Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 February 2 March >

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Ballet[edit]

Anaheim Ballet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be cited from local sources, and also fails to meet WP:NN. The article doesn't show anything to indicate that the company is notable. Jab843 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A notable dance group, plenty of coverage in reliable sources available at GNews[1] and (not that it's required) not all of that coverage is local to Orange County, either. e.g. [2][3][4][5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- They have an international reputation, I don't even follow ballet and I've heard of them in Canada. There aren't that many professional ballet companies, and they are one prominent one. The students from the ballet school that they run compete in national USA competitions. They perform regionally in California, Nevada, Arizona, and collaborate with international performers like Cirque du Soleil. Former members have gone on to work for international ballet groups that tour worldwide. They've been in existence for over 25 years under two names. I think the issue here is that it's an artsy topic, so its falling through the cracks of WP's notability criteria, which strangely enough, seem to have allowed every 4th rate Science Fiction author in the world to get a biography here. We don't have notability criteria specifically for performing arts/theatre companies, although there is Wikipedia:Notability (music) for guidance...OttawaAC (talk) 20:39, 6 March 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. Swarm X 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone Barristers[edit]

Cornerstone Barristers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Nothing on Google News, and Google only returns primary sources and press releases. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete See below - I cannot find anything which would suggest notability. As far as I can tell, they are a run-of-the-mill legal firm, without need for a Wikipedia entry. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I couldn't find any reliable third-party sources. The references in the article seem to be just directory listings, and the book in the "further reading" section was written by a long-standing member of the organization. There's not enough here to pass WP:ORG, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • most of the news is reported on the official gov website bailii.org under the barristers name, not the name of chambers.
  • added some of the notable cases with links to gov websites - Supreme Court, Court of Appeal etc
  • This is one of the oldest sets in London, with many judges, law lords and QC's as members working on some of the highest profile cases eg Bloody Sunday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2012
    Hello there, and thanks for adding the material to the article. Unfortunately, I think you may be under a misapprehension as to the nature of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The things you mention here - notable cases, age of the organisation, respected barristers - are all reasons that writers outside Wikipedia might write about Cornerstone, but I'm afraid Wikipedia is relatively impervious to such factors. Instead, what you really need to show is that the organisation has been written about in multiple reliable sources that are independent of Cornerstone Barristers themselves. Think newspaper articles, books, and articles in academic journals for the kind of material you should be looking for. If you want to see the detailed guidelines, you can find them here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your direction. I have added a few third party publications all referencing barristers at chambers. There are many many more and I am happy to add them if this is the right content. Barristers here contribute greatly to UK law and it is important work, so I would like that represented, if it fits. Thanks for you feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. Relisting so that the sources added by 195.99.173.211 might be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've had a look through the sources that the IP added. A good number of them were primary sources, either from Cornerstone themselves or from legal documents. Of the secondary sources that were included, none of them seem to discuss the actual Cornerstone organization. Rather, they discuss cases that Cornerstone has been involved with or barristers who are Cornerstone members. This is not good enough to prove notability on Wikipedia, in my opinion, because notability is not inherited. I think that rather than having a stand-alone article about Cornerstone, it may be more appropriate to mention them in the biographies of Cornerstone barristers that already have a Wikipedia article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to aboveThe nature of barrister's chambers is that they are a collection of self employed advocates that practice under an umbrella organsiation. I can certainly see that each person could have their own record and each person would have enough cases (secondary sources) of merit to warrant inclusion. I looked at what other organisations had done and endeavoured to replicate.
Other barrister's chambers on Wikipedia

If this record is allowed then I will add more case references for barristers practicing ar Cornerstone Barristers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added more secondary sources; publications, news stories and cases. What do you/we have to do to complete this process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.173.211 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep It's not to the chambers' credit that the geolocate on the ip above identifies from the chambers of one of the barristers at Cornerstone (and a QC, at that). However, I'm somewhat sympathetic, seeing this association has extreme durability (since 1860's, that's not run-of-the-mill). Based on the flash quotes on the chambers' website (usually from directory "Chambers and Partners"), I suspect IRS could be found. I'm seeing this, which is from C&P and lauds the firm. This press release demonstrates the search problem: the association has just been rebranded as Cornerstone in December 2011. [http://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/index.php/careers/barristers-directory/2-3-grays-inn-square-pupillage/ This blocked link] seems to corroborate the assertion of the chambers' seniority and high regard. Here's a news article from 2006 which meets IRS and asserts chambers' notability under the old brand, which happens to be the address ("2-3 Gray's Inn Square"). Here's another. Based on this search, I'm satisfied about NOTE and V. The page needs serious cleanup. BusterD (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question. I had actually seen those sources from The Lawyer before, when I searched for sources under the old name after the second relisting. However, I didn't give them much weight as it looks like The Lawyer is a trade magazine, and it has been my understanding that articles in trade magazines are only limited proof of notability. (From WP:CORPDEPTH: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.") Would you characterize The Lawyer as a more important source than other trade magazines, or are you basing your "keep" recommendation more on Cornerstone's general reputation? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep - BusterD's sources seem to establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - large number of QCs for the size of the firm. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Leviste[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leandro Leviste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An IP relisted an AFD from 2010 which was closed as "speedy delete". This person does not seem to have sufficient standalone notability — just routine coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly promotional. Not enough indication, besides WP:INHERIT, why Leviste is notable. CityOfSilver 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again. Not notable. And please knock off the tag removal and blanking of old AFD discussions. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 4 March 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hail reports[edit]

Hail reports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am sure the author was well meaning, but this is an essay, and specifically wp:not what Wikipedia is meant for. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This would make nice info as a blog post or something, but is not a topic or an article. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy delete (G11). Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really fits the criteria for G11, since it isn't an advert, it's more of an essay, but we will see. I would have submitted for CSD had their been a category that it cleanly fit into. They usually won't speedy an essay because many times, the subject matter can be salvaged and put into a different format. I don't think this is one of those times, however. It looks kind of like a http://simple.wikipedia.org article. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete but as A10 as a duplicate of Hail rather than spam. Safiel (talk) 01:40, 2 March 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  21:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo Awards[edit]

Galileo Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A couple of blog posts don't establish notability, I'm afraid.
I'd also add that, while assuming good faith, creation of this article seems like a backhanded attempt to overturn this AfD on Oliviu Crâznic. At that discussion, one of the article creator's main contentions in favor of keeping was that Crâznic had won something called the Galileo Awards, which nobody had heard of. By creating an article on the awards and pretending they're notable, restoring the Crâznic article becomes more plausible. Let's not fall for the trick, if this is what is happening. And even if it isn't, the point is that the awards lack any kind of meaningful coverage in independent sources - Biruitorul Talk 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No suitable coverage to establish wp:notability. Basically 2 listing type entries. RW notability looks likely. Selected by readers of one magazine. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as circular referencing. No third-party notability is discernible. Dahn (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugify[edit]

Bugify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not indicate notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of wp:notability. The only "reference" is the website of the people selling the product. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is the record of poor sources in the wild. Even blogs don't mention it, just a couple of questions on forums. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - poorly referenced; created by an SPA as potentially spam/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stylianos Theoklitou-Panagiotou[edit]

Stylianos Theoklitou-Panagiotou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Athlete who has competed only at the amateur level. No indications of meeting WP:ATH. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of wp:notability. RW notability looks highly unlikely. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infearmation[edit]

Infearmation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources. It's a slang term and exists, see Infearmation entry at Dictionaryslang.com for an example, but not finding significant coverage in RS. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus for deletion. This makes attribution for two paragraphs or so now merged to Apple media events problematic, but this does not prevent deletion; instead, the two paragraphs can be deleted or rewritten by any editor who considers that this lack of attribution is in fact a problem.  Sandstein  21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 7 Apple Media Event[edit]

March 7 Apple Media Event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This corporate product-promotion event, possibly for the third iteration of the iPad, is in itself not notable. The iPad 3 will deserve its own article, the WP:ROUTINE event announcing it deserves a sentence or two at that article, not its own article. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this event will not have lasting WP:EFFECT. If something earth-shaking were to happen at this event, an article can be created at that time, the routine marketing hype leading up to it doesn't make this event meet Wikipedia event notability standards. Note that Wikipedia does not even have a separate article for the FIRST release of the iPad. Zad68 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- as per nom, if something huge happens on March 7 then it can be kept. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should stay for now and if it becomes not notable it can get deleted. Hghyux (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not notable now. Something that's notable wouldn't become not-notable, I don't think you are understanding the Wikipedia notability policy correctly. Zad68 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles can be created for the product or products announced at the event. There should not be an article for the event itself, which will completely lose its notability the minute it ends. -- GSK (t ● c) 02:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seriously? There aren't even articles for individual MacWorld events. --SubSeven (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is the event has already attracted large amounts of international press coverage (e.g [6], [7]) from the highest profile reliable sources and therefore clearly meets WP:GNG by a huge margin.
  • Given we have articles on typical secondary schools, and plenty of other things which don't attract anywhere near the level of attention that this topic does so I don't see why anyone thinks its appropriate to delete.
  • Additionally having more than a sentence or two in iPad would excessive so I think a new article is needed for this information. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Retracting per bold solution to have a separate article on all Apple media events which is a much more sensible way to handle this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...meet kettle.  :) Zad68 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you did there, and I giggled. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately your comparison isn't exactly entirely legitimate. You mentioned one or two articles (MacWorld events), and I mentioned a whole category of articles (secondary schools) - its a bit different really. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're aware that literally every time Apple announces a media event the press goes absolutely apeshit, right? Are you arguing that we should have articles on every single Apple media event? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's a problem why exactly? Maybe it just means that all Apple events are notable enough to have an article about them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, 100% of those media events stopped being notable the moment the event took place. This is because it wasn't the media event that was notable in the first place, it was the product that was anticipated and then announced. I mean, seriously, what content will this article have in it beyond what's already there? And isn't what's already there basically "On March 7, Apple is launching the iPad 3, and here are all of these things that the world did in response to the imminent iPad 3." Second, WP:NOTNEWS. Third, are we really -- I mean, really? -- arguing that every Apple press event ever now has a reason to exist as a separate article? And yes, point 3 is basically "seriously?" Sorry to be flip. But the fundamental issue here is that the media event itself is basically non-notable, or at least immediately stops being notable once the product the event is about has been launched. You're not going to see people still talking about that awesome March 7 Apple Media Event 7 days after the event, let alone 6 months, or 12 months. Just like, you know, every single Apple Media Event, all those events your argument would seem to support having an article about. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And which exact part of WP:NOT means that this article can't exist? As per WP:NOT#NEWS it meets point 1, as its not a primary source, point 2, is about WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, both of which this article meets, and certainly everyone here agrees it meets the former. Neither points 3 or 4 are relevant to this article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the event has already had a massive amount of media coverage so far.--JOJ Hutton 20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're aware that literally every time Apple announces a media event the press goes absolutely apeshit, right? Are you arguing that we should have articles on every single Apple media event? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. It's likely just a product announcement and would be relegated to a single sentence on the iPad 3 page. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that its quite a bit more than a single sentence now... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, and none of those sentences would likely even show up on the iPad 3 page. A whole subsection on how the financial markets reacted to the imminent iPad 3? And, you know, isn't that related to the iPad 3 and not this media event? The financial markets aren't responding to the fact of a media event, they're responding to the fact of the iPad 3. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the content isn't appropriate for iPad 3 then it needs covering somewhere else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially per Ginsengbomb. This is a straightforward violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Meeting GNG is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for inclusion. T. Canens (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per WP:EVENT "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." - well it has widespread impact, as its announcing a product that is extremely likely to sell well. Its very widely covered by diverse sources, as can be seen from the sources in iPad for it and the article itself.
    • "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." - well yes, as its going to result in a product being announced that is highly likely to sell tens of millions of items each quarter. "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." - yes its being released worldwide. "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." - yes people are writing news stories about the event itself. "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." - certainly in the tech media the event has been covered for months and I'm sure there will be significant worldwide coverage up to the point where the new iPad goes on sale. "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." - well that's pretty obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are still confusing the iPad 3 product itself (notable) with the launch-day activities of the product (not notable) (this is if the March 7 launch is indeed even for the iPad 3, still speculation at this point). Here is the test: The iPad 3 will still sell millions even if the March 7 advertising event never happens. Zad68 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's your conjecture. To take the example from WP:EFFECT you could certainly argue that the Murder of Adam Walsh didn't directly lead to Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and that that would have happened anyway (though had a different name obviously).
        • Additionally given this event clearly meets the WP:GNG I'm not really clear on how you can claim that it isn't notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Conjecture, exactly. So how can you claim that March 7 Apple Media event is a "precedent or catalyst for something else", or has had "significant impact over a wide region", when it hasn't even happened yet? --SubSeven (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The precedent or catalyst is that it will lead to an Apple product being announced, which will either succeed or fail, either way it will be a highly notable from the worlds most valuable corporation, as will its initial unveiling. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say above as well, WP:GNG does not guarantee anything, and this is particularly true when it comes to articles about events. That is why we have WP:EVENT to help us sort things out. As for your above interpretation of WP:EVENT, Zad68 has made the salient point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your Adam Walsh analogy is that this corporate advertising event is not causing the creation, production and distribution of the iPad3 (again we are speculating what the event is about). The event of the Adam Walsh murder set into motion a series of actions that caused the law to happen. Getting to the heart of the matter, Does the March 7 marketing event meet the Wikipedia standards for notability regarding events? No, it fails for the reasons outlined by myself and others here. There is no reason at this time to think the event will have any lasting effect. If it does we can create the article at that time. Zad68 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how you can claim that this doesn't meet WP:EVENT - I've gone through and checked every point, all you guys have done is made a bunch of blind assertions that I'm wrong.
  • I also don't see why it being a "corporate event" is relevant. We all live in a capitalist world right? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." - well yes, as its going to result in a product being announced that is highly likely to sell tens of millions of items each quarter.
Sounds like conjecture. I'll be impressed if you can illustrate the event as being a catalyst for something when it hasn't even happened yet. If things happen in the future, as you predict, you will still need to find a source that connects the success of the new iPad directly with this event.
"Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." - yes its being released worldwide.
What's being released worldwide? The event, or the new iPad? This is still conjecture, not only in regards to what the event will be unveiling, but also in regards to the impact.
"Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." - certainly in the tech media the event has been covered for months and I'm sure there will be significant worldwide coverage up to the point where the new iPad goes on sale.
The event has been covered for one week. --SubSeven (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the first point, the example given in the guideline is hardly a massively strong point, the law that the event was a "catalyst" for may have shared a name but the law was passed 25 years after the incident. It sounds to me like the name was essentially chosen as a PR move. The example given in the guideline is far more in line with my interpretation of events than yours. Your idea of what the policy says is more in line with the collapse of Enron leading to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or the collapse of the Berlin Wall leading to the fall of Communism in Europe. But those aren't given as examples.
With regards to whether the event will lead to the iPad 3, yeah we don't know, but its an Apple event and Apple products are generally highly notable - even if they fail. We know that something will be announced as otherwise they wouldn't have invited the media.
With regards to the event coverage time a week is a pretty long time to cover something in the media. Even an event like the Oscars doesn't really attract that much coverage, the nominations are covered, and then the results, all in all its about the same level of coverage as an Apple event.
The whole point of WP:EVENT is to stop things like there being a stub article created about every single match in the premiership - all of which will have content in reliable sources talking about them and so meet the WP:GNG but almost all of those matches will attract little more than a write up of the game. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to iPad 3. An article about an event is not encyclopedic, especially when its just about a press conference. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its not really just a press conference. Most press conferences don't get worldwide media coverage about the press invitation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please describe what lasting effect this event has, as described by reliable secondary sources. Be specific. Note that you will need to be making a case for a lasting effect felt for an event that has not happened yet, for an unknown product. Be sure not to confuse the product with the product launch. Thanks. Zad68 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It gets media attention because the iPad 3 is to be released. So iPad 3 is what creates public interest, not the press conference. Its like when a new car is being released, the car maker has a press conference about the car, but you wouldn't see Wikipedia create an article about the press conference and not the product. That would make no sense, as with this article. So either delete, or rename to iPad 3 and make the press conference a subsection. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a new car is released generally there isn't worldwide media interest in the invitation. Additionally the event doesn't generally get live coverage around the internet - which happens for Apple events. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*(edit conflict)Speedy delete - Most of this seems to be a DIRECT copy/paste of my userspace draft which was created several hours before this article and rejected at AfC per WP:NOT. As such it won't survive in mainspace with that copy/paste move and should be speedily deleted as a duplicate page. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Due to recent events I am changing my !vote. See below Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the person who made that decision at WP:AfC hasn't gone and read WP:NOT recently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Also note that the first revision of the article is almost EXACTLY the same as this revision of my userspace draft. I did not receive any notice of this until this AfD came up on the iPad talk page Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you save a draft, page, or any edit you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.--JOJ Hutton 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does CSD A10 exist if that is the case? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::Apparantly CSD A10 does not apply in this case. Guess I'll just have to wait for this article to be deleted here... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Barts1a: I believe the user did that in good faith, and not as intended piracy as you call it. Besides, that is a discussion belonging in user talk pages. Regarding this article, its probably gonna be deleted, as hardly any event gets an article unless its E3 or something unexpected happens. So, either rename, or delete. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Barts1a: I did do it in good faith. Please don't leave bogus warnings on my talk page about "article piracy" Hghyux (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Haven't seen a crystalball news article like this before.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article of whatever the media event turns out to be, whether that is the iPad 3 or something else. By the time this AfD is scheduled to close, the event will have taken place and interest will have turned from the event to whatever the actual subject of the media event was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Metropolitan90, seems the sensible idea. Pol430 talk to me 09:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one year (or less) from now no-one will give a damn about this article. The products/services that Apple announce will have their own articles or sections in existing articles. There is no need for an article about the event itself. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which existing article? And with regards to "not giving a damn" that applies to lots and lots of articles we write about events and really lots of articles in general, who gives a damn about Børgen in Norway, population 594. The whole point of Wikipedia is to enable significantly more minor topics to gain coverage - remember WP:NOTPAPER. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete procedurally, as a copyvio of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/March 7 2012 Apple media event. No attribution present in the article to the originator of the work, no link to the original work - a blatant (and so far, unapologetic) violation of CC-BY-SA. This !vote is neutral as far as the article's other merits, and may be considered void if attribution is restored to the article's history. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::I would fully support a history merge. Although I am still rather peeved that proper process was so blatantly ignored and it would be confusing to see the AfC template vanish before the review was conducted. Personally I think we should Nuke it, Salt it to prevent a repeat of these events and then move the article into mainspace once the AfC process has concluded properly. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 05:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC) As a histmerge is not possible but as the copyright issues have been address per the comment below I am changing my !vote to Keep. There are plenty of reliable verifiable sources for this event, The speculation is referred to as just that; speculation. As such I see no logical reason to delete it. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: copyright issues have been addressed through use of the {{copied}} template. A history merge is not possible since two separate versions of the article evolved in parallel.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or delete - Honestly, what is there to write in this article? If Apple does end up announcing the iPad 3, the information announced belongs in iPad 3 article, we can possibly list all the media sources that are attending the conference and that's about it, reviews belong in the iPad 3 section, I don't believe anyone would review the conference itself so honestly, what can we possibly add here that's worthwhile for readers that we can't add into the iPad 3 article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is there to write about Børgen, Norway, or all sorts of other topics? Or really the Oscars each year? Not having a massive amount of content is not a really a good reason for deletion, and there are plenty of GA's with only a few paragraphs because that's enough to cover the topic.
    • If people here weren't obsessed about deleting corporate events even when they clearly meet our notability criteria (which is pretty obvious as otherwise why not make an argument about WP:EVENT) we might be able to get somewhere.
    • Maybe we should write a combined article about all Apple's media events together, but one doesn't currently exist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason there's an article for each year's Oscars is to document the winners of the award, the town of Børgen is on a map and according to Wikipedia's policy, it rightfully deserves an article as long as it's source and consist of something. The 3rd point is actually a pretty good point to consider although the notability of the event itself is questionable. People want to know about the product that's being unveiled at the event not the event itself, people couldn't care less if the iPad or iPhone was to be released without an event. In my opinion, details about the event or the event in general belong in the product being unveiled's article or the Apple article. There are numerous mobile and computer conferences held each year and almost none of them have their own yearly article despite having comprehensive media coverage. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it meeting WP:EVENT is questionable. I've been through every point in the guideline and it meets basically all of them and no-one has really managed to counter that point.
        • With regards to you not caring about Apple events, well that's your prerogative, I don't personally care about Børgen, Norway. That you don't like business is fine and not an issue, but it isn't really a good reason to start deleting articles that may interest other people.
        • With regards to mobile and computer conferences maybe if people weren't quite so obsessed about deleting business articles maybe people would start writing about them more often, if those events get lots of coverage there seems no reason not to have an article on them.
        • Given the vast amount of coverage Apple gets for its product launches I'm sure they will be covered in business courses in the years to come as a good way to do business and get large amounts of attention towards your products. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason why technology conference articles are not written is because they are not notable and as a result of not being notable they don't comprise of much content which is impending fate of this article. Press conferences involving billions of dollars are not written because the press conference itself is not the notable, the decision or the content announced during the conference is, the same applies for this event in which the iPad 3 is supposedly being announced hence details about the conference belongs in the "Announcement" section in the iPad 3 article. Apple's business ethics and methods of marketing belongs in an entirely different article, possibly starting in the Apple article and then diverging into it's own article if that is necessary. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • With regards to your assertion about notability which part of WP:GNG and/or WP:EVENT does this event (and E3 and CES etc if you want) fail to meet? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • This article fails to meet the lasting effect criteria, as I was saying before the iPad 3 is notable which as a result makes this event 'notable' hence the details about this event should be included in the iPad 3 article because most if not the entire event will revolve around the iPad 3. I'll reiterate myself: the event itself is not notable, what is being presented, announced, unveiled is notable. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • If by that you mean WP:PERSISTENCE - well you cannot know that as the event has only recently occurred. If you mean WP:EFFECT - well the example given there isn't exactly a particularly strong connection - certainly no more so than the effect of this event being the release of an Apple product.
                • Apple events (and the coverage surrounding Apple's product launches) certainly do lead to Apple's insane first day sales figures, which generate more coverage and a lot of momentum for the product.
                • Certainly Apple events in general do get coverage and analysis afterwards as per WP:PERSISTENCE. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Apple's sale figures are high because in 2011 which is when the article was written, Apple already had a reputation for their smartphone and tablet products. The same can't really be said for the iPhone 1. Saying this article meets WP:EFFECT is like saying Obama's birth should have its own article as the subsequent result of his birth was that he became president and imposed various new laws. And..analytic? That Slashgear article consist of nothing but Microsoft bigotry and Apple fanboiism. Furthermore, in regards to articles about Steve Jobs charisma, this is covered in his own article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't think you really understand my point with regards to sales figures. Apple's products (e.g. the iPad, iPhone etc. etc.) often sell extraordinarily well in the first few hours/days of their availability - this has happened for years and is down to the enormous hype and interest around their product launches and the fans buying the products initially.
                    • With regards to Obama's birth, well that doesn't meet any of the other criteria for WP:EVENT - it didn't exactly get worldwide interest and its highly doubtful that it meets the WP:GNG so its not really directly comparable.
                    • With the slash gear article, well I've added quite a few more other examples as well. And with regards to Job's charisma, if it was all down to that there would be no worldwide media interest in this event as Jobs is no longer alive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I know exactly what you were saying in regards to Apple sales figure, my point is that the iPhone was not as notable when it was first released in 2008 and the initial sales figures reflect that, keep in mind an Apple conference event was held for the iPhone 1 as well. In the following years as the iPhone and the iPad gained recognition so did the media coverage for the event and as the media coverage grew, more people became aware of the release date of the phone hence the reason why Apple devices sell well in the first few days. Time isn't stopping anyone from creating articles, we have articles dating back to prehistorical times, it didn't get worldwide attention because he was just any infant back then but his birth is a 'catalyst' for future events, the Death of John F Kennedy is a clear example of time not being an issue. In regards to your articles, you cited 3 articles and all 3 have been addressed, one of which is a Slashgear article, the two other articles were about Steve Jobs and his charisma, and your point about Steve Jobs being dead doesn't make sense. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you really don't get my point about sales - this sums it up really quite well. The original iPhone releases opening weekend was at the time the biggest consumer electronics launch ever, and they sold 300k phones in the first 2 days or something. Then the launch of the iPhone 3G overtook that by a factor of three. That hype is entirely built up by Apple's events and the press around them.

Yes overall the iPhone has sold better quarter by quarter as time has gone on, but the launches themselves have always been huge.

You're also missing the point about Obama's birth. Yes his birth was a catalyst for his presidency technically, but the event doesn't meet any of our other criteria for notability, and all the relevant content can be easily included in the Obama article as there is so little to say about it due to the lack of coverage at the time about his birth.

Everyone here has already agreed that not all the content about the media event will be appropriate to include in the iPad 3 article - if that wasn't an issue then there would be no good reason to keep this article as a standalone one.

Additionally if I create an overall "Apple media events" article (which seems like the most sensible way to organise the content so that all of it can be included) I will get an AfD with the same points expressing a strong dislike of Apple and business in general with a pretty weak grasp of the relevant guidelines and policy that has been the case in this discussion.

With regards to complaining about the cited articles, I really don't see what your point is, yes they talk mainly about Jobs as he has done the vast majority of Apple product launches, but the formula that they talk about isn't really Jobs specific and is being continued post Jobs - again it would be inappropriate to include this content in the Steve Jobs article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And given how there is so much coverage about the most recent event its actually pretty hard to find people talking about events afterwards. Even though this article exists I suspect I'd get the same anti-business comments if I was to write an article about the launch of Windows 95. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you do understand what 'media coverage' is right, they covered the event, not as comprehensively but they covered the event and hence that is one of reason why the phones sold well, you can't credit everything to the media conference, as Apple already had a reputation in the general computer industry, their invitations were accepted by media networks and was subsequently broadcasted. I addressed one of your points and missed the other, obviously if an article was to be written about his birth, the writers won't limit the article to that exact event, it would consist of information about his childhood but obviously we don't create articles based on that so what is stopping us from adding the content about the announcement into the iPad 3 article where it belongs and the add the remaining content into either the Apple article or Steve Jobs/Tim Cooks article? And why on earth would it be inappropriate to post about Job's legacy and his successor in his own article? I'm pretty sure his approach to announcements and charisma has already been mentioned. Also, I hope you do understand why MacWorld is never used a source, they are obviously bias towards Apple hence the name. Also elaborate on this 'anti-business' thing, you're going on about, you've mentioned it several times but no one seems to have a clue what you're on about. ...We can probably argue about this for months, we really need a 3rd party intervention. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And World War I wasn't entirely caused by the assassination of the Austrian Archduke - it is still a significant event that deserves coverage. Of course the success of the product isn't entirely down to Apple's distinctive media events, but neither is anything else ever - you are trying to imply the guideline is much more prescriptive than it would be applied to for any other kind of event.
        • While obviously some content about Apple's numerous media events deserves to be covered in the Steve Jobs, Tim Cook and the Apple Inc articles there is clearly an overriding theme that I really find difficult to understand why there are so many people who wish to avoid covering in their own article.
        • With regards to Obama's childhood it can be easily covered in his biography, but if there wasn't space to cover it appropriately then we would just split the content out into its own article - that's standard practice as per WP:SUMMARY and its what we do in our article on Isaac Newton for example.
        • My anti-business point is based on the fact that WP:EVENT is being taken with a far stricter line than the examples given in the policy itself, and a far stricter line than similarly notable events like the Superbowl and the Oscars which we regularly write articles about without argument - most of the oppose comments here (e.g. saying that its boring and no-one will be interested in a year) can quite easily be applied to those events as well if you wanted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No that's what you're implying by going over the guideline in great lengths, in fact that's what your entire argument is based on - the notability guidelines. But now you're arguing that the article should be kept on the basis of convenience, our goal here isn't to facilitate the location of information for readers. Also, I thought we went over why Superbowl and Oscar articles are created on a yearly basis. YuMaNuMa Contrib 22:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • re: "we really need a 3rd party intervention" - don't worry, we'll get it in about 4 days when this article is removed by an administrator. Vote is now 14 votes to do away with this article (delete, merge or otherwise eliminate this as a stand-alone article) to 3 votes to keep. Zad68 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I expect the discussion to be closed as per WP:CONSENSUS (a WP:PILLAR) rather than on numbers - Wikipedia doesn't WP:VOTE on things. Given many of the oppose comments here are textbook examples from "arguments to avoid" or "per nom" I would presume that these will be discounted or given significantly less weight by the closing administrator. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As oppose to the many quite laughable reasons to keep? Your probably the only one who has given somewhat valid reasons to keep the article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Last time I checked, citing policy and guidelines like WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT isn't listed in arguments to avoid. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think Barts1a's reasoning is pretty solid actually. And while a relatively small number of people have made points surrounding WP:EVENT most of them have just blindly asserted it and haven't explained their reasoning at all.
            • Even the better arguments asserting that it fails WP:EVENT with some reasoning aren't really particularly strong - its been pretty easy for me to make comparisons to some of the most famous events of all time (e.g. to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) without refutation. If you guys can't refute that level of comparison then your case is exceedingly weak. That is regardless of how many people you get to agree with you based on the apparently standard practice of never considering any corporate event notable enough for an article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Really? Our arguments are weak, you tripped over yourself in the last argument and basically contradicted yourself. Your Archduke argument is simply invalid because both events warrant an article regardless of external factors. Insult our 'case' as much as you want, this article has a pretty slim chance of being kept, not only have you tripped over yourself as previously stated, you don't have the numbers either. YuMaNuMa Contrib 21:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • My argument with the archduke assassination is that I could legitimately apply your criteria (i.e. this event - or any other Apple product launch - is not the whole cause for the thing it catalyses) to the assassination of the Archduke which catalysed World War I.
                • If that argument was actually invalid to the degree required for this article to be worthy of deletion you'd be able to come up with a logical step-by-step argument that clearly shows it isn't a reasonable argument.
                • If this article was worth deleting I'd be forced to compare this event to a Tuvalu election or something - not one of the ten most influential events in all of history. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So what exactly is your point, should the article for the Assassination of Archduke of Austria be created or not, I ask because your not making much sense right now, both World War I and the assassination of a leader deserve an article as both events are historically significant. Yes, his death was one of the catalyses for World War I but as a leader of a major country his assassination deserves an article regardless of whether it caused World War I or not. Comparing the deletion of this article to the Tuvalu election would pretty much constitute WP:ALLORNOTHING which is the argument that Barts1a is making near the end of the page of this discussion. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Are you seriously trying to argue that the assassination of the Archduke isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article in its own right? What articles do you believe meet WP:EVENT?
                    • With regards to Tuvalu elections, I'm not making a comparison to that - it just seems like an event that isn't particularly notable but one which has a Wikipedia article (as well as always being featured on WP:ITN). --

Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

              • If I told you that the sky is blue, would you categorically refute that, too? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't understand what you are trying to say, can you explain it more clearly? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge This is a press conference. By their very nature press conferences get media coverage, that doesn't make them notable. For instance, every single time Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, gives a briefing it is extensively covered in multiple sources. Each and every briefing therefore passes WP:GNG. Should we have an article on every one of those briefings? Of course not. Nor should we have separate articles on every single new product launch. Yes its Apple and super exciting, but the significance isn't the event itself, but the product being launched. Let's use common sense. AniMate 02:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a textbook WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the iPad 3 article (or whatever Apple is gonna name it), when the new tablet is unveiled on March 7. Don't delete just yet. —stay (sic)! 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with no redirect It's the product that's notable, not the event. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. I wish we had articles for all of the Apple product media events in the 1980s. These events announcing products that affect millions and which are covered in countless reliable sources are notable before, during and after they occur. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could arguably have a point regarding one or two of the more watershed announcements in Apple's history. There could conceivably be an article on the event that saw Apple announcing the Macintosh, for example. That has been the subject of enduring, lasting discussion, and the simple fact of the announcement catalyzed a number of other things. But...you cannot possibly say the same thing for the announcements of, say, the Macintosh XL, or the Apple 3Gs...and the same tends to follow for an announcement on the third iteration of the iPad, I should think. And, either way, WP:NOTPAPER is not an argument for inclusion (we "can" include this article, but "should" we?). It actually leads directly to several arguments for deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually cited WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in the original AfD request. I can't understand why Muboshgu would cite it as an argument for keep. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is found at the article Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is policy. Clearly it can only be cited as an argument for NOT including something. Zad68 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Opps my bad, I confused WP:NOTPAPER with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, nevermind! Zad68 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:NOTPAPER? It directly refers you to policies such as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:CRYSTAL. WP:EVENT, etc. which are the issues that need to be hammered out.
If one could simply cite WP:NOTPAPER as a reason to keep anything, then AFD would be a rather pointless process, no? --SubSeven (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikipedia articles that get deleted are of the order of the average premiership football match. Not something like this where you can make a connection with one of the most notable events of all time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"one of the most notable events of all time"? Talk about hyperbole... how could you possibly say that when reliable secondary sources gave the actual event almost no coverage at all (see below)? Zad68 (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at a tailored list of sources you can show all sorts of things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to confuse the PRODUCT and the EVENT. Zad68 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note So, The Event is over now. I pulled 3 articles from the big, major news outlets that covered The Event, from CNN, MSNBC, and WSJ. Here they are, and I have taken note of exactly how much coverage each article gave The Event (and NOT the products):
So really, 3 major news sources, about 1,850 words, and you can only put together maybe one sentence describing "The Event" itself. Does Wikipedia really need a separate, stand-alone article about "The Event?" Zad68 (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously you haven't been looking very hard:
      • Arstechnica
      • Engadget
      • CNet
      • Guardian
      • The Mirror
      • CNN
      • Gizmodo.
      • Wall Street Journal
      • Wired
      • etc. etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You continue to confuse the PRODUCT and the EVENT. Did you actually read through one of those liveblogs? What encyclopedia-worthy content that is not simply a description of the new iPad's specs and capabilities (that will be covered at iPad) is in those live-blogs? Please post it here so we can review it, because I'm not seeing it. Zad68 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suggest we leave it up to the closing administrator. I don't know what you could possibly want to see beyond live coverage of the event.
          • Most coverage about the assassination of the Austrian archduke is going to cover that event's WP:EFFECT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to start up again, but re: "Most coverage about the assassination of the Austrian archduke is going to cover that event's WP:EFFECT"-- Actually very not true! Have you actually read Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria? It's a 'good'-class article, go read it! Zad68 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is live coverage of premiership football matches, which you agree aren't all notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles. In an article called "March 7 Apple Media Event" I'd like to see reliable secondary source cites of encyclopedia-worthy content regarding the EVENT. There isn't enough for a stand-alone article. Agreed, let's wait for closing Admin input. Zad68 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • With this event there has been all the previous coverage, and there is the much wider variety of live coverage from sources than there would be for a typical premiership football match. Additionally the WP:EFFECT i.e. the release of a new product, is far more significant than the result of a single premiership football match. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The horse is well-beaten at this point, neither one of us is making new arguments, wait for Admin close. Zad68 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • New arguments below, the discussion should be relisted not closed(no relist needed, new article can get its own new AfD based on new different arguments in case somebody finds them). This topic is not about one single event, the incredible ammount of coverage shows that topic is more encompassing than one particular conference. We do have articles about sport seasons; we should treat this topic in the same way. Diego (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just adding my voice in here for a delete. Are you kidding me? There's no way media events should have articles -Alex Muller 22:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. And there are only two articles that link to it, from "iPad", and "iPad 3", it doesn't have notability, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --KDesk (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Refocus to include all Apple media events and Keep Preserve content per the above comment that "every time Apple announces a media event the press goes absolutely apeshit". This is not routine ore one isolated event, this is a trend. We should have one article covering this Apple style of press conferences; Apple Inc. advertising could be it, but it's centered on conventional advertising. If this refocus is not done, then Merge to Apple Inc. advertising. We have IPod advertising; there should be a similar article containing everything after it starting from the iPhone. Diego (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This case is similar to what happens in console generations (see the article for the eighth generation). The media provides coverage of a product or category for months; this is carefully sourced, edited and trimmed from undue speculation; and then all that verified and notable content is deleted when the final product is released. We should create a class of articles to document the history of media coverage for first class electronic devices, given that this coverage is a notable topic by itself, one that goes beyond the particular individual events covered by NOTNEWS. Diego (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin I've boldly merged this article into Apple media events, following my own advice above in order to unjam the discussion and preserve this content. I think this article history should be kept to respect the authors licensing and attribution history, and this article turned into a redirect, unless that article is also decided to be deleted. (this bit not needed, they can be made independent). Diego (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin The above bit of boldness certainly seems to run contrary to widespread consensus in this discussion (there continue to be only 3 keep votes in here in opposition to a large number of policy-based delete votes), and my personal opinion is that swooping in and doing this on the 7th day of this discussion is less than helpful. Additionally, this is not a terribly plausible redirect, and now I suspect we get to enjoy yet another 7 day highly contentious AFD around Apple media events. Huzzah! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and following up on that, I overspoke in my comment above, having misunderstood Diego's comments. Self-applied WP:TROUT for being overly hasty in a reply. I'm considering nominating the new article for deletion, but that's an entirely separate matter. My comment on this being an implausible redirect ("March 7 Apple Media Event" is a phrase that really only means anything to people in this utterly absurd AFD) stands, most others do not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my !vote to "Delete and redirect" to show good faith and clarify that I don't really don't endorse this article in its current form. The redirect should be kept for archiving purposes, given that all its content has been reused (the content was valid, but not as a stand-alone notable topic). Given that my bold solution finally didn't involve renaming this article but creating a new one, I didn't felt bound by the unwritten rules to avoid bold edits to discussed articles. Self-trout to myself if this is seen as a problem, I just wanted to help with a creative approach. Diego (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can trout you again if you prefer that. Diego (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're joking right? Because Diego has copied text from March 7 Apple Media Event into the new Apple media events we cannot delete it because we have to maintain the original for attributions sake. He's done a complete and very sneaky end run around the whole AfD process. It's absolute crap. AniMate 23:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is going to close by deleting March 7 Apple Media Event as an article, anyway. Do you have some fetish for redlinking or what? ;-) Diego (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Not news and newspaper links earlier. Notability of the product does not confer notability on the release date, this is just plain silly. An article on this sort of thing serves as nothing more than free PR. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See this source, there is notability for the Apple events themselves. Taht's why I boldly reused the content as the license and the 3rd pillar allow. Diego (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Merge to Apple Media Event. Seems like the best way to handle the content anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory break[edit]

Comment - Well... this is interesting... According to the {{copied}} template "March 7 Apple Media Event now serves to provide attribution for that content in Apple media events and must not be deleted so long as Apple media events exists.". Do we now have to have another AfD discussion for Apple media events to delete that before restarting this discussion? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you're right. We can't delete this one as long as Apple media events is still here. Really this kind of tactic is unbelievable. Good luck to the closer. AniMate 23:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This kind of tactic" is what the WP:PRESERVE editing policy says we should do, try to fix problems. There was a problem with this article and now there's a clear solution for which I'd say there's rough consensus. So, why would you want to restart this discussion again? Diego (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus to either delete this article or possibly redirect it to the ipad 3 article. You've ignored everything said here, and are claiming consensus for a solution only you and maybe some of the keeps want. Those advocating deletion were pretty adamant that these media events weren't notable, but that the products they were advertising were. You've done an end run around that, and placed your brand new article up for rescue, and it hasn't been nominated for deletion. AniMate 00:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is up to the closing Admin to determine, of course; that is only my opinion. Given that this one article is likely to be deleted (in a soft way) I don't see why you seem so disgruntled. The "media events" article has specific sources establishing the notability of the Apple events in general, so the notability rationale is actually different than the one discussed on this AfD. (The rescue list is not necessarily for articles nominated for deletion, it can be used to request article improvements - in particular with respect to sources). I don't see the problem, given that deletion is but the last alternative to try and this can be still redirected to iPad 3, but if you still think that this article should be redlinked, that can be done by recording the authors of this article in the Apple media events talk page. Diego (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I did react to something said here, the comment by Zad68 that "The horse is well-beaten at this point, neither one of us is making new arguments", by providing a new argument and acting on it's suggested course of action. Diego (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having not even slightly considered issues about proper attribution with Diego's interesting maneuver before first slamming and then, uh, de-slamming it (and, given the amazing attribution issues which impacted this discussion earlier, I should have), I'm relieved to know that there may be an alternative option that does not unilaterally undo what is, to me at least, very plain consensus to delete (or redirect to iPad 3 -- or whatever it is that they're calling it :) in this discussion, even if that alternative is "not preferred." Whatever the outcome -- and I hope it can reflect consensus and not reflect an outcome compelled by one editor's late and unilateral action -- I hope this gets closed soon. I don't know that I've ever been more excited to remove an AFD from my watchlist. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(A redirect to iPad 3 was always a valid possibility). I definitely think there's a problem with how article deletions and licensing interact. In a strict sense, every deleted article for which content has been reused elsewhere at Wikipedia should receive the same treatment than this one, since deleting makes the article's history inaccessible. So to ensure that we follow copyright law, every closing admin should review all Wikipedia to assess that no content in the article is stopped from being properly attributed because of a Delete closing. Not good, but why does nobody usually seem to care, and why is everybody reacting as if it was specific to this discussion? This has always been a problem with perma-deletion. Diego (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that customary? To put an article up for rescue immediately after its creation? --SubSeven (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Generally articles are only put up for rescue if they are being considered for deletion. Only one other currently on the list isn't up for deletion but a speedy tag had been placed. AniMate 05:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rescue list is one month old, there's nothing customary about it. We're figuring it out on the fly. I suppose there's a good case not to use it again for "merge and delete" AfDs. In this time it has been used to notify merge discussions. Diego (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Attribution can be done in the manner that was used at Wikipedia talk:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. This is the sort of underhanded sliminess that gives the ARS and those that share its mentality a bad name in this project. Until now I had considered the upcoming ARS RfC a colossal waste of time, but perhaps that needs to be reconsidered in the wake of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
Yup, that attribution style is what I was suggesting. So you would have preferred that, when I discovered this article through the AfD list, I had waited until the discussion was closed and then asked an admin to restore the content so I could create the new article anyway whith nobody looking? Or that my !vote arguments would have delayed closure for another week, since they were new and required further discussion? Diego (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I realized too late that I shouldn't have enrolled the ARS in this discussion for the purpose I wanted it to help, until after the AfD was closed; I should just have created the new article and wait. Every day you learn something. Diego (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does anyone care about deleting this article over making it a redirect to something else? Making Diego wait to create the more general article is definitely WP:BUREAUCRACY for the sake of it. Additionally not having it as a redirect - as there is a sensible target - seems to be just some sort of deletion point scoring exercise which isn't really appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, maybe you should read all of the arguments -- there are a lot of them -- that people made over the course of the past week why it should be deleted. And, I'm sorry, bringing up WP:BUREAUCRACY to defend someone who just undermined a week's worth of consensus building in an AfD by making it nearly impossible to delete the article because of attribution concerns is...really, really funny. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we just use the alternate attribution option then that nullifies the "nearly impossible" aspect, though. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I have to strongly contend that my intervention makes it impossible to delete it, or that a technicality could overturn a week of consensus; this article was always amenable to deletion, if you understand it like "getting rid of unwanted articles" and not "hiding wiki content behind a closed door". If someone can reasonably point to a police or guideline that I broke I'll promise to behave with more care in the future with respect to it. I believe in good faith that, if I ever stepped on somebody's toes, it was only by breaking some unwritten rule or custom that is unrelated to the five pillars or the consensual policies defined with the goal of creating an encyclopedia. If you think that "arriving late to a discussion" means that all policy-based behavior should be paralyzed, you can propose a new rule for early closure of stalled debates so that this can't happen again. Meanwhile I will rest assured that nothing in my behavior was essentially wrong-just a bit extreme on bold side, and feel that at some level AGF was somewhat relaxed in some reactions to my intervention. Diego (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarc: Good. @Diego: it's definitely not my intention to assume bad faith on your part. I assume the opposite, and not just because I'm required to. I assume this because you gave me cookies the other day and they are delicious. I should quit yammering here, anyway; I get rapidly way out of my depth when it starts coming to copyright and attribution concerns. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted A7 (and G11). Peridon (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Fuss[edit]

Zack Fuss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely a CSD candidate, but there is a giant list of sources that are not reliable. Listed for lack of notability, and Wikipedia isn't a resume. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think playing sports, being in a fraternity, and getting a summer job qualify a person for a Wikipedia article... Millermk90 (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The summer job thing is pretty impressive for a college student nowadays, but still. Also, an SPA created the article, likely an autobiography/resume. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source dont look reliable to me, and I dont think just being a college student with a better than average job for your age, makes you notable enough for an encyclopaedia article Aunty-S (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty much qualifies for A7. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 18:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. I have also tagged it for G11 as I consider BLPs written in the style of a resume, CV, or LinkedIn profile to be blatant personal promotion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with G11 CSD is that if someone just removes the parts that may be "promotional", they can recreate it, and we are back here again. A7 is the best way if you are going to speedy it, or my favorite, AFD, so there is a consensus to draw back upon if it gets recreated, making the next speedy, speedier. The only reason I didn't A7 it was because it had a laundry list of references (not reliable) and admins often don't want to CSD articles like that. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:43, 1 March 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 per arguments and PORNBIO Shii (tock) 07:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zsanett Égerházi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Zsanett Égerházi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG; no nontrivial pertinent GNews or GBooks hits; no independent, reliable sourcing indicating notability. Previous AFD, closed as no consensus, should have been closed as delete on its merits, but was marred by socking, including the closing admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ive certainly heard of her, and recognise the face, but most likely out of coincidence. Because she is just your average porn actress and consensus on previous discussions agreed upon deletion, I too agree that this page should be deleted. Aunty-S (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 March 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. There is certainly no consensus to delete this material. There might be consensus to merge, but that's not for AfD Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien (Mirbeau)[edit]

Lucien (Mirbeau) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability, the article contains no references and few links. Information on the subject is sufficiently provided in a separate article, "Dans le ciel". Aunty-S (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete clearly not notable but I admire the Contributors vigour in attempting to keep it alive — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishLad1916 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the one hand, I don't think the character is himself notable enough for a stand-alone article. On that basis, this should likely redirect to Dans le ciel (and note that this is the only character discussed on that page in detail). The language here is far from neutral, as well; it's almost lauditory of the work. That might be an artifact of translation, perhaps? This can be discussed in sufficient detail (and in a more neutral manner) as part of the main article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. A stand alone article is not deserved by the character, as there is little indication of notability, with the page barely shorter than the "Dans le Ciel" article, and all the sources being PDFs. The creator doesnt seem to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, claiming that the significance of the book and artistic quality of the character should alone be reason to give him an article. Aunty-S (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And he'd be right, if the main article were so long that forking part of it into a subarticle (like this one) made sense. Then this would be treated as if it were a section of the main work's article. But that's not the case here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/merge ::: In all fairness when we have articles like List of Pokemon and List of G-Jane characters and List of Power Rangers episodes one does find your remark "The creator doesnt seem to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines" amusing given that we generally accept articles on fictional characters and list cruft which are utter shite. It woulod be double standards, one does not have to look far to find scores of articles on characters and TV episodes on series a lot of us have not heard of. At least this article is analytical. PDF sources do not matter. This character has some critical commentary on it. I think it would be suitable for merging into the main article or a List of Octave Mirbeau characters but the main article is so underdeveloped it should probably be merged.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if necessary as a merge to the article on the book. Major characters in major works of fiction are notable. People write about them specifically, and the cited material in the article proves it. It is highly appropriate for an encyclopedia to go into this detail in literature--we do with many other subjects. Traditional print encyclopedias may not have had space to frequently do this, but the applicable policy here is NOT PAPER--and the GNG. Discussions on soap opera characters usually result in a merge to a list because there is little or no specific third party information, but here there is. The GNG has a limited place, but it does have a place when there's no other reasonable guideline, and no guideline for fiction has ever had consensus. Sure, it could be merged into the article for the book, but as a section of the article, because it's too long for handling as a list, and a section would be possible in this case without disturbing the balance of the article, for the novel has only two main characters of whom this is one. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 7 March 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 - AfD was raised by someone unfamiliar with our procedures. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute Of Engineering and Technology, Nanded[edit]

Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute Of Engineering and Technology, Nanded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this article because there was very little information about it as well as no references, categories, etc. I don't feel that this article, being only one sentence, should be kept.

− GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I think that you can Speedy this; there is already an article for this college at Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology. This article is only a day old and has not meaningful history; there is no content except the name and general location, which is covered in the older article; and it doesn't seem like it would be a useful redirect. See A10.--Hjal (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Musharraf[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bilal Musharraf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm bringing this to AfD because I can't see any reason for it to be kept. He is the son of a former president, and got stopped at an airport because security thought they'd detected TNT in a nappy bag. (The mind boggles...) Otherwise, nothing. I don't reckon that's sufficient, as, unlike certain other leaders' children, he doesn't seem to have been involved in state affairs (wise man...). Peridon (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:I agree he seems to have a pretty ordinary life, no news article on him joining the Pakistani army, or politics. If someone really wants, his name can be mentioned in Pervez Musharraf's wiki page, but there is no content here that requires a separate wiki page.Asifkhanj (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Asifkhanj (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator. Notability is not inherited. A mention in parents' article is enough. General notability is not established by the current claims. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Seems to be a small amount of somewhat suitable coverage. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:INHERIT--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 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 ; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Elderton (ballad writer)[edit]

William Elderton (ballad writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aaron Booth (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ibraham Ahmed[edit]

Ibraham Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see proof that he's notable. He has high ranks, including one from his own organization, but I don't see him meeting WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's not a single independent source in the article that supports any claims of notability. My search also failed to find reliable sources. In fact, the article's only claim to notability seems to be his rank and many previous martial arts discussions have concluded that is not sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search didn't find any independent sources for him. I also don't see that he passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleMail[edit]

SimpleMail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The software doesn't seem to be notable, and the article serves as an advertisement. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no indications of notability (neither in article nor off-site). Interestingly, there is third "SimpleMail" (Firefox extension), which has received some publicity. Still, neither os SimpleMails is notable enough to have a separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of wp:notability. No sources. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 11:29, 4 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Datacenter star audit[edit]

Datacenter star audit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Corporate certification program. Article is entirely referenced to the program's own web site. Searching the web reveals no independent coverage. Seems to be non-notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant spam. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as the page has now been moved to Datacenter Star Audit (with capitalization), the redirect at the lowercase name and the article at the title case name should both be deleted, assuming the result of this discussion is to do so. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep - if references can be found for this, keep it, because it seems to be pretty important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 March 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  21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NNPP[edit]

NNPP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be a notable term. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete basically it's a neologism (WP:NEO) and perhaps a dictionary definition (WP:NOTDICT). Barring the single source given, which very probably was where the term was invented, there seems to be hardly anything but programmers' blogs on the topic, so Notability not established. The concept that poor programmers slow projects down ain't exactly news (how old is Tom DeMarco now?) either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of wp:notability. No indication of existence of the term outside of the writing of the author who created the term. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Alliance for Reformation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Iowa Alliance for Reformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous AfD was based on a very different looking article. The "keep" nominators agreed that it needed a complete rework]. The rework happened but has resulted in an article which makes no claim to notability and provides no evidence thereof. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & WP:ORG. No evidence of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic. There's coverage on the internet, but not in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Northamerica1000. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kapourchal Bandar Anzali F.C.[edit]

Kapourchal Bandar Anzali F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, references have been added but no notability is shown for the club, the references only comment on the league position - and the league is fourth-level and non-professional. Fails WP:GNG. Cloudz679 15:38, 1 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khatam Ardakan F.C.[edit]

Khatam Ardakan F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, author has added references, but these only support the team's appearance in the fourth-level of Iranian football and that they were relegated from that level. No indication that the article meets either the General Notability Guidline or the specific football criteria for inclusion. Cloudz679 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect with LED Film, which at least has a bunch of sources. Shii (tock) 14:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LED-embedded glass[edit]

Previous AfD: [8]

LED-embedded glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability at all, no reliable secondary sources discuss it. Significant coverage by reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. The article creator created the similar articles Dichroic_LEDGlass, LEDFilm and Ledglass. I have no idea how something completely unsourced with no evidence of notability survived the first AfD although it seems there was a lack of responses. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nothing more than promotional guff by a clearly problematic editor who seems hell-bent on spamming his business and products across Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous AfD there were only two votes, both for keep. One person voted keep defending it by WP:GOOGLEHITS which is a bad metric to judge notability since no significant coverage in reliable sources was shown. The other person gave a "same as above" type vote with no further reasoning. None of the commenters mentioned the notability issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by previous closing admin: The deletion requests for this article reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn soup. LED-embedded glass is, like corn soup but obviously to a much lesser extent, something almost inherent to any modern metropolitan resident's daily life, hence there is likely to be lots of Google hits but not many of them useful as encyclopedic citations. That said, Google Books did yield some useful results:
    As the closing admin of last month's AfD, I don't think it's appropriate for me to !vote here, but as an engineer myself I just want to flag up a few things that may be relevant to this discussion that aren't discussed on the article or the previous AfD. Deryck C. 18:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book structural glass and facades makes no mention of led embedded glass (or similar) that I can see.
Materials for architects and builders has a single paragraph in a list of other "specialist" glasses (a small mention of 4 lines in the book).
The popular science magazine doesn't appear to be related to led embedded glass; the leds are shown at the bottom and are not contained within the glass material. They appear to emit light which travels up a waveguide and into the material.
For The howto guide there appears to be some holes made in something like Pyrex then some leds added, not the led embedded glass. As an aside, I have never heard of corn soup which definetly isn't a common product in my country :). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's the same article as the discussed previous AFD, renamed. It probably should get deleted. Looks like one company's version of a common combination of words that is not a real topic. (like "painted cars" or "computers with buttons") But I wasn't sure enough then or now to say "Delete" A North8000 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been unable to find any evidence that this is a single manufacturer's product - see this list of producers, and there are others scattered around the web including some large companies[1], and in any case, as I argued in the previous afd, that is not in itself a ground for deletion since patented products, for example, would often have a single producer. Nor is it a non-notable variant of a product covered in another article and there is an advanced technology behind it. As Deryck Chan points out, it is a common product. Previous disputes as to content have reduced this article to a stub, including removal of references, but it is a proper subject for an article. --AJHingston (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please demonstrate show how the article meets significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required per WP:GNG. This article appears to utterly fail that test. I don't think Deryck showed it is a common product, Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about what can be verified and so far no decent sources appear to exist which is odd for any common product. The only firm mention of it appears to be a four line mention in a specialist textbook, which does not meet the requires of WP:GNG (i.e significant coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a complete loss to know where you are searching. I am getting plenty of evidence from Google searches that glass with embedded leds is widely manufactured, sold and used. That suggests notability to me. With so many companies such as Samsung developing and promoting their own versions it is inevitable that most detailed discussion is from compnies with a commercial interest or people employed by them, but it this were an obscure and little used product that market could not be sustained. There are examples of use here and here, amongst others. They may not be ideal sources for an article about the technology but they are ample evidence of application in different fields. --AJHingston (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This link [9] has only a one line mention Wireless LED lights embedded in the glass. This [10] doesn't talk about led embedded glass from what I see (I'm not positive which section you refer to) but led embedded in perforated panels. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The test is not for just the combination of those two items, but for the notability of it as a topic. For example, if there are articles on "cars", and "trailers" that doesn't necessarily mean that there should be an article on "cars with trailers" even if that combination of words is common in a google search. That's the question here. I don't know the answer. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stand back from this and look at the history of these discussions. There is no doubt that the integration of LEDs with glass (as opposed to glass illuminated by LEDs as a separate component) is something with widespread application, multiple manufacturers and into which a great deal of development money is being poured by firms like Samsung. The actual techniques for doing this vary, and naturally every manufacturer will tend to present theirs as distinctive. There is problem in giving a name to a suitable article, and if we look at the history it is not surprising because articles on specific techniques have been deleted or in this case edited down to a stub, but we are in danger of saying that WP should not cover it at all. It may be that 'embedding' is not the best generic descriptor (I would understand why people might not like it for a lamination process, for example, though I am not sure it is inappropriate). For this reason, to search only on the term 'embedded' or reject references that do not contain it may mislead us. But the title has already changed (again for reasons of the history of the article) and it can change again. As Deryck Chan has pointed out, we should not blind ourselves to the significance of the topic. --AJHingston (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why I have commented rather that recommend "delete" or "keep". I had one other concern which was that 3/4 of the article consisted of details specific-to-one-manufacturer stated as if they were about the topic overall. Somebody just fixed that, taking all of that out which left the article as a stub. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say it is a significant topic but we have a complete lack of reliable sources to say much of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge I finally weighed in. I found yet another pseudo-clone of this article, this one with more references. [[11]].
Also the German version of this article except with lots of references. [[12]]
This stuff is out there, here's some different people making/selling it:
The naming is inconsistent, but I guess that the current name is as good as any. North8000 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are all third rate sources and primary as well. Significant coverage by reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. That you must resort to bad primary sources shows that reliable sources just don't exist. Some of your primary sources don't even appear to be about embedded LEDs: [17]. Do you consider these reliable sources of anything? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We know that there is a problem about sourcing. Sources are being rejected because they are written by people who are employed in the industry, (even if they are describing theory and manufacturing techniques without mentioning a manufacturer), or the information comes from commercial sources making or marketing the product. That will often be the case for manufactured products. To go from there to say that something is therefore not notable for WP however widely it is used seems irrational.--AJHingston (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should note as well that the german wikipedia sources are the references which DShavit added citing himself. (He also cites the english wikipedia). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me, though, that the references that DShavit uses makes to articles written by him are bad in themselves, if one cares to read them. They are about the technology behind the production and quite explicitly say that different manufacturers vary in the process they use. There is no reason to accuse them of being ill-informed since they are prepared for those within the industry; they will presumably not reveal trade secrets in common with most other articles about recent technologies. It brings us back to my point, it is not that there is no evidence as to the use of the product and what it is. The problem is that the people who know about it are the people engaged in the industry. We are not consistent here - we do not say that a new scientific discovery is excluded from WP because the only people who write about it are people in that research field, and the only publishers those selling to that community, and therefore everyone has a conflict of interest, is a primary source, and WP should not touch it unless it is covered on the Discovery Channel (which we hope gets its information from just those sources in the first place) or some other such medium. --AJHingston (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if we only have primary sources for a scientific discovery then we do not create an article on it. We look for discoveries which are discussed by independent secondary sources (these can be peer reviewed articles too). Company websites on the other hand are self-published; we should not base the existence of an article on self-published sources. WP:V mentions company websites as an example of an SPS. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly acceptable to reject unreliable sources (of which half the above aren't since they aren't about the topic) as they do not establish notability. The main problem is that we know LEDs are notable, we know Glass is notable, but this doesn't mean the combination is notable, even if such combinations exist as products. We must demonstrate that the combination is notable, and this doesn't mean just linking to websites that sell leds embedded in glass. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfe, since your "but this doesn't mean the combination is notable," essentially repeats what I wrote above, I obviously agree with that. The notability of the combination IS the question. You apparently misunderstood my reason for listing those links. The header for my list was "This stuff is out there, here's some different people making/selling it" I did NOT list them as being sources suitable for meeting the wp:notability requirement. I did not even list them even as being sources, yet you are evaluating them as if I had. I listed them ONLY as showing that this is a product which is actually manufactured and sold by multiple companies. And that such means that suitable sources almost certainly exist. Something like that can't be manufactured and applied without such sources existing. I am not an editor or advocate of the article, nor am I willing to take on the role of being the one who has to "prove" something. I am just doing my best to evaluate the situation and give my assessment & recommendation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have voted for keep for an article where notability is disputed. It seems to me that you do need to show that the article is notable. You posit that reliable sources must exist, to create the products, but we don't even know if the products are created with similar techniques for example and no reason to believe it is so. For example, we don't know if they were created with the technique mentioned here: [18] IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could say that my thoughts carry less weight if they don't prove the article is notable, but you can't say that I'm required to do that just because I just did my best and making a recommendation and giving my reasons for doing so. North8000 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I suggest a merger of LED-embedded glass, LED Film and LED Headliner. Biscuittin (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ledglass, noting that the latter article says "may also be described as LED Glass or LED embedded Glass", and also that the single reference given for this (LED-embedded glass) article doesn't seem to use that phrase but only "Light-emitting diode (LED) illuminated glass". PamD 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles are essentially duplicates of each other, but together they all stick lack the necessary sources to establish notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The German version has lots of sources some in English. I might try to bring a few over as "for further reading" North8000 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest only showing the ones you believe actually help to establish notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with LED Film, since other targets have been deleted or redirected. Target page has the best sourcing and appears to be a term NOT trademarked, thus a fair descriptor of the product type. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge what? Also the article you suggested is similarly non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that what we'd be looking for be the WP:SMERGE, which is one step removed from a delete and redirect. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the determination were to merge, I would be happy to do the merge. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Enclaved Greek Cypriots. part procedural (no argument to delete is brought forward in the request, only a request to merge), but as Fut.Perf. stresses, care should be taken with the merge in the light of the references not supporting the text, or being mis-represented Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Foka[edit]

Eleni Foka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is famous for WP:ONEEVENT, and is not notable by themselves. It should be merged into Enclaved Greek Cypriots. CMD (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC) CMD (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree with Chipmunkdavis. I also note that the one reference that could be argued to establish notability is severely misquoted. The block quote in the middle of the article is introduced with "the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination noted that ...". However, the actual source document [19] is not the text of the "United Nations International Convention" (of course such a convention wouldn't mention an individual event like this!), nor some other document authored by the UN organization in question, but merely a report submitted to it by the Republic of Cyprus as a state party. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula Association[edit]

Tabula Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization appears to be an adult education center (although you'd never know that from the overblown description provided by the COI author). References (such as I could understand from Google's translation of the Hungarian and Romanian originals) appear to be little more than program announcements and local "feel good" features. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; a couple of news briefs in local newspapers don't make for notability, and adult education centers aren't normally considered notable unless there's some compelling reason to do so. The article is promotional in tone and scope, and has no reason to stay. - Biruitorul Talk 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing of substance exists as far as referencing here goes. Dahn (talk) 22:07, 1 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Zheng[edit]

Ron Zheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous version of article deleted after AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_L._Zheng. No claim of notability established. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's "a photographer, poet and award-winning graphic artist". Well, I can lay claim to two of those, but I'm in no way notable, and Zheng's article contains nothing to suggest that he is either. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4 or A7. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too can lay claim to two, but no notability for either. I have just read the previous discussion, and would recommend it. It won't win the Booker, but it's definitively worth a quick skim if you haven't time for a leisurely read. The latest version of the article isn't a patch on the original that got deleted, by the way. I've declined the G4 for this reason. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete - However, here's an article from The Bay Area Reporter that constitutes significant coverage from a reliable source, but I haven't found additional similar RS at this time:
Here's some press coverage that's paywalled, but I don't have full access to it. Here's what I've found thus far:
  • Google news search summary: "... and Ron Zheng's 'Moody' -- a black and white male portrait that has been altered with bright strokes of colored paint. Using soft blue and green pastel colors,..."
If more sources similar to the The Bay Area Reporter are found, which constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, this !vote can change. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Apache Incubator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Airavata[edit]

Apache Airavata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No asserted notability in this unreferenced article. Fails WP:GNG. I have previously nominated the article for CSD, but was declined with the reason "csd does not apply to products, software, etc". Bmusician 11:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepMerge and Redirect to Apache Incubator. I've rewritten the article and added citations. Airavata is a notable software framework of reputable (open-source, non-commercial) build by the Apache Software Foundation, with clients in its initial market being universities and research institutions. There seem to be plenty of available sources out there if the one's I've added aren't enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Apache Software Foundation with redirect: The sources in the article are unacceptable at all: the paper by the authors (one with DOI), the speculations on a future product and three home sites. I failed to find the good sources in the wild, as books and news know nothing on the topic, scholar yields three sources for Apache (primary) and another one with passing mention; and most of web search results are either tied to ApacheCon or Universities' groups and departments – all being primary sources for the topic. (Though I stopped researching when the tourism-related results started prevailing.) This is actually a tricky thing, as this software is a successor of another software, and it is easier to find someone who didn't develop it. Still, the notability is not inherited. I'm not entirely sure whether it is WP:TOOSOON or permanent, but no indication of notability is available for me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right, I was misled by Google telling gentle fibs about how many more sources there were - my nose was too close to the grindstone to see very far. The keyword is "incubation" - this is an early-stage project and ASF have presumably been self-publicising rather too hard here. It's likely TOOSOON for a full article so I've changed my !vote to Merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I got it, incubator is a genre of this software, not its current stage with ASF. Though you are right about merging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you look here you'll probably agree it's an early-stage job, but it doesn't matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 16 February 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, Bmusician 08:16, 23 February 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, Bmusician 10:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ogunyemi[edit]

Paul Ogunyemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable football player who has never played at a notable level, PDL not notable .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment of "kid's page". (non admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Pierce123[edit]

Jamie Pierce123 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a simple mistake, editor probably meant this to be added to their own userpage 

Aunty-S (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad[edit]

List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is largely surplus to requirements given the information already contained in Battle of Stalingrad and the associated Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad and Red Army order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad. EyeSerenetalk 08:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 08:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The article's content duplicates what is better covered in other articles, and doesn't serve a useful purpose. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You will note, looking at the article, that it does not just include commanders of units, as listed in the order of battle, but also senior staff officers. Therefore I disagree that it serves no useful purpose and duplicates other articles. Yes, it needs its scope clarified. Yes, it needs adding to. Yes, it probably needs renaming to List of senior officers at the Battle of Stalingrad or something similar. But it certainly has value. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all those officers were notable in terms of the battle, they'd likely already be mentioned in the various orbats or the parent article itself. The article tells us nothing about the level of contribution they or their units made to the battle, and it's perhaps also worth noting that there's no reliable source for the list. The reference given is itself an unsourced list [20] and (only just noticed this, should have checked the external link earlier) bears an uncanny resemblance to the article. There may be a case for a category (Category:Present at the Battle of Stalingrad?) based on those names that have an article, but even that, I think, is very tenuous. EyeSerenetalk 14:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely disagree. Staff officers are rarely mentioned in orbats (which usually only mention the unit commanders). That doesn't make them non-notable. The article is a list, and as we all should know, lists are perfectly acceptable articles and are not superseded by categories. As for being a copyvio, it's a list and the webpage you refer to is a list. I'm not sure how a list can really be a copyvio, since they simply present information without any "creative" content. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I may have expressed myself unclearly. I didn't say the people listed were non-notable in themselves, but that there's no evidence that they are all notable in terms of what the list purports to link them to, which is the Battle of Stalingrad. I'm sure many of them had highly notable careers, but would a notable highlight of those careers have been taking charge of attaching the labels on to the supply boxes that were flown in to the city? A silly example I accept, but my earlier point is that we don't know what their contribution to the battle was. Even listing a divisional commander is meaningless if their division was actually 100 miles away and only a small portion of the division ever went near the battle. Regarding the possible copyvio, it's not really my area but I suspect that due to the similarity of items, order, spelling etc there may be more to the situation than you believe. EyeSerenetalk 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, but all the list includes is name (in alphabetical order), rank and job title. None of that can possibly be copyrighted. It simply isn't possible. You can't copyright factual information. You can only copyright content you've created yourself. Neither can you copyright the format of a document when that document only includes information in purely tabular form. As to the involvement of individuals, if a division had units involved in the battle, then the divisional commander was involved as they were his men under his command. And the staff officers on that list are people such as senior administrative officers, medical officers and chaplains who would have been present at the battle. It is a common fallacy that staff officers do not actually take part in battles, but it is a fallacy nonetheless. We're talking about very senior officers (nobody on that list held a rank below colonel, with the exception of Vasili Zaitsev who shouldn't be on it in any case, and most of them were general officers, whom it is generally considered are entitled to articles on Wikipedia due to their rank alone) with very important functions, not mere functionaries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sure you're right about the copyright stuff - as I said, it's not really my area and I tend to defer such things to Moonriddengirl :) WP:MILPEOPLE supports your point about a presumption of notability for General officers, but obviously it ultimately comes down to coverage in RSs (and certainly according to MILPEOPLE having a rank above colonel doesn't mean much unless there are other indications that a person might be notable). Again though, all that's to do with their notability as individuals. My question is "why are these people notable for having been at Stalingrad?" Any number of people were there; merely being in the vicinity of a notable event doesn't confer any inherited notability and certainly doesn't abrogate the need for sourcing. EyeSerenetalk 17:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not just the fact they were there. It's the fact they were senior officers at one of the most important, iconic battles in world history. Yes, maybe sourcing needs to be improved (although those who already have articles should have their involvement in the battle sourced there), but lack of sources is not generally a particularly good reason to delete an article, only to improve it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate list of major figures in one of the most famous battles in world history. Some of the comments above do not seem to apply to the actual article as written. Almost everyone in the list is individually notable as shown by existing Wikipedia articles, and as for the ones that are still redlinks, Not all Generals are notable, but those with major roles in battle generally are, and presence in this one is a major historical role indeed, so articles could be easily written about the others. (the few redlinked non-generals were commanders of units equivalent to those the generals present commanded, and so had similar notability. ) It seems entirely unreasonable to say that the people here merely happened to be there; this was a battle; they were the leaders. Obviously a list consisting of every officer present wouldn't be encyclopedic ; there were probably about 50,000 to 100,000. of whom few survived. I think that we could probably go down one more level in detail and still have a valid article. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons specified by Necrothesp and DGG. It is unclear that this is a redundant article. Flaviusvulso (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"List of tallest buildings" article about a place that has next to no remarkable tall buildings at all. Among currently completed buildings, it lists only 4 that merely pass 10 storeys. There are a handful more projected buildings, with only one of them reaching higher than 100 meters. By worldwide urban standards, this is just nowhere near remarkable enough to justify such a list article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Article is largely unsourced too, and has been a favourite playground of annoying recurrent socks. (Note: article has been affected by a cut-and-paste move; earlier history of the page is in List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro City.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A list of tallest buildings for a place without any especially tall buildings is pointless and even kind of insulting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FPAS' final comment is no longer applicable; I've performed a history merge to resolve the improper move. Closing admin — please don't forget the redirect if this ends in deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No particularly tall buildings. These lists should usually only apply to whole countries unless there are cities that really do have a lot of very tall buildings. No need to do one for every city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any encyclopedic content could go in the main article on Cagayan de Oro. If the article had more useful info, I'd suggest saving it somewhere, but it's not well sourced and doesn't even say how tall the buildings are. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 6 March 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet sexual addiction[edit]

Internet sexual addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see enough scholarly research solely on this topic to warrant an article [21] Anything useful information will be better suited in Sexual addiction and Pornography addiction SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Additional note Uncle G has added some more books in the "Further Reading" section which deal with sex addiction in the context of internet, and I think those will be more suitable in the Sexual addiction article. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are literally hundreds of books dealing directly with "internet sexual addiction". — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of search results. How much scholarly research does the proposer want? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom per the arguments presented above. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:08, 9 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Roy (physician)[edit]

Jacques Roy (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is well-sourced. However, this is a classical case of WP:BLP1E. In addition, WP:BLPCRIME applies: this person has been accused of a crime, but has not yet been convicted. Finally, this is all extremely recent and WP is not a newspaper. If at all, this belongs on Wikinews. (Note: I am taking this to AFD on the advice of the BLP Noticeboard). Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete- Subject matter could reasonably by covered at Medicare fraud, minus the BLP concerns of naming someone who has not been convicted, but for now, this Wikipedia:Attack page should be speedied G10 (although I am not attacking the article creator, this may become an event page or return later) needs Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over if he gets convicted. Dru of Id (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect/merge anything of value to Medicare fraud. Youreallycan 05:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a BLPCRIME as stated, and is therefore TOO SOON to publish here. If Roy is convicted there'll be time enough to report on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Subject is not notable except for this event, which hasn't resulted in a conviction. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it fails WP:HARM#TEST which is a inclusion test because "Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life" and its just allegations at this point.Theworm777 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 1 March 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Sorensen[edit]

Glenn Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Could not find reliable information as to why this individual is important and/or unique in any way. Tinton5 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I know zip about contemporary artists, but the Museum of Modern Art has some of this guy's work[22], and he's had articles devoted to him in Frieze[23] and Art & Australia. Plus, duuh, there are a couple of dozen articles/reviews listed in his article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Per above, and 2002 groupshow at Royal Academy; 5 solo exhibitions in the same Netherlands gallery are not 'local' for an artist working in Sweden, although it seems to be his main venue. Dru of Id (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Like Clarityfiend, I know zilch about modern art. But I've actually heard of this guy. - Jorgath (talk) 18:22, 1 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J-Blaze[edit]

J-Blaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD over whether this meets WP:MUSICBIO. On talk page, article's creator says that it meets the following criteria: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. However, no reliable sources have been provided to support that assertion. Singularity42 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hey folks, original poster here. My rationale for meeting that guidelines is chiefly that he collaborates with and tours with other very notable local hyphy artists, specifically Turf Talk and other rappers (and this interaction is documented in the references). If that doesn't hold up to group interpretation of criteria, I guess I don't have much of an argument, though I quite firmly believe it should be enough. (I am trying earnestly to rectify what I think is a case of WP:system bias with this particular music scene.). SeasideMusic (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is WP:Reliable Sources. We can't just assert something in Wikipedia; we have to cite reliable sources. YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, and Facebook are not reliable sources. What is needed are multiple, non-trivial coverage by sources that have an editorial oversight. Singularity42 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Monterey County Weekly not count? Confused. SeasideMusic (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the articles cited don't seem to be actual reviews, etc., and therefore doesn't support the assertion. Instead, they are just announcements about upcoming performances, without anything substantial. Ultimately, though, that's just my opinion. By bringing the issue here, other editors will have an opportunity to review and provide their opinions, so that a consensus can be formed. Singularity42 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for explanation. Still kind of confused - I thought the Monterey references had reviews in the text, at least when I read them (they talk about the artist in some detail). Is it because they are short? Do reviews have to meet a certain length to count? (honestly curious, seems to me I see Wikipedians interpreting "significant" versus "trivial" all sorts of different ways) SeasideMusic (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has self-released his music. No sources to back up "on of the most prominent representatives...". The Monterey County Weekley articles doesn't meet the "significant coverage" needed to pass WP:GNG and they are trivial coverage announcing upcoming performances. I'm unable to find any reliable sources, but "J Blaze" is common... other rappers, a dentist in oakland, etc. Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah lacks the prominence to be a credible wealth of information. --Wooktook (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Wooktook (talk • contribs) has been blocked indefinitely.[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough coverage to establish notability. The brief blurbs in the Monterey County Weekley aren't enough.--Kubigula (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after due consideration. The sources in the Monterey County Weekly basically amount to entries in a gig list, and I don't feel that they meet the "substantial" requirement of the WP:GNG. I don't see how this person meets any of the criteia in WP:MUSIC, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:59, 5 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verismic Software[edit]

Verismic Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Remove this article - User:HeidiSmith admits in their talk page that they created the Verismic Software article as part of their paid employment. If this isn't a COI then I don't know what is! The author has crafted an article made of self-published material and other links of a most 'advertorial' nature. It seems obvious the prime aim of the article is to self-promote and it should be withdrawn.

There are clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source [3] is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like [2]. The only source that may be reliable is this, but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. All the sources seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage. It seems clear it was created with a self-promotional intent. Whatyousaying (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created and then deleted at least three times in the last 12 months. On each occasion it has appeared in a similar format and without much difficulty established that it was self-promotional. On this occasion the author has admitted working for the subject corporation from the get-go. At least they're being honest but this the reliable, independent, standard we aspire too. The article needs to go.31.185.142.25 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 22 February 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, →Στc. 01:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is troubling. The only apparent claim to notability is the 2011 Green IT award, but the URL is about voting for 2012 award. Following the link to the 2011 winners just gives pictures and who won the award; there's no text describing why VS won or the breadth of its competition for the award. And the award is the "One to Watch Product" -- a speculative award. GreenIT magazine may also have limited scope. The Analyst Reviews section points to a $3995 Ovum report; the Business Green summary just says that VS was reviewed; there is no indication of a favorable review. Even if the review is good, the Ovum report is clearly narrow. Krauss' blog puts an asterisk after VS -- which means "Vendor was not surveyed or did not participate for this report". I don't see general publications commenting on VS. The VS-is-a-member-of-X pages say little; one page even describe how easy it is to join. I didn't open the financial statements because they are not independent, but the WP article uses those statements in a negative reflection on VS -- a material uncertainty about VS being a going concern. The press releases/direct quotes are not independent either. I'm left with the South Lanarkshire Council statements by Janine Woodley. All it really suggests is that SLC has the software; it does not survey the field to say VS is notable. I don't see enough here to say that VS' Power Manager is notable, so VS cannot claim N from its product. Glrx (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my evaluation of sources in the DRV, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, with no evidence of significant, reliable coverage independent of the company. Secret account 03:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote the second version of this article about a year ago. The vendor is reasonably well known but perhaps keen to over emphasis their own importance. The article can be improved over time.Hnobley (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smerdis of Tlön. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:55, 7 March 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Adventures[edit]

Real Life Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to fame for this comic; mere existence as a syndicated comic does not mean it merits more than a line in the Universal Press Syndicate article. Shii (tock) 06:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources are thin, but syndicated comics are notable more often than not. There are a couple sources in the article, plus this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the sources seem to say is that the comic exists and is promoted by its syndicate; there's no evidence it's more notable than comics without articles, e.g. "The Elderberries" etc. Shii (tock) 06:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 February 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, →Στc. 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hammer's rationale. There are more potential (albeit mostly paywalled) sources of information at GNews,[24] e.g.[25][26][27][28][29] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew that so many newspapers run unlabeled advertisements when they start printing a new comic strip. I hope this doesn't affect the actual judgment of the closing admin. Shii (tock) 01:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheKompany[edit]

This page should remain up as a warning. TheKompany.com was found guilty, along with it's subsidiary companies, Progrock Records and Mindawn of copyright infringement in United States Federal Court Case number SACV 09-00195-JVS (ANx)in 2013. The removal of this page would give cover and allow others to be harmed by dishonest business practices. The case is of public record and should remain available for the protection of the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.55.181 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheKompany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to KDE with redirect. Regardless of whether TheKompany is notable or not, it is only known for K Desktop Envirement. The current KDE article serves as a catchall for KDE community-related items, so the scope of TheKompany article lies within the scope of KDE. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:44, 15 February 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) 17:37, 22 February 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, →Στc. 01:47, 1 March 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 on author request. JIP | Talk 05:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Street Evangelists[edit]

Street Evangelists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BAND, in other words, no indication of notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Unreferenced article gives no evidence whatsoever that the subject meets any notability requirement. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:58, 1 March 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) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rider Mania[edit]

Rider Mania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-tagged uncited article with no indication of why the subject is notable e.g. longest running, largest in country, large number of riders. Biker Biker (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator seems to be confusing an encyclopedia with the Guinness Book of Records. Notability for an encyclopedia does not equate to record-breaking. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 1 March 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Enuf[edit]

Dr. Enuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 1 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Is for Nightmares[edit]

Blue Is for Nightmares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating the entire Blue is For Nightmares series for deletion because there is nothing to show that this early series by Stolarz is notable. While I can vouch that the books are good, there are no independent and reliable sources to show notability and a search for sources did not bring anything up. At the very absolute most these would be usable as a redirect to the author's name, but they have no notability in and of themselves. Fails WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79 I am also nominating the following related pages because they lack sources and I was unable to find any.:[reply]

White Is for Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Red Is for Remembrance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Silver Is for Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Black Is for Beginnings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the reviews for each individually are so scant, I think it might be a good idea to just redirect the individual titles to Blue Is for Nightmares and rename it to "Blue is for Nightmares (series)". I didn't see any of these when I was searching, but together they'd make for enough sourcing for the series as a whole. I'm not entirely sure that this link to the Diario Femenino article would make for anything other than a trivial source since it really is so brief of an article and doesn't really say anything except that WIFM has sold over 100,000 copies.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Yes, I concur with your suggestion to redirect the book titles to a single series article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to withdraw my nomination since we do have sources (yay! thanks Arxiloxos!) enough to warrant a single article for the series. I'm going to post a { {mergeto|Whatever}} tag on the articles, so we can have them merged into one main article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Officially withdrawing nomination. I didn't know if the above statement brought notice as far as withdrawing the nomination went, but I'm posting this just in case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases[edit]

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concept of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases is not widely recognised within the medical community. Despite what the article says, it is very difficult to group together the widely divergent diseases listed. The fact that they're all treated with immunosuppression is about the only thing. Searching the term as a text word on Pubmed yields 45 references, none of which address the concept in itself. I think deletion is the best step here. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article needs extensive development and lots of citations, but it is unquestionably notable. It does need some expert attention to select and paraphrase good review articles (i.e. secondary sources) from the thousands of papers on immunity and inflammatory diseases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bearian there's no shortage of RS. Have added one obvious book and marked page as needing medical attention... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 1 March 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 Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board. as always Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)[edit]

Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable elementary school with no evidence of its presence in independent, reliable sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any valid, referenced information to Mascouche, Quebec. Then redirect. Searched and didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources for the topic. However, some of the information sourced by primary sources would be useful to improve the Mascouche, Quebec article. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on "Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" is closely related to the "Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" (SWLSB) article, primarly because the school is governed by the latter school board, and also because the name of the school figures on the "SWLSB" article. Pinewood Elementary school makes up an integrant part of the city of Mascouche, Quebec. I am therefore in accordance to mention the school in the "Mascouche, Quebec" article, but I disagree with the complete deletion of the article on Pinewood Elementary School, which contains a significant amount of useful information.

Also, please note that, as the main author of the article in question, I have NOT completed the article. I will keep improving it, adding information, new sections, etc., over a short period of time. This means that even if the article seems to miss some facts or not follow Wikipedia's guidelines properly (which I doubt), it is O.K. becuase everything will be fixed in the weeks to come.

For any personal messages, please write back on my talk page. Thank you. --MaxAMSC (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the Pinewood Elementary School article in question is closely related to the existing article named Rosemere High School, which is also part of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board.--MaxAMSC (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High schools are considered notable due to the typical coverage they receive, but elementary schools are not. Of course, if you can prove that this article passes WP:GNG, that would be a different story. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't elementary schools notable? Many receive "coverage." --MaxAMSC (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't, as evidenced by this one. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to school board, Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board, as common practice for non-notable schools. The school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Gene. If the article creator has evidence that this school satisfies the GNG, I'm sure we'd be pleased to see it; otherwise, there's no presumptive notability for elementary schools. Ravenswing 00:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me exactly what I must prove, and I will try to present evidence. --MaxAMSC (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out something important. By typing "Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" in a search engine, such as Google, it is normal that very few, if any, results show up because the school is not known under that exact name. If you write something like "Pinewood Elementary School Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" or "Pinewood Elementary School SWLSB," many results come up. The "Mascouche, Quebec" segment was added because another article already had the name "Pinewood Elementary School."

Now, what I propose is as follows: we leave the article "Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" posted on Wikipedia for a little while (I will therefore have some time to ameliorate it with the help of anybody willing to aid me) and this page remains (so other contributors can write their opinions about the article).

--MaxAMSC (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The searches you give yield hits, but very few of them are WP:RELIABLE. The reliable ones like cbc.ca are only passing mentions (trivial coverage). Directory listings and routine coverage also don't count towards notability. I tried wider searches and couldn't find non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched among all the main databases of reliable sources and could not find any reference to this school. The only references I found to a "Pinewood Elementary School" were schools of the same name in Surrey, BC and New York City. I appreciate that MaxAMSC may have some personal attachment to the school and wants to keep this article for sentimental reasons, but it seems appropriate to me to do as previously suggested and merge this into "Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" and/or "Mascouche, Quebec" --JmaJeremy talk contribs 05:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for a Pinewood Elementary School in QUEBEC, or a Holy Rosary Elementary School or Lewis King Elementary School that have merged... I found plenty of results from reliable sources like CBC, Le journal de montréal, Le revue, Le trait d'union, etc. --MaxAMSC (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some reliable sources, then why not cite them in the article? —JmaJeremy talk contribs 01:11, 9 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Kingston[edit]

Joy Kingston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much of the text on this page is copyvio from this page on a connected site. I've been Googling and can only find maybe about 20 throwaway references to her in old 50s newspaper reports, and one dress in the LACMA with no information at all on it. While I normally champion obscure/nearly forgotten (by the modern world) fashion designers, I cannot find anything to indicate that Joy Kingston was particularly influential in her day. Even the bio does not mention that she won any awards except for the Dallas Alice (which I've never heard of and doesn't seem to be much about it on Google either although there IS a band called that which is swamping the results a bit...) so I'd query whether she was particularly notable in her day either. It pains me to say this, but I nominate this page for deletion, due to lack of resources, and the fact that there's such a nice biography on her on the foundation website so it's not like it's info not available elsewhere. Mabalu (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article has been cleaned up. Copyvio problems of information copied and pasted from Joykingstonfoundation.org has been removed. This individual has received press coverage, much of which is paywalled. Here's two sources I've added to the article:
  • Hammond, Fay (Oct 24, 1949). "Pat Premo, Joy Kingston Show Cruise Week Togs". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 01, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
  • Hammond, Fay (June 21, 1949). "Three Designers Display Fashions for Press Week". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 01, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required) Abstract: "Leave it to a California designer to ignore the traditional fall colors and develop her own--all to good purpose, too. That's exactly what Joy Kingston did in her collection of spectator sportswear titled, "Woman About Town and Country."
—Northamerica1000(talk) 22:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! That does make it a lot more palatable. Those paywall articles really frustrate me as what little in snippet form I could see looked like throw-away refs or just passing mentions, so thank you for looking them up. I'd go for keep now. The California designers really are nowhere near as well documented as the New York ones which makes researching the more obscure ones a bit trickier - I was surprised there wasn't even a non-reliable-source blog entry about her. Mabalu (talk) 23:17, 1 March 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. Wifione Message 13:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Red[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dead Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails wp:band. BBC has their name in a list of other bands, and that is the only non-primary link. Too soon. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only reason it squeaked by WP:NBAND last time was because one of their songs was used as a theme song to the National Geographic show Philly Undercover. Other than that, I agree that it's too soon. I did hold some reservations over the theme since there weren't any non-primary sources to back it up, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment 2.0: I noticed that the rule for that under WP:NBAND has changed somewhat (or I just didn't see it earlier) to where that might be considered to be WP:ONEEVENT. There's not an article for Philly Undercover yet since it seems like it only started airing recently, so I'm thinking this should be a delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. The only thing that kept this article last time was that they'd done a theme song for a television show and since that's the only thing of true notability about them at this time, they fail WP:NBAND this time around since it's just WP:ONEEVENT.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I found a recording of the song [41], which if confirmed, could help pass WP:BAND. Bzweebl (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a song uploaded by someone on YouTube doesn't add to notability. YouTube isn't a reliable source. Informative, perhaps, but it fails the criteria set at WP:RS to allow references to establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage found. Subject may meet criterion 10 of WP:BAND but, per the guideline, "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." No article to redirect to at this time; a mention in the show's article would be appropriate when/if its created.  Gongshow Talk 00:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No quorum, thus, a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panfletonegro[edit]

Panfletonegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A seemingly unnotable website and blog. It has no references that would support any sort of notability. Searching around only gives results of personal pages (facebook, twitter, etc), thus it fails WP:RS. Rorshacma (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a handful of articles that came up in Google News archive and some hits in Google books (mostly in a directory-type setting), but they aren't the type that would help it pass WP:WEB. This is just a website that is more noticed than the average website, but still isn't notable enough to warrant its own article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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.
  1. ^ http://www.alibaba.com/manufacturers/led-embedded-in-glass-manufacturer.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_March_1&oldid=1142634628"