forum, the other is a few sentences of definition. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term is extremely widely used in sportscasting, and is used pretty much every day by sportscasters if you watch reports on the previous day's sporting events. The length of this article by far exceeds that of a dictionary entry, so it goes beyond being a dicdef. More than 20 articles link to this page, and there would be red links should this article be deleted. Hellno2 (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article (you even say it's about a "term") consists of a dicdef, then the def put into the context of two sports. If deleted, I will remove all those links personally. Best, Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per my original proposed deletion rationale. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is not a dicdef, but an entire concept. As you can see here, you can find thousands of books in which it is mentioned, looking under the redirect, "unanswered points." The way the article written, it is not written as a dictionary entry, but as one you would find in an encyclopedia. A dictionary would not describe how it is applied in different sports; an encyclopedia would. Dew Kane (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Dew Kane, I'm not going to bother looking through all 2190 uses in the search you linked, but all of the first results--except for one already used as a source--simply used the term. Per WP:VRS and the policies it links to, sources must significantly describe the topic for them to be good references. Just using it in a sentence means nothing. Furthermore, those paragraphs on context in the two sports might be better if they were referenced; if I were to completely remove them, as anyone would be justified in doing, would the article be a dicdef then? Instead, we have one badly sourced paragraph and two sections of original research. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary defintion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added. They pretty much get down to the point and further explain the concept beyond a dictionary entry for each sport listed. Stedrick (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot see the first new source, but the second only uses the phrase "unanswered points" and does absolutely nothing to explain it beyond that. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the issue has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (notable) and there is significantly more to say about the topic than just defining it. Issues included or worth including are strategies to achieve answers, the psychological effects of momentum and strategies to avoid unanswered points, and wider definitions of time intervals for points to be defined as answered. So there is lots more to write about than just the definition. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is all of this documented outwith Wikipedia? Please point to it. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the Google books which are linked in the article you will see the non-trivial coverage I am referring to. Both of these go into further detail about strategies concerning answers and unanswered points than does the current coverage in the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I won't, because that one book (It is just one book, cited twice over and badly, to the same page even.) doesn't document anything like what you talk about above. So I ask again. Where is all of this that you talk about documented outwith Wikipedia? Please point to it. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources offered or that I can find treat this as a general concept across sport rather than just use forms of the word "answer" in a sporting context. Anything in the available sources about strategy is just about particular sports, indicating that we should cover such such strategy in the relevant articles about those sports rather than synthesise this into a general article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual terms commonly used are "answered points" or "unanswered points." It is obviously impossible to used both as the title. But when a team scores following the opponent's score, it is called "answering." Hellno2 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But can you find any sources that discuss "answered points" and/or "unanswered points" as a general concept, rather than just use those phrases in discussion of particular sports? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - … or that document "answering". Point to sources outwith Wikipedia that document this. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 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, Electric Catfish 00:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really just a dictionary definition for the term "unanswered points", and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Putting the word in the positive as Answer (sports) is an awkward way to phrase it, sort of like in Jack Winter's story "How I Met My Wife". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's mainly a dictionary definition. The concept that in many sports it's possible to score points after someone's scored against you is not really all that surprising, and it doesn't deserve its own article. The section on basketball is particularly unfocused. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be an article on this. It is mentioned in thousands of newspapers and many wikipedia articles too. People want to know what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.220.32.202 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking up the meanings of words and phrases is done by using a dictionary. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 2 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upiq[edit]

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

At first glance this looks like a nice article, but despite the fact it is not a stub, I think it fails WP:COMPANY, badly. There is nothing in the article to suggest this 17-person company is notable other than a generic MSNBC ref about the industry (not the company), all refs are from self-published or data mining sites (LinkedIn, Alexa, Trakik, TechCrunch). On a further note, considering how well the article is written with regards to our MoS, Travelgurus (talk · contribs) may be a sock of a more experienced Wikipedian, with implaction for possible CoI (this looks like an article that could have been written for a commission). Now, personally I don't have problems with people writing for commission - provided they follow proper procedures, disclosing CoI, and creating notable articles. This doesn't seem to be the case. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most references are not from self-published sites like LinkedIn. This article has lot of independent references as the ones listed here:

How to get flights with convenience
Flight tickets for your journeys
How to compare airline tickets

Furthermore, references from sites like Alexa, BuiltWith, Appdata.com, TechCrunch, Trakik.com, Crunchbase are not self-published sites and they are widely used on Wikipedia to provide accurate data about WP:COMPANY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelgurus (talk • contribs) 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved from talk page (misplaced edit) NtheP (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - The article about Upiq is a well written article about a notable WP:COMPANY with a lot of independent references and with lot of links from and to other notable travel search aggregators on Wikipedia. There is no reason to delete this informative, neutral and well-referenced article. 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelgurus (talk • contribs)

Above comment added by the article's author --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject of article does not appear to have enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources to warrant notability per WP:GNG. Primary editor can wish to userfy article if it is believe that the subject falls under WP:TOOSOON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. The references are mostly the company profile entries in directories, self-published material or otherwise unreliable sources lacking recognition and editorial oversight. Furthermore, this business is just one of many, indistinguishable among others. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP: WEBCONTENT. Electric Catfish 00:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be important, be it an article about web content, online application or whatever of a kind. But this article is about company instead, so the questions of whether it meets WP:WEB, WP:BLP and WP:NSPORT are irrelevant. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:10, 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 redirect to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic (Nicki Minaj song)[edit]

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

This is a track on an album by Nicki Minaj and it has been announced, in some fairly unreliable sources that it will be released as a single in September 2012. The 'review' quotes are generally brief mentions or reviews of the album, rather than singling out a particular track. In my view it doesn't get anywhere near meeting WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. We don't want a situation where every unreleased track on every album has a Wikipedia article! At best this article should be resubmitted when the single has been released and it has received in-depth coverage in its own right. Sionk (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, the song's parent album. I agree with Sionk that there's a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources for this song; the Popdust song review is the best of the current bunch, but I'm unable to find additional coverage beyond mentions within album reviews (although the paragraph in Billboard is a decent length, too). Reaching #199 on a singles chart is not enough in my view to tip the scales. If this is indeed Minaj's next single, then more coverage and chart entries will almost surely follow...redirecting seems reasonable until the song more clearly satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The original content will remain so if it charts or becomes a big hit it's trivial to go back to the previous version. But there's a real proliferation of individual song articles lately about songs that are upcoming or otherwise untested, and not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is retained, it should certainly have a tag that says "Not to be confused with Automatic_(Pointer_Sisters_song) - and I have already pointed that out on the talk page of this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that now, although it's a disambiguated page title, I don't know how someone's going to accidentally navigate there while wanting a Pointer Sisters' song. Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Despite repeated searching I can find no evidence of this tracks release, both artists are about to release other songs... Nicki Minaj Reveals New Song 'Masquerade' & Misha 'Do You Think Of Me', nor is the any evidence they have worked in the studio together. Though Minaj was supposed to have had a top secret trip to a recording studio in Dallas this week http://video.lycos.com/news/view/nicki-minaj-has-secret-recording-session-15073/ so who knows, its just not fact atm....Zoebuggie☺whispers 14:06, 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.

^ http://www.nme.com/news/lana-del-rey/64117
^ http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/77282/LISTEN-Unheard-Lana-Del-Rey-Album-Leaks-Online-
^ http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a384853/lana-del-reys-may-jailer-sirens-album-leaks-in-full.html
^ http://popcrush.com/lana-del-rey-never-let-me-go/
^ http://www.clashmusic.com/news/lana-del-rey-track-leaks
^ http://www.thestrut.com/2012/05/31/lana-del-reys-first-album-sirens-leaks/
^ http://ryanseacrest.com/2012/01/09/new-lana-del-rey-track-national-anthem-leaked-audio/
^ http://www.hardcandymusic.com/2012/05/unreleased-lana-del-rey-tracks-continue-to-leak.html
^ http://popcrush.com/lana-del-rey-ride-die-demo-snippet/
^ http://www.ripitup.com.au/article/5742
^ http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2012/06/29/aap-rocky-speaks-on-leaked-track-w-lana-del-rey/
^ http://www.wearepopslags.com/some-lana-del-rey-demos-leak-ride-or-die-bitch-lift-your-eyes/
^ http://www.wackymusiccrazy.org/2012/04/music-leak-lana-del-rey-life-your-eyes.html
^ http://www.wackymusiccrazy.org/2012/03/music-leak-lana-del-rey-match-made-in.html
^ http://www.prefixmag.com/news/hear-unreleased-lana-del-rey-track-never-let-me-go/65545/

[1] ttp://www.ulcnetwork.com/outreach-2

[2] ttp://www.ulcnetwork.com/apps/blog/show/11825124-universal-life-church-walmart-we-offer-free-shopping-for-shutins

[3] ttp://olelo.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=30&clip_id=25595

[4] ttp://www.nme.com/news/lana-del-rey/64117

[5] ttp://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/77282/LISTEN-Unheard-Lana-Del-Rey-Album-Leaks-Online-

[6] ttp://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a384853/lana-del-reys-may-jailer-sirens-album-leaks-in-full.html

[7] ttp://popcrush.com/lana-del-rey-never-let-me-go/

[8] ttp://www.clashmusic.com/news/lana-del-rey-track-leaks

[9] ttp://www.thestrut.com/2012/05/31/lana-del-reys-first-album-sirens-leaks/

[10] ttp://ryanseacrest.com/2012/01/09/new-lana-del-rey-track-national-anthem-leaked-audio/

[11] ttp://www.hardcandymusic.com/2012/05/unreleased-lana-del-rey-tracks-continue-to-leak.html

[12] ttp://popcrush.com/lana-del-rey-ride-die-demo-snippet/

[13] ttp://www.ripitup.com.au/article/5742

[14] ttp://www.2dopeboyz.com/2012/06/29/aap-rocky-speaks-on-leaked-track-w-lana-del-rey/

[15] ttp://www.wearepopslags.com/some-lana-del-rey-demos-leak-ride-or-die-bitch-lift-your-eyes/

[16] ttp://www.wackymusiccrazy.org/2012/04/music-leak-lana-del-rey-life-your-eyes.html

[17] ttp://www.wackymusiccrazy.org/2012/03/music-leak-lana-del-rey-match-made-in.html

[18] ttp://www.prefixmag.com/news/hear-unreleased-lana-del-rey-track-never-let-me-go/65545/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]