Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 March	12 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Fusion Society[edit]

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

The page was a redirect(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focus Fusion Society) in the past. A google book search reveals some mention of the society, mostly in books published by the target of the previous redirect, Eric Lerner. JonGDixon (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this time around. Last time at AfD it was redirected to the name of its founder, but someone recreated it as an article in March 2011. In my opinion this society does not have enough notability to survive even as a redirect. Especially since someone restored it after the last redirect. I could find no evidence that this organization has had any impact at all on the field of fusion research. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:ORG. My search found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All mentions appear to be self-developed by the organization's own marketing. Organization lacked notability in 2006 AFD and nothing has developed in six years to alter that opinion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As noted above, no matter how reliable, WP notabilty (WP:ORG or WP:GNG) requires idependent sources. Absent these, it fails. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:15, 18 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) 23:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Senne[edit]

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

Article about a run-of-the-mill clinician. Google reveals nothing beyond directory entires and links to the clinic with which he is associated. Article makes no claim of notability and my searches have turned up none. Seems nothing more than PR for a doctor and his clinic. Emeraude (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Director of a non-notable clinic which was deleted 2+ years ago. This article contains no other claim to notability and no independent sources. Basically un-edited since its creation in 2009, except for routine cleanup and bot entries. MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clear and obvious lack of notability, to the extent that it almost could have been an A7 sspeedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 17 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richardice of Sweden[edit]

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

A concern was raised that "Richardice" is a WP:MADEUP translation of "Richardis" and that use of this spelling cannot be found in relevant sources.

Initially, the page was PROD'ed. However, the page creator is under an interaction ban with the proposer and so could not remove the PROD. I am proposing for discussion among uninvolved editors instead. RA (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User who created the page did so because h/s believes that the name has been used in older English literature, that cannot yet be accessd through the Internat, and would like to have a bit of time to try to find such sources. There is very little English literature mentioning the names of 14th century queens of Sweden, Internet or no, and this English exonym at least looks etymologically correct to me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the point is that this name form is not found in the literature for any bearer, be it the empress Saint Richardis or any of the other Richardis (given name) (except for some microbe): compare Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL with Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for the amount of literature; the editor has a habit of creating redirects and disambiguation pages on Wikipedia to spread his own anglicizations; some are amusing, like Sonny Cisco, but something like this just causes confusion. I removed this made-up name form from several articles, as there is not a shred of evidence to support the "belief" that it was used in the older English litereture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: SergeWoodzing is the initial page creator. Pieter Kuiper is the user who PROD'ed the article.

Delete An interesting discussionof these "exonyms" is Talk:Anund Jacob. There, SergeWoodzing had found an translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle from 1823 where a whole other "Anund" was called "Anwynd", and took is as basis for another otherwise unknown "exonym". I strongly suspect something similar is going on here. Whether other women named Richardis ever are referred to as "Richardice" is irrelevant; if these two are not, we should not apply that "translation". Andejons (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – we already have the page Richardis (given name), so creating an additional page Richardice of Sweden for only one person called Richardice is somewhat surplus to requirements. If Richardice turns out to be a correct name, then including it as a variant on the Richardis (given name) page and creating a redirect from Richardice to Richardis (given name) would seem to be more helpful to the Wikipedia reader. — Hebrides (talk) 12:55, 16 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspiysk bid for the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abuja bid for the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics). A speculated bid that was never submitted to the IOC, and thus never became an official bid for the games. The article essentially says that they explored bidding, but decided against, and then has some irrelevant info on Russia's past Olympic bids. This info can just be included on the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics page. This is the way that it is done on other bid pages, example 2020 Summer Olympics and 2022 Winter Olympics, not to mention the ones that have already been awarded. No indication why this proposed/speculated bid is any more notable than the hundreds that have come before it. If anything the Youth Olympics are far less notable, and a potential bid would likely have almost zero coverage, where as a potential olympic bis, say Quebec City or even Ostersund, would have way more coverage (and probably way more coverage than an actual bid for the Youth Olympics too). Note that I boldly redirected these back to the main page as a compromise, but this was reverted by the original author. Bringing to AfD as I'm not convinced that even a redirect is needed. Ravendrop 21:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Summer Youth Olympics themselves are barely notable, much less the bids for them, and much, much less unrealized bids for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The Youth Olympic Games are notable. Just because the average wikipedia viewer may be clueless on the subject. There are still people who follow the Olympics on a daily basis and the article is important. A bid was arranged. It just was not submitted. Deleting the article would be illogical. They Youth Olympics may not to notable to some of you but it is to others. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's refs are to obscure olympic-related websites/blogs, not to mainstream news/sports sources, though there may be better refs in Russian media. However, the page could easily be merged into other articles, as it is very short and much of the content is irrelevant (the section "Previous bids from other Russian cities" is almost the same size as the section on the actual bid). So it's a question of whether it's better to keep the page separate or to incorporate the brief amount of properly-sourced material elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply not encyclopedic material. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The sources available, in English at least, are not of the nature to meet WP:GNG, if even meeting WP:RS at all. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:22, 18 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abuja bid for the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaspiysk bid for the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics). A speculated bid that was never submitted to the IOC, and thus never became an official bid for the games. The article essentially says that they explored bidding, but decided against, and then has some irrelevant info on Nigeria's past Olympic bids. This info can just be included on the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics page. This is the way that it is done on other bid pages, example 2020 Summer Olympics and 2022 Winter Olympics, not to mention the ones that have already been awarded. No indication why this proposed/speculated bid is any more notable than the hundreds that have come before it. If anything the Youth Olympics are far less notable, and a potential bid would likely have almost zero coverage, where as a potential olympic bis, say Quebec City or even Ostersund, would have way more coverage (and probably way more coverage than an actual bid for the Youth Olympics too). Note that I boldly redirected these back to the main page as a compromise, but this was reverted by the original author. Bringing to AfD as I'm not convinced that even a redirect is needed. Ravendrop 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Summer Youth Olympics themselves are barely notable, much less the bids for them, and much, much less unrealized bids for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The Youth Olympic Games are notable. Just because the average wikipedia viewer may be clueless on the subject. There are still people who follow the Olympics on a daily basis and the article is important. A bid was arranged. It just was not submitted. Deleting the article would be illogical. They Youth Olympics may not to notable to some of you but it is to others. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is siply not encyclopedic material--it's carrying derived notability much too far. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 17 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 List of Major League Baseball umpires. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Butler (umpire)[edit]

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

Although the single source of that article makes him meet one of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Baseball, other than this one little source, which comes from an unreliable website to begin with (retrosheet is run by a university professor who gets his information from various volunteer contributors, similar to Wikipedia, some of who may not be baseball historians or experts), there is no proof at all that this "Charles Butler" even existed. Other baseball history related websites like Baseball-Reference, Baseball-Almanac, or even MLB history have absolutely no information about this guy, no bio, no statistics, nothing. Searching the term "Charles Butler (umpire)" on any search engine site yields no pictures or information from reliable websites, just sites that copy information from Wikipedia. If this "Charles Butler" really existed, the fact that he only umpired for one game should be more than enough evidence that he was not a major contributor to baseball. It is quite possible that he hated the job so much, he quit after just one game or was actually a spectator who volunteered to be an umpire for whatever reason (I doubt baseball rules were as strict and complicated back then as they are today). The creator of the article has a history of creating articles for other sports players that very few people know about and very few websites have information on. If we are to keep this article, we definitely need more sources confirming the existence of this "Charles Butler." The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As stated, the single source is not a reliable third party source, and no other information can be found. Either the individual did not exist, or is extremely unnotable. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrosheet has been long established as a reliable source on Wikipedia, e.g., here. Rlendog (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASE/N. Retrosheet is one of the most reliable sources for baseball information in the world. Major news and media sources use it. Alex (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until more information about him becomes available, I have no objection to redirecting per BRMo. But given an appropriate redirect target there is even less basis for deleting. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Major League Baseball umpires. First, I have to disagree with the nominator about the reliability of Retrosheet. While it's true that it's a volunteer project, I don't think it can be equated to Wikipedia or similar sources—its contributors are not anonymous and it validates and checks the data that enter its databases. The Retrosheet data are licensed to major websites like Baseball-Reference.com and are widely used by researchers and other experts. I'm not aware of any complaints about the accuracy of the Retrosheet data. However, turning to Charles Butler, while I don't doubt that he umpired one game in 1889 and thus technically meets the minimum requirements of WP:BASE/N, I think here WP:GNG has to take precedence. It simply doesn't make sense to me to have an article when there isn't enough reliable information available to write an article. If the only information we know about him is that he umpired a game, it seems sufficient to redirect to the list of umpires. BRMo (talk) 04:47, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source is reliable, as shown by the information presented here (it might help further discussions to write an article about it). He therefore meets the standard guideline. I, personally, think that guideline over-inclusive in this respect, but we have been consistently following it, and should not deviate for one particular article. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We constantly use it for Major League baseball player, not umpires. Secret ^account 05:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know that player vs. umpire makes a difference per se. But there is a practical difference, in that for a player who played a single MLB game there is a record of how he performed in that game, which provides something to write about. There is often a minor league record to write about. There is likely a birth and death date to provide. Here we just have the date he performed, which will be included in the list regardless without any indications of his performance (was there an important close call? was there an argument? did he eject anyone?), and the birth date and place. Since I don't think too many readers would be interested in the latter for someone who umpired one game I don't think there is any real loss to redirecting to the list in this case . That said, if more reliably sourced information about him or his performance becomes available, then the redirect should be undone so that information can be provided in an article. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I support a redirect to List of Major League Baseball umpires since no other information about this "Charles Butler" exists. We cannot have a single-sentence article like this forever and standard guidlines for notability are not everything, especially if it only meets minimum requirements. All we have to do is add the one source on this article to the List of umpires article, which already has an entry for this "Charles Butler." Also, we already have an article about retrosheet, but it lacks citations and sources, so its reliablility is questionable. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are incorrect. Just because an article lacks citations and sources doesn't mean it's not a reliable website. Retrosheet is the biggest and most extensive game boxscore source anywhere. It was created by an notable statistician using information from the Baseball Hall of Fame and it is used by almost every major baseball historian nowadays. Almost every major baseball history or biography book uses this source in their historiography/bibliography page for the past 15 or so years. For the subject of this article, BRMo is right, there is no point in this article if the only source available is a boxscore. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, or even WP:V in this case. So Redirect to List of Major League Baseball umpires. Secret ^account 05:57, 10 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there somewhere that this information can be merged to? Like List of Major League Baseball umpires whose careers were too short to justify individual articles? (That title is a joke, so please don't take it literally, although I would support merging this content into a list if an appropriate one could be found.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested (above) a merge and redirect to List of Major League Baseball umpires. BRMo (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, merge and redirect per BRMo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:54, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Baird[edit]

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

I don't know if this qualifies for CSD as a recreation of an article deleted by a previous AFD. This one lacks even the one independent source of the deleted previous attempt, and a google search didn't indicate that this artist has any additional notability gained since November 2011 (when the last afd took place). Syrthiss (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to verify the rankings on the Texas Music Chart, but it looks like past rankings are behind a paywall so can only confirm things that are currently listed. That is, assuming that the Texas Music Chart is even a reliable source for notability. Syrthiss (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe the Texas Music Chart is sufficient to meet criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. As far as coverage, I've found a Dallas News piece and reviews at The 9513 and Roughstock. If the latter two sources are acceptable in helping to establish notability, then the subject barely meets WP:GNG and criterion 1 of MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 08:04, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:02, 29 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 11 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 as notable. The copyright concerns were examined and discussed on article talk page. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data (PHD) Standards[edit]

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

Concerns with notability and copyright status. Appears to be more of an instruction manual than it does an encyclopedia article. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 04:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 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) 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the initial author of this article. I set it up because I was active in projects using the IEEE 11073 PHD standards, and that I could not find detailed information that was freely available. This is not uncommon with international standards: the standards are copyright and are often only available if you buy the - typically paying c. $100. I felt that the IEEE 11073 standards will make an important contribution to healthcare in the coming years but that the value of the work was not being disseminated - and this this would hold back the adoption of the standards, and hence it would hold back the provision of better healthcare to many.

Accordingly I attempted (imperfectly!!) to summarise the content of the family of the standards, and to provide a reasonbly in-depth overview of the technology. I thought that this would provide a good deal of the material within the base standard (IEEE11073-20601) for those who were interested in gaining in reasonably detailed insight but who did not want (initially) to buy the expensive standard document.

The images in the article were created by me - although based on those within the standard. I am indeed a contributor who has a reasonably close connection with the subject: I am not sure what the problem is with that - surely this is an advantage?

I believe that some of the standards committee who have been writing the standards may be about to contribute to this discussion and address some of the objections that have been raised.

However, it would be very helpful if those who have raised the objections could provide more detail as to what the perceived problems are and how they might be addressed.

--

Tom wrote a pretty good introduction to the IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data (PHD) standards family. This text is a good source to point to when someone asks for a quick overview of what the PHD standards are and what their implementation might mean. It would be a real pity if the document were removed from Wikipedia. Moreover, the details included are necessary to get a proper understanding of the topic.

Alpo Värri, Convener of the medical device communication standards working group in Europe, CEN/TC251/WGIV on March the 2nd, 2012.

Keep - Try searching google books and google scholar for "ISO/IEEE 11073", I was able to find lots of sources. See for example [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like any IEEE standard, this is a commercial product. The article was created by someone involved in the development of the standard. This is a non-notable product, and this page is only serving to increase licensees for the standard. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need more articles like this. The subject is notable, and the explanation how it could be written without copyvio is convincing. Probably most standards that have come to be in active use will be widely referred to, and an encyclopedia like WP should cover them. I do not think being a commercial product is a reason for deleting anything. But it's also irrelevant, for is not a commercial product: it is produced by the IEEE and ISO, two non-profits. IEEE is the dominant international non-profit society in the field--many commercial people support its work and develop its standards, but that's the purpose of standards: to provide a common basis for practical work. ISO is the most accepted international general standards organization. And how this increases licenses for the standard escapes me. The people who develop the standard do not receive royalties. That experts are willing to write good articles like this in important fields is a major positive development for Wikipedia,and should be encouraged. The purpose of this article is to provide information for those who do not need the formal standard--the general audience that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia serves. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand what this is. IEEE registers standards, they operate like the patent office. They do not produce anything, the operate in more of a regulatory role. IEEE 1394 is an easy example, otherwise known as FireWire, owned by Apple and Sony. IEEE standards are owned by the creators and licensed out. They are not free in any sense. And not every IEEE standard is notable, just as not every patent is notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:33, 8 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable standard, supported both by IEEE and ISO. It gets 3,980 hits in Google scholar, which shows that it is being widely used and discussed. Francis Bond (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. I think there's enough here to justify an article, and to show that the standard is at least somewhat notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - third-party coverage by Cerebellum satisfies WP:GNG criteria. Diego (talk) 10:16, 16 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Savaso Gaur Kadva Patidar Samaj[edit]

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

I can find nothing but mirrored content for this organisation, so it probably does not meet WP:GNG Sitush (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing anywhere about this Samaj except on some matrimonial websites. No published books on this community. Unless reliable third party sources can be found please delete the article. Wikishagnik (talk) 19:53, 4 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:40, 17 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 Whether or not the subject meets the notability guidelines and should be mentioned on Wikipedia doesn't appear to be in dispute. However, there does appear to be reasonable arguments for a possible merger, but this is out of the scope of Articles for Deletion. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIA Tower[edit]

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

I feel it's no more notable than any one of the hundreds of skyscrapers in the city. 99th tallest in Hong Kong is no big deal. No sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Probably the second tallest on the Island Eastern district. Jeremy Hopkins (talk) 14:12, 27 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, →Σ τ c. 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- And how does that make it notable? I'm not even sure if the actual tallest would be without some other reason. Redirect into List of 100 tallest skyscrapers in Hong Kong, which seems notable enough for a list article (and can therefore be created if you want to keep some of this info). - Jorgath (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If Jorgath had actually just seen the article before making a comment in an AfD discussion, he/she would know that there is in fact -and since 2007- an article called List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: I did in fact see the article, although I admittedly was multitasking and missed the "See Also" link. My point nonetheless stands. I do not contest that this building is sufficiently notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia, but I argue that it is not sufficient to warrant its own article rather than a mention on a relevant list. - Jorgath (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable.--JuntungWu (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Why? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete - Many of these tall buildings (like this one) are pieces of prime real estate that are should be judged by the criteria of WP:CORP, in my opinion. Others have some landmark or architectural significance. There's no evidence this one does, it seems to be non-notable, one of many dozen similar in HK. The reason I'm slightly hesitant about this AfD discussion is the precedent it might set - probably two thirds of the articles listed in List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong could probably be deleted for similar reasons. Something makes me think the idea of a notability criteria for buildings should be re-opened and resolved. Sionk (talk) 00:48, 9 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Compare in context to other tall buildings, i.e. 'Tallest Buildings in London' or 'Toronto' or 'Miami' or 'Singapore'. I think you'll see that AIA tower is notable in comparison i.e: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Not planning on setting a precedent that could lead to thousands of buildings for AfD. Bunston (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument which does not make the AIA Tower notable. Personally if I had my way I'd be tempted to delete many other tall building articles on Wikipedia, if I had the time. A lot of them are non-notable (as Wikipedia defines it). Even the WikiProject Skyscrapers project suggests only the Top 10 tall buildings in each city should have articles. Sionk (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a misquotation of their standard. The actual wording is "In general, at least the 10 tallest structures in a city should always have separate articles." In cities with many notable buildings, there will of course be many more suitable for articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is anyone going to explain what makes this building notable enough for its own article? Sionk (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's covered in this book if anyone has a hardcopy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:11, 17 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Withers[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Mr. Withers may be a respected antiques dealer and author, but it looks like he does not yet pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. My search on Google News, Books, and Scholar didn't turn up any sources that looked like they would be enough to prove notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Harvey Withers has made a widely recognized contribution to his field and is part of the enduring historical record, it's just that a lot of discussion and comment about this fields off line so isn't as easy to references. As mentioned before he has documented and catalogued edged weapons from the 1400s to present day and this is a very important for an enduring historical record.

Keep as per WP:AUTHOR. I believe he meets the requirements. There's an article about him in "Worth" magazine 2007, and he's been cited in "The international militaria collector's guide" --HighKing (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found one decent article, Faint, Martin (19 May 2004), "Enterprise - Accidental businessmen are turning hobbies into a trade.", Birmingham Post. Problem is it's just a look what this local person is doing thing. Is there more info on the worth magazine piece? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 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, →Σ τ c. 02:11, 29 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:08, 11 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Valentine[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Terence7 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly astounded that this was put up for deletion after the additions I was able to make to it. Unimpeachable third party sources, covering her and her work at length. including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation , documented national awards -- and two of her plays being used in the curriculum of of New south Wales. satisfies WP:AUTHOR three different ways. (the original article, was a copyvio description of one of her plays from a problematic user, an article I almost speedied as G12 before I thought to check Google News.) There are more plays to add, some others published works also, and I think a few dozen more reviews of the plays. I stopped when I thought i had enough to satisfy all possible good faith objections. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unimpeachable third party sources" like this, which is some personal website about one-act plays that doesn't even say anything about her except that she's a playwright? And this? It's on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website, sure -- but it's nothing more than a one-sentence mention that Valentine will be speaking at an event. What about this one, an article from the Daily Telegraph? It's not about Valentine at all; it only mentions her name in one sentence.

Need I go on? If Ms. Valentine meets the notability guideline for creative professionals, this article still offers no evidence of it. Terence7 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination is absolute shite. I was able to find three full length articles discussing the subject with ease--and there are scads more I see out there. But everyone makes mistakes. If the nomination is withdrawn I will not put the nominator on my permanent list. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is "absolute shite." And putting me on your "permanent list"? What's that supposed to mean? Terence7 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's appropriate to denigrate the article by making an implicit religious slur. I don't go around calling your articles absolute Sunny. EEng (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the funny one. Terence7 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(blushes) Glad someone got it. I was afraid I might get dragged before the ANI firing squad. 13:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Like a permanent record a la Violent Femmes. Now go look at the sources I added, admit you are wrong, and withdraw the nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your "permanent record" remark. Terence7 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will after you withdraw the nomination. You could figure it out via Google if you tried, I guess I'm testing your ability to research things. Its nothing nefarious.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you not make remarks that sound hostile and then try to use them as a bargaining chip to make other editors do what you want. And you're "testing my ability to research things"? Give me a break. Terence7 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you not make horrible AfD nominations. Let's call it even and go get a beer.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a horrible nomination. Did you see the original version of this article? It originally wasn't even an article about her, it was about one of her plays... I tried to get that deleted, and then someone simply moved the article to her name.

If there's no evidence of notability, which there certainly wasn't when I nominated it, it should be nominated for deletion, especially when it's an article that has been around for years. I suppose this is a difference of opinion about Wikipedia generally; I see that you are committed to "saving" articles, which is great, but I'm of the opinion that an article should be deleted if there's no evidence of why it should be on Wikipedia. The onus should be on the creator to show that it can pass muster. Terence7 (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE says you should check to make sure its not notable before nominating. Really, we have so many crappy articles on notable subjects its staggering--tons of notable subject articles could be deleted just because no one has worked on them yet. And when it comes articles that are years old, the creators are often not around, and the articles were created when adding sources was almost a novelty.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the policy, but I respectfully disagree. Why not delete them, if the articles are crappy and no one has worked on them? Let somebody else who has the knowledge and/or inclination recreate it later. This is part of the reason why WP is bloated with irrelevant, poorly written, poorly sourced, and unmaintained articles. Terence7 (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Terence, that particular articles was clearly unacceptable when you prodded it: there was nothing to show significance, & apparently at least 99% copyvio, & the copyvio had been here for years. If I had not been willing to work on it I would have speedy deleted it, as I've done with one or two thousands of other copyvio. That's what I'm required to do, and I also personally think that's what must be done. But the quick check of google (initially, to find the playwright's web site) to my surprise showed so much potential, that I was willing to work on it. Not just to say someone else should work on it, but work on it personally. I hoped someone else would do still more, said exactly that, & so they have. Your deletion requests have had the best result possible--you called attention to a bad article (though you missed the signs of copyvio), & it got changed by the cooperative work of several people to a good one for an important subject we were missing. You succeeded in a different way than you intended, but that's the fun of Wikipedia-- once you start something, you never know where it will end. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can never delete them all, we are growing at a clip of about a thousand articles a day. Deleted articles get recreated in worse versions to start, not better. That's why I say we should improve them. 30 minutes of your time would have improved Alana Valentine and added to the quality of the project. Deleting her article really does nothing of significance.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple awards and a notable body of work. Meets notability. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article of course needs quite a bit of work, but it easily satisfies WP:AUTHOR. -Aaron Booth (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The subject is obviously now shown to be notable, strong sources have been provided, no real point in keeping this AfD going. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:34, 15 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Teasdale[edit]

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

BLP on a glamour model and DJ; there's very little sourcing which indicates significant notability, with the main secondary source being a passing mention in the Peterlee Star. One previous nomination - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebekah Teasdale - closed as no consensus ten months ago; keep votes were apparently on procedural grounds, and there doesn't seem to have been much support for the article itself. Shimgray | talk | 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm surprised to read the previous AfD nomination. To think an article with BLP concerns could be kept "on procedural grounds" is somewhat distasteful. There is a lack of reliable, secondary sources, and this makes it nearly impossible to verify anything. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP concerns"? No such concerns were raised in the prior AfD, it was just a mass nomination. Many of those AfDs in the mass nom were closed as no consensus, some appropriate ones were re-nommed based on that specific BLP instead of by mass deletion whim. I don't see any BLP "concerns" in the current version either, whether or not it survives.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 11. Snotbot t • c » 20:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd transcluded the first AFD by accident. Now fixed! Shimgray | talk | 20:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the substantive comments, particularly my own, in the original AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Creative Culture

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

Article fails WP:VER, and appears to be WP:OR. The references are various consultant firm web pages trying to attract clients. In most cases, the references merely mention the term casually, that is, they are not about the subject "creative culture" specifically. I could find no established definitions for this term (in dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.). There are no scholastic or authoritative references provided in the article to confirm that this is not just a neologism. Per WP:VER, someone needs to provide some if we are to keep this article. See WP:NEO. The Transhumanist 22:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article itself it's a meaningless buzzword. Shii (tock) 07:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A tautological definition that somebody's trying to use to sell consulting services. There's no underlying subject for an article to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 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 redirect to Rotaract. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotaract Club of Manila[edit]

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

This article is about a local youth wing of a Rotary Club. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources about this organisation, and as a sub-unit per WP:ORG, there is no demonstrated notability. Whpq (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 5 March 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, →Σ τ c. 19:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I worked to rescue this almost two years ago, because it's an especially large Rotaract Club. Now I'm not so sure that it's worth saving; it's become a cruft-magnet. I'd work with anyone who wants to write a better article. 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
Delete; subject does not appear to be independently notable per WP:GNG, keeping with WP:ORG a redirect to the parent organization should be left in it's article space. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rotaract as per WP:CLUB. Or delete entirely since anyone searching for it will find the Rotaract site. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 17 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Equivalent Recordings[edit]

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

Not notable. Passing mentions, FB and primary links do not equal notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 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) 02:11, 3 March 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, →Σ τ c. 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of its albums are redlinked Shii (tock) 07:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:54, 17 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 Calvin College#Campus. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaunt (sculpture)[edit]

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

Non-notable sculpture, created by non-notable artist. GrapedApe (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Calvin_College#Campus if any WP:RS references can be found; otherwise delete. AllyD (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sculpture isn't of independent merit, it belongs in article on campus. The only significant reference I can find is in that ever-useful volume Outdoor sculpture in Grand Rapids by Fay L. Hendry, published by Iota, a small press in California. I don't think that counts as significant coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be helpful for you to add that reference to the article. I do not myself have a copy and googlebooks does not have a free one.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:41, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuaki Asai[edit]

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

I don't see that this person meets WP:MANOTE. The sources clearly show that he runs a successful aikido school, but I don't think that's sufficient to show notability. I also don't think being the national rep to Germany shows notability, but others may disagree. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asai is the founder of Aikikai in Germany.[5] He is the highest ranked aikidoka in Germany.[6] The sources tend to be in German because he is in Germany. Aikido Journal has an interview with him in English. jmcw (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. The article's creator and I had exchanged posts on our talk pages so I thought putting it up for AfD was the fastest way to get consensus. In the old days I'd have posted it at WT:WPMA, but few people seem to go there anymore. Papaursa (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Exchanged posts"? I placed a message on your talkpage requesting that you notify the article creator next time you tagged an article for CSD, since you hadn't - that, and your subsequent notification of this discussion, has been the full extent of our correspondence. Not exactly a full and frank exchange of views... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per he reasons listed by my colleague above. The nominator appears to indiscriminately be a single-purpose anti-MMA account or something. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article has nothing to do with MMA. They deal with akido which is not MMA, so your anti-MMA account accusation makes no sense. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You are correct in a sense, it looks like it is anti-MA, not just MMA. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator !vote) Passes WP:MANOTE#1, which (since MANOTE is not actually part of the notability policy, and hence is not a good standpoint from which to argue for or against deletion) is equivalent to passing WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think being the highest ranking person in Germany of an art is sufficient grounds for notability, but combined with the fact that he was sent there to introduce that art I think is sufficient. Astudent0 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:BASIC does not require either to establish notability. jmcw (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Nominator wants to withdraw. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 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 speedy keep. I have to agree. WP:SK 1. Redundant to what? No prejudice against a speedy renomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Operating Base Echo[edit]

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

Redundant. Adel (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - nominator fails to advance a policy-based argument for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note sure what the nominator means by "redundant". If he means "it no longer exists", that's certainly not a reason for deletion. If he means "it's covered in another article" he needs to be more specific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric AH-Yuen[edit]

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

The article has no supported claims of notability nor did I find any. I don't believe being a trainer satisfies any notability criteria and the only source for the many TKD championships he claimed was his web page. There is no mention of him at the World Taekwondo Federation site nor at the list of national and international fighters and results at http://www.taekwondodata.com/home.html . Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MMA. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking user comments on advice from an admin due to abuse of multiple accounts. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what the MMA WikiProject has to do with someone who has nothing to do with MMA? The subject of the article up for deletion is a golf coach and Tae Kwon Do instructor. Your !vote looks like WP:JNN as you cited in another AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. You are right. It should be MA in this case as well. I am just getting frustrated seeing nothing but deletes from some of these accounts across all these MA and MMA articles. I logged on today to start some articles on two of the most famous Lousianans about whom full length books have been written. I like to write my edits off site in Word first,then log on and add them without having to make a bunch of edits. Anyway, I saw on my talk page a request to come to an AFD. Then I checked the sorting and I swear you got the same handful of accounts practically copying and pasting the same delete votes indiscriminately. It is just irritating. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you vote keep for everything, but it would be better if you actually looked at what the articles were about first. Unless, of course, you feel every TKD instructor and conditioning coach is automatically notable. Papaursa (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article has no independent sources that mention his name. Being a golf strength coach isn't notable and the fact he's not listed on a TKD website that lists 22,000+ TKD fighters makes his multiple TKD world championship claims very suspect. Astudent0 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have no notability as a fighter or as a fitness coach. I found nothing in any independent sources to show the subject meets any notability criteria nor did I find significant independent coverage of him. The article's link to the local paper didn't even mention him and the only other mention I found in that paper was when I searched for the subject and found that his school would be starting an after-school program--worthwhile perhaps, but hardly the stuff of notability. The only keep vote comes from a user who apparently didn't even look at the article since he thought it was about MMA. Mdtemp (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC) - striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His responses haven't been boilerplate, but yours have. Posting this at every edit he makes could easily be considered stalking/harassing. In addition, this article isn't even about MMA. If you think the user is a puppet then submit it to WP:SPI. Otherwise, quit making the claim. Papaursa (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC) - striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the 2 sources that don't even mention him or the Titleist listing showing he's one of 150 people in Ontario certified by Titleist for golf bio-mechanics? Hardly enough to show significant independent sourcing or notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Once you get rid of all the confirmed socks, the discussion takes on a very lopsided perspective in all these sports articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:29, 18 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. Consensus appears to have established that the subject meets the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for biographies. Both deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Boockvar[edit]

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

Subject is an associate professor of neurosurgery at Well-Cornell. Article is basically a condensed CV and contains a long list of impressive looking "honors and awards". Unfortunately, not a single one would qualify under WP:PROF. Web of Science lists 63 publications, which have been cited a grand total of 314 times (top citations 52, 41, 37) with an h-index of 10. No independent sources, no hits on GNews, Google just gives the physician-related hits that are to be expected. Does not meet WP:PROF ~~or WP:GNG~~. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the primary author of the article - I'm modeling it off of Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa. Please do not delete the article yet as it is still in the process of being created! I would welcome any comments or suggestions as to how to improve the article. Thank you! rosseauwake (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2012 (EST)

Comment The article on AQH is actually quite bad, but in contrast to JAB, he does seem to be notable (for instance, there's a biographical note in the NEJM, one of the most prestigious medical journals). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the primary reason AQH got an article in NEJM was because of his rather unique and impressive circumstances - JAB did not start out as a migrant farm worker. However, JAB has published a significant number of peer-reviewed articles in well known scholarly journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Cancer Journal, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychology, Journal of Neurooncology, etc.) and in that sense is very solidly a personne connue in the scientific community, just as much so as AQH. Rosseauwake (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but that is incorrect. I just went through the AQH article and there are substantial independent sources there, varying from the NEJM to several news media outlets. And, in any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a good argument in deletion discussions. JAB did publish a substantial number of articles, but that in itself is nothing out of the ordinary: publishing is what academics do. What matters is whether those publications have had any measurable substantial impact and that is absent here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Guillaume, thank you again for taking the time to help me with this article! You were right about the lack of independent sources before, so I've added several independent sources to my references list, including the New York Times and CNBC, as well as the fact that JAB was Editor-in-Chief of the journal Current Stem Cell Research and Therapy and is an editorial board member of the Journal of Neuro-Oncology and the Journal of Neurosurgery. Hopefully that takes care of the independent sources issue. With respect to the publications, I have a pretty good knowledge of what JAB's lab does, and it is on the forefront of cancer stem cell research, as indicated by the writeups in third party media sources such as the NYTimes and CNBC and by the fact that his lab is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Does this resolve the legitimacy issue of the article? Thanks again. Rosseauwake (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PROMO page. This was basically all a cut-and-paste job from his employer's ad page for him (I just had to gut it for WP:COPYVIO reasons), and includes "awards" from a blatant plaque factory. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a promotional page, as there is not a bias in the writing. The facts I stated in the paragraphs which you removed are precisely that - facts. Additionally, the America's Top Doctor awards were not processed through the Consumer Research Council of America, as your link implied. They were actually processed through Castle Connolly Ltd., a collaborator with U.S. News and World Report. (http://nyp.org/about/americas-top-doctors.html). All the awards listed are legitimate awards from impartial sources. With respect to the cut and paste job, yes, that's correct - large portions of text were taken from my employer's page (note that I left out information that could have been considered promotional, and only included factual information). I have permission from the owner of this page to include the text, so I don't see where the problem lies. Thank you. Rosseauwake (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion can exist in display of facts, by choice of which facts to present, and one cannot expect balance from a brochure page like this is taken from. As for reuse of your employer's materials, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which conveys how they can properly grant permission for their use. As for the statement that it's from the Connolly list rather than the CRCofA list, I believe you, but that should be sourced - both for general reasons of sourcing and for the claim that he's a "top doctor" to have a meaningful context. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the pointers! I have sourced the Conolly listing, and will look into the Donating copyrighted materials page. As for the promotion existing in the display of facts, I have done research on JAB, and there really isn't anything negative to mention. No big scandals, no notoriety, just a smart, hard-working doctor doing groundbreaking work to improve and hopefully save the lives of patients terminally ill with brain cancer. And of course, this being an open and impartial wiki, if any user does find negative facts or information that they feel are pertinent, they can add it to the page. Rosseauwake (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the reference you've now provided seems to disprove the claim; looking at his page on Connelly, he was not selected for America's Top Doctors at all. He was selected for Top Doctors: New York Metro area. Had he been selected for America's Top Doctors, it would list in the list of publications on the right side of his page, as you see for this doctor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true as Guillaume has demonstrated that the subject does not meet the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC; he is only an associate professor, and his publications do not meet the usual requirements. However, he may well qualify for an article under WP:ANYBIO. Google News search finds a lot of articles in at least four languages. One is a substantial article about him and his research team in Science News Daily. Another (sorry, can't link to it due to laptop limitations) quotes him in a New York Times article.
Some advice for User:Rousseauwake: please back off and stop trying to edit/keep this article. It is in terrible shape, completely non-encyclopedic, and your attempts to improve it are making it worse. The entire "honors" and "publications" sections should be deleted, they do not contribute to his notability. Instead the article should explain who he is, what his training/background is, and what his impact on the field is. Tell you what: in a day or two I'll have some time to rework the article. In the meantime, please follow the instructions at WP:COI and do not edit the article yourself. Instead, if you have something you think needs to be in the article, post it on the article's talk page and let an experienced Wikipedia editor decide whether and how to put it in the article. One thing I would like to know: one of the news programs seemed to refer to him as holding an endowed assistant professorship; what's that about? Anyhow, in my opinion he deserves an article here, but not in its present form. Please trust the rest of us to fix it up. MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi MelanieN, I think that's an accurate assessment. As you can probably tell, I'm relatively new to this whole article creation process on Wikipedia, so thank you for stepping in and fixing up the page. :) I will refrain from editing and let you take over! With respect to the endowed assistant professorship reference, I'm not entirely sure, but I'll look into it and get back to you. Do you know which news program referenced that, by chance? Rosseauwake (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That 2008 article in Science News Daily referred to him as "the Alvina and Willis Murphy Assistant Professor of Neurological Surgery and head of the Brain Tumor Research Group, at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell." I gather that he is now an associate professor rather than an assistant professor, but I was puzzled by the title "Alvina and Willis Murphy Assistant Professor". That sounds like an endowed professorship, but endowed professorships are usually given only to tenured full professors. Oh, OK, here's the deal: [7]. I can use that in the article, although it may not be enough by itself to make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have completely rewritten the article, wikifying it and adding references. Those who have already expressed an opinion about it are invited to take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to MelanieN for a great job. I am changing my own !vote to "keep", but given that there is another "delete" !vote, withdrawing the nom is not possible at this point. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing it. That Science Daily piece is just a press release stripped of its attribution, and we are told that those do not count toward notability. The other third-party sources currently in the article briefly quote him, and are not substantially about him. As such, the things being presented here don't seem to match any relevant notability guideline. I maintain my delete stance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - once you start looking, there are mentions of Boockvar in a number of sources. While there certainly are some press releases, they are being published in decent sources. And we have two New York Times reports on the work he is doing. The New York Times report I have just used in the article - [8] - is sufficient by itself to show notability. That is a very thorough report on the importance of his work. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:31, 19 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. WP:SOFTDELETE - the few sources there are are self or user generated such as Myspace, YouTube and Last.fm. However, as there have been few participants in this discussion, I will WP:USERFY if asked or a request may be made at WP:REFUND SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stylish Nonsense[edit]

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

Not sure what to make of this incredibly orphaned article about a two-person Thai band (nothing in article space links to it). I'm not seeing anything special that makes it meet WP:BAND, and it established its own label in collaboration with another band. Then again, I don't know the Thai name of this band or how much Thai-language coverage it might have. I need someone who understands Thai. Their website is broken, as well.

This is a weak delete vote from me until I can get more details on its Thai-language notability. Note that there is no linked article from th.wiki. Raymie (t • c) 00:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 March 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:35, 11 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.

well they are real, they exist, they play regularly... why delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.108.27 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE - There is not much credible information to determine notability, and the few people who have looked, have inclined or agreed with deletion; however, there is some claim to notability, so will WP:USERFY on request, or someone may make a request at WP:REFUND SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juffage[edit]

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

Dubious notability for this musician. Has a couple of self published releases, plus a release through Function Records, which itself has been previously deleted from Wikipedia as a non notable record label. Has some minor mention in minor publications. Article is an autobiography. Appears to fail WP:Notability (music). Safiel (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 5 March 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At last, an easy name to Google. I found one NME album review[9] and Artrocker had him do a playlist but with no info on him[10]; nothing else in major publications (Pitchfork, DiS, Guardian, Independent, Rolling Stone, Q, Telegraph). Nothing in local media (Yorkshire Post) either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage found by Colapeninsula. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 18 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Rilov[edit]

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

Article is closely paraphrased from [11] The source is also a personal reflection on the life of a friend, and does not, I think qualify as a reliable source. Searching LexisNexis, the only mention of Rilov I could find was in the Canadian-Jewish progressive magazine Outlook. [12] The full text of that article is not available to me, but the title and author are identical to the source above. There is nothing in the Google News archive. There are two English-language hits in a Google books search - in one case, Rilov's name is mentioned as one of several people who signed a letter, which is not evidence of notability. In the other case, there is a discussion of a dispute over his passport in the Intercontinental Press in 1970, but only a snippet view is available. If this individual was notable, I would expect there to be more than one obituary in an obscure publication and a mention in one article in 1970. GabrielF (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC) GabrielF (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll see what I can find. I actually met Rilov several times, and visited his London exhibition in 1991; I should have some reliable references. Please give me time to find them. RolandR (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added more text, cited to reliable sources (the Israel Museum Information Center for Israeli Art, and the local paper in the French department where he established an arts centre). There appears to be a substantial interview in the book Retours d'Israël, by Maurice Rajsfus. I do not have access to the book, and my French is probably not adequate for a satisfactory translation; but someone may be able to obtain and cite this. I have somewhere, though it will take a while to find it, the catalogue for his 1991 London exhibition. Most of the Hebrew sources notred by Zero appear to be mirrors of either the Hebrew Wikipedia article (which has little that is not in our article) or the Orr obituary. I'll study the references more closely tomorrow; but meanwhile, the article is significantly better sourced. RolandR (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be quite a few sources in Hebrew, though I'm not in a position to judge their quality. This listing seems to me premature; shouldn't one tag it for more sources, list it in project pages, etc, before trying to delete it? Zero^talk 22:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the opposite is true. It should have been (and still should be) speedy deleted as a copyvio and if anyone wants to create a new article, can starts anew (assuming this person is notable). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to indicate notability. If someone can access the French sources listed above and send them to me I will add the relevant info to the article. While there was a problem with close paraphrasing, that is being dealt with. There was nev a straight out copyvio problem, contrary to Brewcrer's assertions, and a speedy delete, even if previously justified, is not now, in light of the sources added by RolandR. Tiamut^talk 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the French text, beyond the snippets available on Google Books.[13]. According to Google search, the interview begins "Nissan RILOV «JE SUIS UN JUIF PALESTINIEN!» Nissan Rilov est né en 1922 à Kherson (Ukraine). En 1924, ses parents décident de quitter l'urss et se fixent provisoirement en Bessarabie, à Kichinev. En 1928, la famille arrive en Palestine"[14]. Our article currently states that he was born in 1918, which contradicts this text; I don't know which is correct. The book is available to purchase at a very high price. The only place in London I can find it is the British Library. You may be able to find the book at a library local to you, particularly if you are affiliated to an academic institution. RolandR (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend requesting it at the resource exchange. GabrielF (talk) 20:19, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Liverpool F.C. season[edit]

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

Contsted PROD. This article violates WP:CRYSTAL; it has no meaningful content and won't do so for a number of months. Recreate in the future. Giant Snowman 14:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation as a crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No point creating article until fixtures are known and it does seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. --Brian (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate during the pre-season. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and recreate in summer. – Kosm1 fent 12:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close per SNOW. Cloudz 679 18:12, 15 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Racusen[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Koppas (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails notability criteria for any form of WP:BIO. There aren't any reliable sources out there to show notability, nor has any of his work. The article itself is so overly promotional in tone that it could probably be speedied in one format or another.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION. Likely autobiography. No assertion of notability and no reason to believe anything the page says, since sources haven't been presented and a reasonable search doesn't help. BusterD (talk) 12:46, 18 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USF St. Petersburg Department of Journalism and Media Studies[edit]

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

University departments are rarely independently notable and this one is no exception. The article is mostly sourced to the department's own website. The independent sources present are just in-passing mentions in articles about other subjects. The only more substantial source is the one on Poynter News, and that one isn't exactly independent either. In short, does not meet WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to delete make sense. It'll be better to include the department information within the university's page. Will do so, and thanks for the feedback. Caozitou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - individual academic programs or departments have been almost always deleted at AfD. 21:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Per snow. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shamkhor Massacre[edit]

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

This is just made up massacre and this is not existed. There is no evidence in any other notable sites about this Massacre. NovaSkola (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has 11 references, spread throughout its content. How does this correspond to your assertion that it is a "made up massacre"? Meowy 20:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is not evidence from websites but from washed up places, even is not notable that things are exists or not.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? I don't understand you. There are no websites mentioned anywhere in the article - all the eleven sources are books. Just because it is an incident that neither you or I have heard of doesn't mean that it is made up. Notability is another matter - that would depend on how important the incident was within the context of the Caucasus at that time. It would be the sources that would decide that, but I'd imagine that 1000 dead Russians would have made for an important incident at the time. Meowy 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require that sources be available online. The references on this article could be much better formatted, but they are completely valid references. Propose speedy close based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy in the nomination rationaile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the complaint was that there were not any online sources, only "washed-up" old media like books! Meowy 22:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG keep: The article contains reliable scholarly references. You haven't checked the references have you ?Nocturnal781 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nominator's conduct raises certain questions here. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see references to it online as well [15] ("The Shamkhor Massacre. When a particularly large and militant group of Russian soldiers began to move along the railroad away from the front in January, 1918, the Military Council of Nationalities decided to disarm them....")[16], the nomination is therefore insufficient grounds for deletion. I knew this would probably be the case before I looked, but nominator User:NovaSkola notes he is pro-Azerbaijani on his page. Its a stereotype to me at this point that all these eastern European and western Asian ethnic groups I barely know anything about are still fighting on Wikipedia about all the bad shit they did to each other at some point, whether it be 100 or 500 or 5000 years ago. Well, guess what, Americans massacred American Indians, had slaves, and did tons of other bad shit too. But that doesn't mean we can say it didn't happen. If there is actual reliable sourcing that puts the existence of this massacre in doubt, then that should be reflected in the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though America has "tons of other (more recent) bad shit" that it won't admit to, has an ongoing production line of "bad shit", and has lots more "bad shit" in the early planning stage. And it too has plenty of pov-warriors on Wikipedia to support it. Meowy 16:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely correct. They are more insidious than this ridiculous "it didn't happen" baloney like this AfD demonstrates.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; 53 mentions in book sources, appears to be sufficiently notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the article needs improvement but the massacre is a well known event documented in neutral sources. Winterbliss (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user who nominated the article for deletion despite all the bona fide NPOV sources should be warned of disruptive behavior as per WP:NPOV and WP:TE. Winterbliss (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well referenced.--Rafy talk 23:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced per RightCowLeftCoast. Dehr (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RightCowLeftCoast. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:08, 14 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:Nyttend under cirterion G11. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little tales of little things[edit]

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

Unremarkable Book? Dengero (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reliable sources out there for this book and the only hits that came up were merchant sites and links to various sites where the author was plugging his book. Fails WP:NBOOK by a mile.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:30, 11 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 Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland. Relevant information can be placed there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Wide Bay[edit]

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

League is not notable. Nothing has been included to prove notability and search of the Internet reveals nothing that could rescue this situation in any way to equal it with say AFL Cairns for instance (AFL venue for premiership points and 2004 GF debacle). Footy Freak7 (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How about a search of Queensland sources such as the Bundaberg News-Mail and/or the Fraser Coast Chronicle? At least as notable as a range of minor leagues in Vic, SA and WA. Even if the topic could not support a stand-alone article - a merge to Australian rules football in Queensland would be preferable. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already listed on the Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland page, and that's another reason why this should be deleted. I also disagree that this league is as notable as the minor leagues in the football states. The papers don't prove notability. I know because I'm familiar with them and have examined them as far back as 1972. In fact, the papers provide minor coverage compared to other sports, which is also distinct to the minor leagues in the football states. Footy Freak7 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's as keeper for sure, this league is now 25 years old, and there is probably more information on this page that some of the Tasmanian competitions that are over 70 years! Keep and let's build on it Purrum (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how much work you do, you'll never get this to pass WP:N in my opinion. On the point of Tassie, check out what I'm about to do - and it includes a big notability point. Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked on Newsbank and had problems finding any sources. :( A look through Google shows <Carlie Walker (2012-02-11). "Dean shares his love of AFL | Fraser Coast AFL | Aussie Rules in Fraser Coast". Fraser Coast Chronicle. Retrieved 2012-03-11., ^[1], Vince Habermann (2011-10-25). "Brewers toast win | Bundaberg AFL | Aussie Rules in Bundaberg | Bundaberg News Mail". News-mail.com.au. Retrieved 2012-03-11., Vince Habermann (2011-09-14). "Bulldogs' cupboard clean-out | Bundaberg AFL | Aussie Rules in Bundaberg | Bundaberg News Mail". News-mail.com.au. Retrieved 2012-03-11.. Not entirely sold on this notability wise either way. Ambivalent. --LauraHale (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland, which covers the important. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland. Eeekster (talk) 02:16, 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 keep all listed articles. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2C-TFM[edit]

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

This article does not satisfy the notability criteria because it has only been reported in primary sources (and actually, only one primary source). There are no relevant secondary sources available for this particular compound, only a limited number of primary sources such as the paper referenced in addition to anecdotal sources such as "trip reports" and drug-forum. flaming () 06:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the compound in question was never even referred to as "2C-TFM" in the referenced paper, only "2-(2-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)aminoethane. flaming () 06:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same (i.e., only referenced in primary sources):

flaming () 06:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other such articles that have this same problem. They are generally inter-linked with the above articles and I'll be doing my best in the meantime to add all of the relevant ones to this AFD. flaming () 06:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of the articles listed in this AFD have more than one reference. Personally, I don't think that having only references in the primary scientific literature alone is sufficient grounds for deletion. I suspect that secondary sources for many of these (but perhaps not all) could be found though. I'm not sure all these articles should be grouped together in one AFD. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you not think that only being referenced in scientific journals is enough for deletion? Per WP:NOTE, ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." These are not secondary sources. flaming () 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at, for example, Category:Organic compound stubs you'll find that a quite a large percentage of these articles have references, but only primary source references. This is the typical state for short science-related articles. It is standard practice to create (and keep) these types of articles, which may not be adequately captured in Wikipedia:Notability. This is why I don't think it is a sufficient argument to delete a science article just because it relies on the primary scientific literature for support. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has this practice actually been confirmed via an AFD or an RfC or something? Under my reasoning presented here every one of those articles could be deleted or at least merged into one giant article about obscure organic hydrocarbons (to give an arbitrary example). flaming () 02:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, several AFD debates relating to obscure compounds have gone through this discussion before, and there was general consensus that they could be notable without having the kind of secondary sources you ask for. With compounds that are used only for in vitro work in the lab, there are multiple examples of compounds that are many years old, have pages upon pages of PubMed citations that mention them, and are used by hundreds of scientists in laboratories all over the world - yet have never been talked about in a newspaper or secondary source outside the scientific and patent literature. Would you say SKF-82,958 is non-notable for instance? Or SB-242,084? Meodipt (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Talk:25I-NBOMe, an anonymous contributor left this relevant comment: This compound reported in Virginia as cause for at least 5 overdoses. Our poison control center issued a warning on this drug. Suggest not delete as many may be looking for more info on this drug if overdoses continue. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of these articles are referenced, and the 2C drugs have fairly common usage to be worth their own articles. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, yes, they are "referenced", but only in primary sources (i.e., scientific journals). And you seem to be confusing these chemicals with the standard 2C series. Those are quite well documented in external media; these derivatives, however, are not. flaming () 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all obviously I'm a bit biased as the creator of most of these pages, but there is a lot of established precedent here that these kind of compounds are sufficiently notable for their own pages. Several of them are being widely sold around the world as "designer drugs" and of these at least 25I-NBOMe (which has caused several overdoses in the USA) and 25C-NBOMe (which has been found sold as a designer drug in New Zealand and placed into Class C on this basis), have been mentioned in newspaper articles, which seem to be the kind of secondary sources that are being asked for here. Anything which has been added to the illegal drugs list and there are people in prison for selling or possessing it, can I think be assumed to be notable! The others are all of a similar nature, and it is highly likely that these will continue to become increasingly more notable over time, and probably all be Schedule I drugs within 10 years. Sure this can be disputed per WP:CRYSTAL but I'd argue that the compounds are notable enough as scientific curiosities already, and recreational (ab)use of them will only increase this. If they are deleted, they will inevitably be re-created at some stage with very similar content. Meodipt (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Anything which has been added to the illegal drugs list and there are people in prison for selling or possessing it, can I think be assumed to be notable!" (on this note, 25C-NBOMe and 25I-NBOMe perhaps may indeed be notable, for this reason I will remove these from the AFD, since they are the only compounds I can see that have any sort of documentation. Other than 25C-NBOMe, none of these are scheduled, nor do any of these have people prosecuted for possession etc.)

In addition, you mention that all the others are of similar structure, but I will here bring up WP:CRYSTAL (as you predicted) and say that while these may be notable in the future, they are definitely not of note right now. They are not "notable enough as scientific curiosities" because they do not have any secondary sources to back them up (ergo, not WP:NOTEable). Find some secondary sources that say they are, and then they will be. flaming () 01:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2C-G adding. I have added 2C-G to the AFD here because it has the same issue as the others here, it only appears in a primary source (scientific literature i.e. PiHKAL). flaming () 02:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and also Ganesha (psychedelic), and Beatrice (psychedelic), same reason (PiHKAL only). flaming () 02:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so what kind of secondary sources are you asking for then? There are several recent reviews of the structure-activity relationships of 5HT2A agonists that I could dig out, and a lot of the modelling work being done on the 5HT2A receptor these days is using NBOMe compounds because of the extra binding motif. I just don't accept that something has to have been mentioned in a newspaper in order to be notable. This would be a massive departure from accepted precedent with these kind of obscure drug pages, and there are literally thousands of compounds that could be added to this list for deletion under the strict interpretation you propose. Look at all the pages for pharmaceuticals that never made it to market for instance, many of them have less references than these and are not even currently used in research. But I would definitely argue that the vast majority are nevertheless encyclopedic and valuable content, that should not be deleted. Meodipt (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these substances are widely available online because they are not properly documented. Deleting articles because these compounds need more exposure is like taking your glasses off because it's getting dark. For the sake of harm reduction, it is important that these pages continue existing to provide public information that is a simple search away! As was stated above, there are plenty of other obscure pages that have never been mentioned in a newspaper.. It would seem that you are singling these drug pages out! May I ask what is your motive in doing so? Enix150 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When it comes down to it this is simply a matter of pedanticalness. There is no actual logical reason why these articles should be removed nor would there be any sort of benefit to doing so (quite the opposite in reality). A lot of work went into them and they are a valuable and easily-accessible source of what would otherwise be very obscure information. Simply because there are no secondary sources available for them at this point in time does not mean we should act like the chemicals in question don't exist. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have a look at WP:What "Ignore all rules" means, any kind of policy debates should ultimately be looked at in terms of whether they help or harm the Wikipedia project overall. Taking a strict and literal interpretation of the guidelines in WP:NOTE and applying it more generally, to determine the fate of pages that fall within a class determined by prior consensus to be subject to slightly lower standards of notability, is not appropriate. Your proposal would open the way for deletion of thousands of similar articles on obscure chemical compounds, and there is no question that this would be damaging to the aims of the project. Sure I will concede that some of those pages you have nominated like 2CBCB-NBOMe, are perhaps of little notability for now and might struggle to pass AfD if nominated individually. But that doesn't mean you can just nominate 15 of them at once, with a broad and general argument that could apply to thousands of other pages as well. Meodipt (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd note that I found 4 articles referring to the originally nominated compound as 2C-TFM with a quick search of Google Scholar, one of which was a review article (i.e. a secondary source), and I have added this to the 2C-TFM page as a reference. So it is absolutely not true to say that it is referenced in only a single primary source. Meodipt (talk) 19:44, 15 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. Michig (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance[edit]

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

This article does not meet the WP:Notability guidelines for reliable third-party sources. Poopmai (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two-year-old umbrella organization for web fan sites. No evidence of notability provided in the article, and I find no independent WP:RS coverage at all. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable, third party sources. (If we don't find things like "Super Mario Wiki" as notable enough for an article, not sure how we could possibly find an unofficial grouping of this and similar wiki's notable either.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 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 redirect to Next What's In. An article can be created if he writes more notable books or otherwise becomes notable independently from this one. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable author, in an article that's little more than a promotion piece. No notable books, no indication that he's a best-seller or an influential person. Note, after reading the last AfD: The Hindu is not the most reliable of sources, and an interview with or review in that newspaper is no guarantee of anything. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm predisposed to agree with you, although he did get some notice from Businessworld and the WSL. I'm a little concerned about the notice being predominantly about the book rather than the author himself, so maybe it'd be best to redirect the article to the book since it does seem to have gotten some notice? I also noticed that the article about the author was in dire need of being re-written since it's not encyclopedic in tone, so I'll work on that just in case more sources are found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Next What's In or delete. There's coverage out there, but it's predominantly about the book. I would suggest redirecting it to the book's page and merging any relevant data. I did do a clean to remove the more promotional/resume type material and there's really not much there, so I don't anticipate much needing to be merged. I understand that there's a language barrier here, but the search I did with Google translate was pretty slim.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought this said Business Weekly, but it's a different newspaper entirely. I'm not sure on the reliability of BusinessWorld.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference is reliable and verifiable: I am amused that Hindu and Businessworld is being considered as sources that are not reliable. Kindly have a look at their credentials before simple editing things. Kindly have a look at the link http://www.thehindu.com/navigation/?type=static&page=aboutus It started in 1878 and has a readership of 4.06 million. As far as Buisnessworld is concerned it co-owns Star News television channel along with Rupert Murdoch's Star Group and has been operating for more than 2 decades. Businessworld is the largest selling Indian business magazine, and the only business weekly in the country. For more details you may visit http://www.businessworld.in/businessworld/businessworld/page/About-Us.html. Thanks Vartmaan (talk. I request you'll to follow the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The main topic may be the book Next What's In but Santosh has got more than trivial mention and therefore deserves a place in wikipedia. Thank You!Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I didn't say it was unreliable. I merely said that since I wasn't familiar with it as a source, I wasn't sure as to how reliable of a source it is. I'm more familiar with the American and UK journals than with the ones in India. Regardless of how notable they are, the factor still remains that the vast majority of sources on Sharma focus predominantly on his book. I do think it shows notability for the book, but not as much for Sharma as an independent topic from the book. It might seem strange, but this is actually fairly normal for books in general. Most authors aren't independently notable apart from their works.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm thinking a good guideline to use, here, is whether Mr. Sharma has more than one book published. At this time, he has one - Next What's In. If he, as a businessman, can do something that is remarkably significant outside of general economic improvement (and for that, he'd have to basically flip over the economy of his general area), or get some time to publish another book, then it would be a good case to keep - but unfortunately, it may just be a little bit too soon for Mr. Sharma to be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UI World Vision 2030 : Dear editors Mr. Sharma is not only an author of one book but he has been awarded by one patent, 2copyrights and 5 trademarks in India and more than 25% of his inflows are being used to nurture talents of people below the poverty line. His 10 point vision was inaugurated by the Governor in India and it has been clearly covered by the "Mint and the Wall Street Journal". Kindly see the reference of his UI World Vision in the following link that was deleted http://epaper.livemint.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=16_05_2011_012_005&mode=1 .You can see his views on inclusive and sustainable economics (bridging all the gaps where he has introduced Gross Universal Index (GUI) instead of GDP as the holistic measure for development and growth) and his World Vision to free the world from vicious mental traps. He is not a business man but a cultivator - Universal intelligence (as the references also suggest) and is working on a Universally intelligent model for corporates which is in tune with Universal Intelligence and does not have egoist profit and loss account and balance sheet. This is the reason for promoting "Dissolve the box concept" as thinking out of the box is only forcing corporate to find out new ways to make money remember the thief example which he usually sites to differentiate between Thinking outside the box and Dissolve the box. Kindly be fair and reconsider your stand. Thanking you. Vartmaan !Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Patents, copyrights and Trademarks : Santosh has been awarded a patent on a tool for thought designing and decision making which will "democratize decision making" in true spirit. He has trademarks on "Dissolve the box", "Intent Leadership", "Management U.0", "Designng growth", "Mental Flatteners". You may visit Government of India Site http://124.124.193.235/eregister/eregister.aspx and type the following alloted numbers that is openly verifable. The sources are higly reliable. They are 2139101,2139102,2239886,2249385,2249758. These details were not provided earlier. Kindly reconsider your stand to allow the article on Santosh to be there in wikipedia. Thanking you. Vartmaan.!Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment That's great, but the issue with the articles that were shown was that they focused predominantly on his book and the ideas contained therein. As far as the patents go, merely holding patents and being successful do not in themselves extend notability. Neither does having good ideas. Now if multiple news sources focused on Sharma himself talking about himself then that'd help show notability. The reason I deleted the livemint article was because the article focused on Sharma's book and I felt that it would be best served being used on the book's article as a way of trying to keep Next What's In. By the way, the WSJ link and the LiveMint article is one and the same.[17] (LiveMint is pretty much part of the WSJ and is run under their banner.) You can't use the same article twice to show notability regardless of what the link looks like. It doesn't add anything and it can sometimes look like you're trying to puff up the article. Having lots of links does not guarantee notability and it's better to have fewer links that focus on the article subject (in this case Sharma himself) than to have multiple articles that are either the same or don't really focus on Sharma himself. Again, publishing a book does NOT give Sharma notability. We need articles that focus on him rather than on his book. So far the articles that were removed all focused on Next What's In and did not really discuss Sharma himself. Believe me, I tried to justify having them on the article and I just couldn't see how they'd help this article with notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I have written 4 articles based on the reliable references we have got - Santosh Sharma, Next What's In, Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership. The comments i have got from the editors are as follows

Dissolve the box : Editors are of the view that the references talks about the book and the author. Santosh Sharma: Editors are of the view that the references talks of the book and the idea. Next What's In : Editors are of the view that Next What's In is non notable and The Hindu reference (which was established in 1880 with 4.1 million readers as unreliable) Intent Leadership: Like Dissolve the box article editors are of the view it talks of the book or the author. This does not reflect an objective assessment. Request you'll to reconsider your stand and be fair to arrive at a conclusion. Once we decide the articles to remain in wikipedia i can rework on the article for the encyclopedic content though i have been mentioning the content in the articles is simply quoted from the reliable references and not mine. Thanks "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.39.108 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Vartmaan - Forgive me, as this will sound rude, but it's time to be blunt. The long and short of this is simple: you need to prove to us that this article meets our general notability guidelines, which, as you have repeatedly pointed out WP:GNG, you should be very familiar with by now. Your repeated posts in here are not helping your case. What will help is if you can alter the article in such a way to demonstrate notability of this independently of the book. The end. In short: don't sell us on why it's notable when it's not, prove that it's notable independently of the publication. That, alone, will change our minds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Dennis The Tiger- Dennis you are doing your job as an editor and therefore there's nothing to be forgiven, in fact i am happy that you have been continuously working to improve wikipedia. What i am concerned about is what i have mentioned in the above earlier comment where the editors are not consistent and objective. For the idea, they say the reference talk of the book and the author, for Sharma they say the references talk of the book and the idea and worst is for Next What's In where they say the references are not reliable when the references are from more than a century old leading publising house of India with more than 4 million readers daily. This actually has created a trust deficit but i would still like to clear the concerns. It is very clearly mentioned in the WP:GNG guidelines on notability that 1) "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." 2) I have deeply understood this WP:GNGguideline and nowhere it is mentioned, or even hinted that the coverage of the article should be standalone or cannot be clubbed with any other matter. In fact it is done otherwise where the guideline clearly states WP:GNG, Kindly explain what do you mean by "IT NEED NOT BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL". I have been repeating this point because i have not got an answer till date for this point. I have just been told that "no it is not a significant coverage" but i have not got an answer to this point. So in the first place why do you need me to "demonstrate notability of this independently of the book"? It's not required. I hope you are not misunderstanding me of repeating it again. I do not want to waste your valuable time. Dennis i will be travelling for my outdoor lectures so there may be a slight delay in my response. Kindly forgive if i have hurt you in any way. It's absolutely unintentional.Thankyou "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] ([[User talk:Vartmaan|talk] —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
Keep I recognize that the Hindu is not of quite the rigour of some other news sources, but it is one of the two English language news sources for Indian that in practice we rely on. We have to cover the country's notable things using the sources that are available, and in the context, this is.If we didn't accept it for notability , our very weak coverage of India would be very much weaker. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot DGG for your support as the way the other editors have been treating this article was very unfair. It was also ceating a trust deficit as many of our references have been simply removed without even verifying their credentials. "Businessworld" and "Business Today" are leading business magazines with the largest number of readership and references given by them have been unfairly removed. Also the reference of "Mint and the Wall Street Journal" , Financial express - one of the oldest business newspaper have been removed. Kindly have a look at them . . . http://www.businessworld.in/businessworld/businessworld/content/Box-Factor.html ; http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/the-winning-way-review/1/16438.html ; http://epaper.livemint.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=16_05_2011_012_005&mode=1 ; http://www.financialexpress.com/news/shelflife/828244/2 ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help us in improving the article with encyclopedic content - Kindly help in improving the article. We also have the referece of http://www.iipmclubs.in/news-and-events/Guest-Lecture-by-Mr.-Santosh-Sharma-(Cultivator---Universal-Intelligence,-Conscious-Advisory-Services-Pvt.Ltd.)-at-IIPM-Hyderabad/which has been removed. Need some urgent help or guidance for a complete information as the matter given now is very incomplete. Also Dissolve the Box article has been removed unfairly when it is completely in line with the WP:GNG guideline which defines significant coverage as more than trivial coverage but it not be the main topic of the article. In the references given you will clearly see that the main heading of the article hints at the box factor and the body of the article explains this idea with examples, usage in day-to-day life, leadership, innovation etc. with advantages and disadvantages. CAn this be termed as trivial coverage. I honestly believe it is significant coverage but it has been removed and i would like to reappeal for that . Help me out to fairly have that article in wikipedia or else it will be against the basic spirit of wikipedia. User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk
Delete then redirect to book, per WP:ONEEVENT. Non-notable accountant who wrote a book of dubious notability. Insufficient sourcing to support an article on this subject and a reasonable search doesn't improve that situation (based on search, apparently a common name for either sex). Anything relevant can be merged into the book. If and when the subject can muster sources superior to the shallow coverage presented, then we could reconsider. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 18 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next What's In[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable book. A review and a half in The Hindu (hardly the best resource for book reviews) does not add up to notability. I don't even see much use as a search term. A separate concern is that this article seems to be a vehicle for promotion, which of course is not a reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with a weak keep here. It meets guideline one for notability (books), but barely - I'm only seeing reviews of the book. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have written 4 articles based on the reliable references we have got - Santosh Sharma, Next What's In, Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership. The comments i have got from the editors are as follows

Dissolve the box : Editors are of the view that the references talks about the book and the author. Santosh Sharma: Editors are of the view that the references talks of the book and the idea. Next What's In : Editors are of the view that Next What's In is non notable and The Hindu reference (which was established in 1880 with 4.1 million readers as unreliable) Intent Leadership: Like Dissolve the box article editors are of the view it talks of the book or the author. This does not reflect an objective assessment. Request you'll to reconsider your stand and be fair to arrive at a conclusion. Once we decide the articles to remain in wikipedia i can rework on the article for the encyclopedic content though i have been mentioning the content in the articles is simply quoted from the reliable references and not mine. Thanks "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.39.108 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know think the other articles are notable enough outside of the book to warrant an article at this point in time, but right now this book seems to have had enough coverage to squeak by WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—There are several reviews of this book in third party sources. It meets WP:NB clause 1, and the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recognize that the Hindu is not of quite the rigour of some other news sources, but it is one of the two English language news sources for Indian that in practice we rely on. We have to cover the country's notable things using the sources that are available, and in the context, this is.If we didn't accept it for notability , our very weak coverage of India would be very much weaker. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Tokyogirl, Livitup, DGG for your fair decision. I had a very tough time to make the editors understand the facts because they were very negative all troughout. However, i need some more help as i am new to wikipedia . . . 1) Kindly help to improve the article as many aspects which have been covered in the reliabe sources are missing from the article giving an incorrect picture. Kindly have a look at these references also along withthe ones already given to omprove this article. The other references are : a) http://www.financialexpress.com/news/shelflife/828244/2

b) http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/the-winning-way-review/1/16438.html c) http://www.iipmclubs.in/news-and-events/Guest-Lecture-by-Mr.-Santosh-Sharma-(Cultivator---Universal-Intelligence,-Conscious-Advisory-Services-Pvt.Ltd.)-at-IIPM-Hyderabad/ 2) "Dissolve the box" idea has got a "significant coverage" as per the GNG guidelines which clearly states that significant coverage is more than a trivial covereage but need not be the main article. Just have a look at the headline of these artcile (headlines are usually the high point of the article) they all mention the box factor and the body of the article actually explains the heading in different ways like showing the difference with Thinking Outside the box, Benefits in leadership, innovation, implications in life etc. This is certainly not just a trivial mention. Kindly, have a fair look at the spirit of GNG and guide me on this. Thanks Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 18 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. Michig (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Éder Túlio[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays for América Mineiro. However, I cannot verify that he has actually played any games for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability is offered in this stub, and what I find on the web is trivial, non-WP:RS, or (mostly) both. If better evidence can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:40, 11 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. After the article was improved and with the comments all keep the nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) Youreallycan 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brugnara[edit]

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

delete Does not seem to meet requirements for WP:NOTABILITY under WP:BIO -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep Brugnara is one of the most famous real estate magnates in the world. Just clicking on the Google News link above is more than enough. And this isn't even a lack of WP:BEFORE, as there were four sources already in the article before the nomination, including this six page story entirely about him. I don't even know how to explain how bad this nomination is. Silver seren^C 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the time the article contained very little as far as establishing notability outside of him filing bankruptcy, owning a building, and being president of a company that is not itself represented for an article on Wikipedia. An article with the same title was deleted from Wikipedia over notability concerns in 2007. Looking through Google News, the main change as far as him and his notability concerned is his imprisonment for filing false tax returns and poaching fish. Only the former is included in the article, and is just a couple sentences. Unless there is something in the 108 Google news entries that i am missing (many of which are very brief mentions to him or a revised version of the same article already in the results), this is at best borderline notable. And the article it self does very little to establish notability. Although, it is admittedly better than it was when I nominated the article initially. The way you phrased your comment makes it seems as if there is substantial coverage of the subject, is there something that I am missing here? -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the coverage of him as an extensive landowner in both San Francisco and Las Vegas? As owning a number of properties and being heavily involved in the real estate market, making him one of the richest real estate owners in the world? Silver seren^C 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Brugnara" definently is worthy for an article. After doing further research I found that Luke Brugnara has been a big player in the real estate world for many years and is by no means a simple low profile real estate investor. He has been on the cover of several well known newspapers and magazines such as SF Weekly and the Las Vegan and countless other articals about his many real estate deals. This artical does not go aginst any of wikipedias guidelines and is the essance of what wikipedia is about, documenting and providing accurate information for others. So taking all of this into account, the "Luke Brugnara" artical should 100% stay in place as it would be very wrong to deprive others of information about a credible person who clearly is extraordinary. --Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)— Joshualeverburg1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Being one the most famous and controversial real estate landlords san francisco has ever had I belive that it is necessary to keep this artical. I have seen other articals here on wikipedia about people I have never even herd of, and other topics that are vastly inferior get full blown articals and attention they dont deserve. --Gordonpenwick (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn After the extensive expansion of the article in both content and sourcing; I feel comfortable in withdrawing my nomination. It is not a clear example of a clearly notable person, still only a couple of in depth sources, a bunch of mirrors to the same sources, and smaller references, but it does now establish Notability within the article. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:06, 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 delete. Michig (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lexx[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Glamour model with brief porn career whose most significant achievement appears to be a single picture in Playboy. Fails WP:ENT, WP:PORNBIO, and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits, no billed roles outside porn, and just one porn credit. No reliable sourcing; the article appears to be drawn entirely from a promotional bio. Survived an AFD five years ago before relevant notability guidelines were tightened up; these days, it's nearly a speedy candidate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look at the article and on the web and agree with nom. Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:17, 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, WP:SNOW, consensus is clear. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Manning sweepstakes[edit]

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

This is a list of rehashed speculation from news sources about which team might sign Peyton Manning. Fails to satisfy WP:NOT#NEWS. Terence7 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most significant information can be merged into the article on Peyton Manning. However, this isn't likely to be a search term nor an enduring topic. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just plain unencyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your personal sports blog, which is what this reads as. Also as all have said already, NOTNEWS. Nate • (chatter) 04:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not one to invoke WP:NOTNEWS very often, but this time it fits. Encyclopedic information about this topic belongs in concise form in the bio article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That article doesn't belong on wikipedia due to the fact that the article is 100% speculation and speculation doesn't belong on wikipedia--Rockchalk717 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late addition, it's also completely unsourced--Rockchalk717 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced neologism, essentially. Any information about where Manning ends up belongs in the article about him and that team. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS is sometimes misapplied as a reason to delete, but not in this case. It states, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion" - the Manning scenario is two of those things. Although Manning is a high-profile player, this is mostly just routine player movement and any relevant information can be covered more efficiently in the Peyton Manning article. However the article does have sources as of right now, and the term "Manning sweepstakes" is being used fairly often[18] so I wonder if it might be worth a redirect of some sort. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there are no backlinks, and that Manning's free agency is not notable, I would disagree with a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recentism at its most embarassing. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very slight merge to Peyton Manning. The fact that various teams sought to sign Manning after the Colts released him could eventually be worth about one sentence in that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peyton Manning is notable. This article is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as not encyclopedic and WP:SNOW. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and can we SNOW this yet?) I feel like I predicted this. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Article has been renamed to 2012 release of Peyton Manning. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 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. Michig (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super Computer International[edit]

(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) 02:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Game company that lasted two years. No showing of significant effects on history, tech, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A7. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one non-deadlink ref, with a brief mention and no indication of the company's notability. Dialectric (talk) 00:19, 16 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. Michig (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focal Point Systems[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as making no minimal claim of importance. Full text: Focal Point Systems is a video editing software company based in the United States. It was acquired by Apple Inc. on April 26, 2001. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A7. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:29, 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 delete. Even without discarding the comments that do not have any rationale - and which have been canvassed off-wiki - consensus is clear here. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMMAC 1[edit]

If you came here because a plea made by the administrator of The Fight Lounge for its users to vote keep (Note, screenshots were taken of the forum thread since the administrator said he was deleting the tread), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

Non-notable event from a non-notable promotion. Articles cite only a single source (from the promotion itself) and no significant coverage of the events can be found. TreyGeek (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Bjmullan (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable event? OMMAC is one of the biggest MMA shows in Europe. I have added more references from some of the biggest MMA websites in the world and can enter a whole lot more if necessary. A lot of significant coverage can be found if searched properly or if you know where to look. Please don't delete as I have spent a lot of time adding these articles to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All of these consist solely of reporting fight results, thus failing WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:EVENT and WP:JNN. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Striking comments on advice from an admin of user who is indef blocked due to abuse of multiple accounts. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as from the guidelines within WP:EVENT (and this doesn't mean that the above vote and me are sockpuppets for anyone looking to score cheap points on this!) BigzMMA (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Err? Are you two sure you want to claim that WP:EVENT bolsters a Keep argument, when it explicitly states "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article?" Beyond that, WP:JNN is an essay, and doesn't actually propound valid grounds to retain an article. Ravenswing 21:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as from within the guidelines WP:EVENT and WP:GNG The events are important for mixed martial arts and it's fans. OMMAC is one of the biggest shows in Europe and many fighter use this promotion to gain entry to the UFC. Wikipedia should provide this information for people all of the world.--Fightloungemike (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also placed more sources, so the top comment from treys saying he couldn't find significant coverage should be void. Coverage from such sites as sherdog,mmajunkie,fighters only magazine, mirror.co.uk and of course The Fight Lounge is very significant--Fightloungemike (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)— Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete all The articles consist of only fight results thus failing WP:ROUTINE and WP:N (which says "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage"). Astudent0 (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- well you may as well get rid of every ufc and boxing event then as they have the same sources...pathetic--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, duhhhh! Yes, certainly a lot of the individual sports events and "East Bogside Wombats 1927 lacrosse season" articles in here (probably around 95-96%) should have been removed years ago. What's your point? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, do you have a newsletter that I could subscribe to? Dennis Brown (talk)

Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- well thought out and explained vote (rolls eyes). For every reason behind voting to delete, I have proved you wrong. Yet you seem to all be on a power trip. It should remain, and it will be terrible if you continue to vote delete just for the hell of it. Why delete one of the biggest events in Europe?--Fightloungemike (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, thats exactly what I thought when I first signed up to Wikipedia. These people definitely get a power trip off something about this. But like it or not, we do have to accept it, and even though they are actually wrong to, they can still make the delete vote, all we can do strengthen our side of the argument with more related Wiki Policies and use examples of where their examples would apply but never gets the majority agreement to delete (i.e. UFC 147) so that if anyone else reads this, they might vote keep based on how effectively we've shown how these events are notable. BigzMMA (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good points BigzMMA. Are these guys able to change their mind and their vote?--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - They can, but they rarely do, especially these exact people on this case that have voted 'delete', also have you thought about making a main page for the promotion? it may help a bit for those struggling to find sources on OMMAC events. BigzMMA (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I was going to do both a page for the promotion itself and for the events, exactly like what the UFC have. Decided to wait until this voting malarky, because I don't want to spend ages building it again, just for a bunch of morons vote delete again--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:GNG. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [19] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Striking opinion by blocked, most likely banned user. Amalthea 00:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are cheating by deleting people who vote keep? That's fair isn't it?Fightloungemike (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all what I said. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors should note that this is not a vote on the MMA organization, but on the individual events. The question being discussed isn't whether the organization is notable, but rather whether or not articles consisting only on fight results are notable. WP:N says they're not. Papaursa (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So why was the initial reason this was put up for debate being "non-notable event from a non-notable promotion" you lot are contradicting yourselves--Fightloungemike (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What part of "non-notable event" is unclear or contradictory to you? That claim has been very consistent in my posts. Papaursa (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine events for a lower-tier promotion. Does not pass WP:GNG. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does--Fightloungemike (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Wikipedia is entirely flooded with these smaller, non-notable events. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See above for another ridiculous vote by someone who knows nothing about MMA--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not bludgeon if I'm just pointing out a fact. People are voting delete when they don't know about the subject they are voting for nor why the article in question is up for vote. This shouldn't have been put on this section.--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is, it was meant to help you, not criticize you. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Starwar1 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Starwar1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Starwar1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Keep as notable event and within rules --Redbaronfury (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Redbaronfury (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Redbaronfury (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Observation - Lots of new faces !voting... Dennis Brown (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the problem with that is?? As far as I can see, fans of MMA believe these are viable pages. Thank you to all that has so far voted keep--Fightloungemike (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTAVOTE. Also, the same group of singlepurpose MMA deletion only accounts we see everywhere... --172.129.155.170 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I may have created my account to vote, but that doesn't mean my vote shouldn't count... --Redbaronfury (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable event from a notable promotion. 172.129.155.170 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 172.129.155.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Striking opinion by blocked, most likely banned user. Amalthea 23:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --London84tfl (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)as within rules and notable event— London84tfl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that London84tfl (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Comment These votes are allowed, as anyone can vote so long as they use Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be aware of two things: Wikipedia:Meat puppetry and this is not a vote. Bjmullan (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as within rules and notable event--Brashleyholland (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— Brashleyholland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Brashleyholland (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

so the number of votes aren't important now? if not, what does it matter where the voters came from? At least the recent people who voted know something about MMA while the people who voted delete think MMA stands for 'My Mothers Aunt". OMMAC is a very notable event and promotion - one of the biggest in Europe that some of the best fighters in the world have fought for. People want to know about the history of the events and these pages will allow that. Original nomination stated that it was a non-notable event with no sources...well the pages now show that it is notable and has the same sources as what the UFC event pages have...therefore they should remain. simple as--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"what does it matter where the voters came from?" - You seem to have a complete disregard for the policies and guideline of this project. It matters a great deal and you and others can (and should) be blocked. Bjmullan (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this project?? Worms like yourself are making it hard for Wikipedia (which is supposedly a peoples encyclopedia) to have decent articles which people with certain interests gain the right information. You should be blocked for being an idiot.--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it civil. Calling people names can get someone blocked. It is fine to disagree, but lets all try to not be disagreeable, and just let the process work. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per What would Jesus do?. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 63.3.19.130 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
- Sockpuppet striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your !vote. As you have not expressed a coherent reason for keeping this article, it is likely that your viewpoint will be discarded as noise in this discussion Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, or at most merge into a single article on the model of those on various science fiction conventions. As has been explained repeatedly, just because these events were widely viewed does not make each individual iteration worthy of its own article. The involvement of an s.p.a. like FightLounge, and his off-Wikipedia canvassing to swarm this discussion, are not the determining factors. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, once again I have to repeat myself. The UFC have articles for every event with the same sources as the ones I have provided in the OMMAC articles. All are very relevant and should remain on this site. I love wikipedia, I'm a big fan of the website and that of the jobs that the majority of editors do on here - deleting vandalism and lies - I'm just putting up articles of true events that are very relevant in mixed martial arts. That can't be wrong can it? I'm sorry for being abrupt to people earlier, but I can get easily disgruntled when people question my integrity and knowledge of MMA - I say it's a notable event and others disagree. I'm sorry, but if you say it's not notable then you are wrong I'm afraid. Please keep these articles on guys.--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Understandably, the creator of these articles is unfamiliar with relevant Wikipedia notability and verifiability guidelines, however expert he may or may not be in MMA. He claims that these matches meet the GNG, but let's review some elements of the GNG:
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Only one of the independent sources listed does so - the other is simply match results debarred by WP:ROUTINE.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. These are webblogs, in effect; they are not newspapers or magazines. What evidence does the creator have to proffer that these sites are regarded, in the MMA world, as reliable?
"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. This debars the outfit's own website, of course, and with only one other qualifying source at all ...
I am, by the bye, unimpressed with the creator's attempt to compare this outfit with the UFC. The UFC, of course, is a highly notable organization, with international broadcasts, national TV contracts, print magazines discussing its doings, and its matches discussed on TV shows and in daily newspapers. This is like suggesting that Conference South should have season articles because the Premier League does. Ravenswing 20:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By comparing OMMAC to a conference league is frankly disgusting and degrading. OMMAC features in MMA magazines sold around the world too - how do I know this - because I have wrote about them! You haven't--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLM, have you read any of the Policy/Practices/Convention documents here at wikipedia? I ask because you're all over the place in terms of trying to reasonably defend these articles. For example, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, a specific notability guideline to help get an idea of what is expected when trying to determine the suitability of the article for wikipedia. Please stop being abusive to other editors who are expressing their reasoned viewpoints about what to do with this article. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's your argument, FLM? Huh. Well, as it happens, this promotion you claim is so prominent has all of seven hits [20] on Google News UK. By contrast, UFC 144 - not UFC itself, just its most recent event - has over a thousand, while ironically enough, "Conference South" + football has 36. (Quite possibly Conference South fans might take issue with my comparing their league to an obscure martial arts promotion, and find the comparison disgusting and degrading.)

Of course, if you have evidence that these events have received significant writeups in MMA magazines, please feel free to provide citations for the same. Ravenswing 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really as I have this amount [21] so you are wrong. The UFC is far bigger than the UFC, I'm not disputing that - it's the biggest in the world. That wasn't the problem though was it? it was to do with sources and the OMMAC ones have the same as the UFC event ones. And I know more than you how many go on the internet to view the results as I can see the analytics on The Fight Lounge - and each event is in the thousands!!--Fightloungemike (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS invalidates your google hits qualification. Please provide independent reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the individual events. It would be notable if one of the boughts involved someone's ear being bitten off or some content that raised the individual article above standard coverage that could be found anywhere. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't paying attention, I'm afraid, FLM. You've got a straight Google search, which we very seldom use on Wikipedia. What I plugged in was a Google News search, far more oriented towards returning hits from legitimate news operations, as opposed to fanboy websites. Ravenswing 03:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec*6)Delete all What we have here is a "Cart before Horse" problem. We don't have a page for Olympian MMA Championships (only a CSD:A7), yet we have a full event listing for the bouts. Prove that the organization is appropriate for WP, and we might be able to do a list of the main card fights as a article. Hasteur (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier, A page for OMMAC (the promotion) was supposed to be done by now, but I put it on hold after this stupid thing came up--Fightloungemike (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per Trey. Also a courtesy vote. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The above vote appears to be canvassed like almost all of the delete votes in this discussion. By the way, see WP:NOTAVOTE. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - For you to say my vote was canvassed, you'd have to provide reasonable evidence that someone asked me to vote the way I did. Well, where's your evidence? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These events fail every one of the following: WP:N, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:MMANOT. Given the canvassing both on and off of Wikipedia and the attempts to stack the votes, I don't envy the closing admin. Mdtemp (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the criteria in the WP:MMANOT Criteria supporting notability

Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage.

Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable.

Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable.

Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.

So from that we can see that OMMAC is a notable event and should be on here. I have placed sources from all over the world. It has over 5 events per year and numerous sanctioned fights.OMMAC has been going on since 2009 (before that it was called cage gladiators and was going since 2006). Many wll-known fighters have fought on an OMMAC show - including Terry Etim, Paul Sass, Tom Blackledge, Stefan Struve, John Maguire, Rob Sinclair, Andy Ogle, Mark Glover etc) All (barring Rob Sinclair) have or do fight for the UFC. I rest my case...it should stay on!--Fightloungemike (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you glossed over the first requirement of the essay. Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organization under discussion. Please stop cherry picking rationales that support your viewpoint and read the entirety of the policies and guidelines we're referencing as reasons for not keeping these articles. Hasteur (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take a look at the very first post and see why the pages where nominated in the first place - "Non-notable event". I have proved that it is notable. You are now bringing up some other things. But you are wrong!--Fightloungemike (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails notability due to lack of significant and persistent coverage, has no reliable third party sources. The canvassing is getting annoying now. To all voters that came here from the site: Simply stating that it is notable and meets all the guidelines without stating why is pointless. This is not a vote. Also, to refute a few arguments, if you say it is growing really fast, we don't care about it until it meets notability guidelines. See WP:CRYSTAL. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well played, 63! It's without much merit (helping to remove non-notable things is like doing maintenance--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road FC), but I gotta hand it to you: well played indeed (and it is an SPA of sorts, true dat). Drmies (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 63, would you like to see your way out of this conversation without any serious investigation into your own SPA like behavior in regards to this topic without sanctions or restrictions? Please desist from casting the first stone. Disclosure: I've seen this topic area bounce up a few times through the various noticeboards, and had a hand in trying to negotiate a resolution to a dispute regarding the MMA Notability essay Hasteur (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned on the UKMMA Awards AfD to the same charge, 63, your edit history since July of last year is also almost exclusively MMA-related AfDs. WP:BOOMERANG, I'm afraid. Ravenswing 03:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Take your pick of a number of policies and guidelines these fail : WP:N, WP:EVENT, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:MMAEVENT; none of those supporting retention have indicated how these articles meet these polices Mt king ^(edits) 11:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for deletion because Treys had never heard of it - hence the non-notable promotion comment. I have since proved that it does pass the notability of an MMA show by providing sources from around the world, proof that highly ranked fighters take part in the event, that they put on many sanctioned fights a year and that it has been going since 2009 and as Cage Gladiator since 2006. That is why this series of events should remain on wikipedia. I have done what I was asked of and I shouldn't have to keep arguing with a bunch of people just wanting to cause trouble of something they know nothing about.Fightloungemike (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLM, have you noticed that pretty much only you and those from your website are claiming notability? Those who have been around Wikipedia for a while, who understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are all pointing to those guidelines saying the events themselves are non-notable and the articles aren't in a condition to be kept. I understand you think that the events are notable, I don't think anyone here doubts that you think the events are notable. The question becomes whether the events are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Continuing to debate after every delete !vote that the events are notable really serves no purpose, and it really does seems to be WP:BLUDGEON at this point. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLM, if you would look at any of the links that have been provided to you explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you would see that the word "notable," as we use it here, does not mean "I think it's important." As Wikipedia defines it, notability involves a subject being written about in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, independent sources. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies concerning the number of sanctioned fights a promotion has, the location of the servers hosting webblogs isn't relevant, and notability is not transferrable - a notable fighter appearing on a card does not make the sanctioning organization notable. One would think that given your insistence that You Know MMA and the rest of us don't - which is dead wrong, given that some of us have been following non-traditional combat arts since the heyday of the PKA, and compared to the likes of Benny Urquidez, Jerry Trimble and Thunder Thurman, the Silvas and Fabers of the world are johnny-come-latelies - you could wrap your head around the premise that we know Wikipedia policies and procedures, and you would be better off familiarizing yourself with them than in insisting you don't have to follow them. Ravenswing 17:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't mixed martial artists...what have they got to do with mma? nothing. I have given the right reasons why it is notable under wikipedia guidelines but you are failing to acknowledge them. Fightloungemike (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Treys, as I pointed out, what wikipedia say is acceptable for a notable promotion I have proved...you need to read WP:MMANOT and see the points in there..you started with non-notable promotion and using wikipedia's guidelines I have proven you were wrong and it should remain--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLM, please for the love of Jimbo indent your responses. Responding at the top level makes it difficult to figure out what edit is refuting what section. Hasteur (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... the notability of OMMAC itself isn't in question right now, since the organization has no article. If and when one is created, we'll revisit the question then. Beyond that, though, you're changing your tune, FLM. While WP:MMANOT is in fact a non-binding essay, if you believe we should follow its provisions, what about the one stating "Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article""? If you believe we should edit according to MMANOT's criteria, then it should follow that these individual event articles should never have been created ... right? Ravenswing 20:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - WP:MMAEVENT seems crystal clear. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as it they clearly meet WP:MMAVENT. No brainer on this one. Plus, all delete votes were clearly canvassed. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all delete votes were clearly canvassed - Perhaps you can expand this claim, provide diffs etc otherwise I suggest you strike it. Bjmullan (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He couldn't get enough !votes by canvasing, so he tried by sockpuppeting. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 I struck his words for him, per outcome of that SPI. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A very similar IP (63.3.19.130) has already !voted on his AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:33, 17 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 (author requested). Swarm ^X 20:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty horn[edit]

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

There is no source for the instrument described in this article; the cited sources seem to be about something else completely. See talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I quite agree. If that info had been to hand, I wouldn't have made the article. (I'm going to go on looking for the book that I did get info from, though. I'd have put G7 on, but I thought there was too much work by other hands. Any admin who thinks G7 fits, feel free.... Peridon (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although there were a few other edits to the article, it looks like you were indeed the only substantial contributor to that article and I do think G7 fits, so I've just deleted it. Swarm ^X 20:00, 11 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. Nowhere to merge to, even if notability were apparent. Information could be included in an article such as the one suggested in the discussion. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urbana Tower[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources, in fact no evidence that this tower has even been built, therefore unverifiable and non-notable Sionk (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the article makes it clear that this is a future project the tower has of course not been built yet. On the other hand there seems to be a whole series on future skyscrapers in Miami, see the navbox. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge this and a number of the other "future skyscrapers in Miami" pages in the navbox to a Abandoned skyscraper projects in Miami, Florida page. I cannot find any reliable sources dated more recently than 2006-2007 on this; one WP:SPS source circa 2009 describes it as a "stale project", and even the Wikipedia pages for a number of the other "future skyscrapers" say they were cancelled in 2008-2009 as a result of the housing bust. The "this is a future project not yet built" was true...in 2007; it cannot be verified as still being an extant project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per The Bushranger. Very few cancelled projects are notable. There is no evidence that this is notable in any sense. -- Donald Albury 12:10, 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akiko Omae[edit]

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

A tennis player. Her two ITF wins are singles $10,000 and $25,000 events, neither of which qualify under WP:NTENNIS guidelines. Can find no other reason she qualifies under tennis guidelines. This was Proded, deleted and re-created. Bgwhite (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, this person doesn't yet appear to satisfy the WP:NTENNIS notability guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cannot find results that qualify this player for notability per NTENNIS. No Fed Cup play and no appearances in the main draw of a main tour events. She participated a few times in main tour qualifiers, but always lost in first round of qualification. Her only title is ITF $25k, not enough for NTENNIS. Too early to create this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above I don't see anything in the world of tennis that makes this player notable yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 16 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Hmong in Merced, California[edit]

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

The article seems to be an attempt to incorporate information from Anne Fadiman's book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. Considering that we don't have parallel articles for Fresno or St. Paul Hmong (where there is a much stronger Hmong American presence), it doesn't seem like this topic is notable enough. The article overwhelmingly relies on Fadiman's book, which does not pass the muster of an authoritative source for an encyclopedia. Despite claims to the contrary by the article's creator, User:WhisperToMe, it does not seem that there are enough sources available to demonstrate sufficient notability for a separate article. The relevant content has already been moved to a section at Merced, California. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For a look at an earlier discussion about the issue, see Talk:Hmong American#Merge proposal. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly the argument "Considering that we don't have parallel articles for Fresno or St. Paul Hmong (where there is a much stronger Hmong American presence)," is faulty considering WP:V as a guiding principle. If you can find sources about a subject, then it has an increased likelihood of notability. If one can find sources to write parallel articles like Fresno or St. Paul, then, yes, one can do so. Also, Fadiman's book was the first such source, but it's not the only one. I also found an academic journal article about the Hmong health care in Merced ("The Hmong and Health Care in Merced, California") and also a journal about culture ( "Hmong Language and Cultural Maintenance in Merced, California") - So that makes three specifically about the Hmong in Merced. Then I am trying to get newspaper articles about it too. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To your second point, finding two articles doesn't establish notability, particularly because you're ignoring how other places are represented in those journals. In the case of Hmong Studies, look at how the single mention of Merced stacks up to the other place-centered articles in the journal:

Migration of Hmong to Rochester, Minnesota: Life in the Midwest (2003)
Coming Home? The Integration of Hmong Refugees from Wat Tham Krabok, Thailand into American Society [Specifically, St. Paul and Minneapolis] (2006)
The Transition of Wat Tham Krabok Hmong Children to Saint Paul Public Schools: Perspectives of Teachers, Principals, and Hmong Parents (2007)
The self-rated social well-being of Hmong college students in Northern California [Specifically, Sacramento] (2007)
Hmong Political Involvement in St. Paul, Minnesota and Fresno, California (2009)

In addition, the article you mentioned was published in the same issue as the review for Fadiman's article, which may have more to do with contextualizing her work than with the notability of Merced. The only other mention of Merced that I could find in that journal centered around Fadiman's book.

The point here is that a single article in a this journal does not demonstrate Merced's notability in relation to the Hmong diaspora. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not "a single article" in one journal. It's three articles, in two journals and a portion of a book, plus various newspaper articles. They go together. Yes, you found other articles from the same journal about Hmong in other cities. That means it could be possible to write "Hmong in St. Paul" or "Hmong in Rochester" or "Hmong in Fresno"

If you found a book about "History of the Slovakians in Cleveland," wrote a Wikipedia article using information from that work, and then found other sources to supplement the article, with decreasing and decreasing dependence on the book itself, if that is "contextualizing" the original work, that's okay. We have WP:GNG as another user pointed out below. GNG generally says that if many other people write about a subject, that subject is Wikipedia notable.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your suggested standard highly problematic. There are hundreds of articles about Hmong Americans alone, not to say other ethnic groups. These articles discuss Hmong people in places such as large urban centers as well as small towns. It can't be that every time someone writes a scholarly work about some people in some place that it should have its own Wikipedia article. There is some very good information in the article under discussion. Unfortunately, very few people probably get to see it because the scope is much to small and not notable. These details should be incorporated into existing articles where it belongs. --Nposs (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GNG is seen as the standard bearing notability principle on Wikipedia. If a topic can pass GNG, it is notable. It can also pass less stringent notability requirements specific to certain subjects. There are many articles that discuss Hmong settlements across various cities. Regarding "It can't be that every time someone writes a scholarly work about some people in some place that it should have its own Wikipedia article." -- if say, there are three pieces of scholarly work about some people in some place, it could be a topic noteworthy of Wikipedia. One thing about Fadiman's work is that it summarizes news coverage about the Hmong in Merced, and I've discovered this upon finding some Merced Sun-Star articles about the community. In other words, her work and the scholarly works are not in a vacuum. So the newspapers are also a large component of the topic's notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If GNG is the standard, what would dissuade an editor from creating an article on Michelle Obama's arms or Rush Limbaugh's midsection? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there wouldn't be enough material for either one. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this deletion discussion, there were at least ten sources used for the article Michelle Obama's Arms before it was nominated for deletion. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was interesting, actually :) - I think a major difference is the time period of coverage. The Hmong article has sources stretching from the early 1980s to the 2000s, and the sources include books and popular media sources and academic journal sources. This article seems to only use several tabloidy popular media "celebrity interest" sources from 2009. If coverage was ongoing and/or involved more kinds of media then there would be more of a likelihood of a subject being kept. WP:GNG does say "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." - But I think when people say "meets GNG" they argue that it is not indiscriminate and meets GNG WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the point about Fresno and St Paul is very strong. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. However, outside of a series of History of Jews in X town, there doesn't seem to be a body of History of X group in X town, which makes me wonder about the notability of the topic. On top of that, it is important to remember that the town in question is neither notable in size, nor in its connection to the Hmong diaspora. As I said in my nomination, this seems to be more about including content from the book than covering an encyclopedic topic. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry, but I don't understand your point. I don't know what would make a city "notable in size," but the city itself (with around 80,000 people now) passes notability requirements on WP and has its own article. With regard to the city's notable connection to the Hmong diaspora, the article that is nominated for deletion makes an extended case on just that point. I won't quote the nominated article here--I invite you to read it again. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't being very precise. You are right that Merced is notable enough to have its own article. When I say that Merced is not notable in its size, I mean it is not notable for its size. That is, it is not a fair assessment to say that Merced was one of the larger places with a significant population from the Hmong diaspora.

While the article makes the case that Merced is important in its connection to the Hmong diaspora, it does this by desperately clinging to Fadiman's unqualified opinions (which is another problem in the use of Fadiman for the article) and scouring accessible articles from local newspapers.

In reality, other than having an unusually high percentage of Hmong refugees for a few years, there is nothing particularly notable about Merced in relation to the Hmong history; not enough to have an article devoted to covering the Hmong in the city and certainly not enough to cover just the history of the Hmong there. Other than Jews (as seen at [Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city]), it doesn't seem that the History of X group in X town/city format is the normal way of including information on ethnic groups at Wikipedia. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the labeling Fadiman's opinions as "unqualified" is problematic. Fadiman took the time to author a book and do research on the issue. We generally label books published by reliable third party publishers as "reliable sources." From my understanding she is recognized as an authority on the Hmong health issue. She quotes a variety of individuals from Merced County and from the Hmong community. Are they unqualified too?

Fadiman isn't the only person to author a piece of literature on specifically the Hmong community in Merced. You have "The Hmong and Health Care in Merced, California" and also "Hmong Language and Cultural Maintenance in Merced, California" - neither of which were written by her. Thirdly, newspapers are a legitimate source in humanities-related subjects on Wikipedia, and many articles rely heavily on newspapers.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unqualified" in this context refers to statements like "Sometimes I felt that the other cities of the Central Valley—Fresno, Visalia, Porterville, Modesto, Stockton, Sacramento, Marysville, Yuba City—were mere suburbs of Merced." She is not qualifying this opinion with facts. It's just her feeling. Similarly, her statement that "Hmong residents were visible to the people of Merced while abstract economic factors were not visible, so the people of Merced focused upon the Hmong" is, again, a statement that is not qualified with sociological otherwise qualitative research. It's just her opinion. Her linkage of support for proposition 187 to hostility to legal immigration is spurious.

Her book is notable, worthy of mention, and even potentially usable to back up some statements about the Hmong in Merced, but its use here is stretching it beyond its authority.

By the way, what gives you the impression she's a recognized authority on the Hmong health issue? I would hope she was especially knowledgeable on the matter, but her faculty page doesn't seem to show her as an authority. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Page 227, immediately after "Sometimes [...] mere suburbs of Merced," she says "Hmong families constantly drove from city to city to visit relatives, and if they moved elsewhere in the valley, they returned to Merced for subclan gatherings, just as residents of satellite settlements in Laos had returned to their home villages." - So the book absolutely is qualifying this opinion with facts. You argue the other statement is "a statement that is not qualified with sociological otherwise qualitative research" - But the publisher thinks it is qualified, and nothing so far has appeared that contradicts it.

"Her linkage of support for proposition 187 to hostility to legal immigration is spurious." - But it is not the Wikipedia editor's place to judge these arguments. If a publisher of a work responding to that said "A says B, but I say B is spurious" then it would be okay to add that.

As a general rule, Wikipedia articles absolutely are about facts and opinions. As a general rule, the most prominent opinions are given space over the less prominent opinions.

Fadiman is frequently mentioned in popular media articles discussing the Hmong written after 1997 (publication of her book) - like this and this (the article preview doesn't have the quote, but Google News says the quote is "[...] vividly in the book ``The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, by Anne Fadiman")

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are more than enough sources to meet WP:GNG here, two peer reviewed journal articles, a piece in the New York Times, a lot of coverage in Fadimann's book, plus coverage in California newspapers. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; although the article appears to have sprung up independently, if it were to be merged into Merced, California or Hmong American articles, it would already be large enough to be spunout into its own separate article per WP:TOOLONG. Furthermore, there are sufficient reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This never should have been an independent article. It contains some good information, but that information should be incorporated into the relevant existing articles: []Hmong people]], Merced, California, Hmong-American people, Hmong language, "The Spirit Catches You ...", etc. I disagree that it would be too long to incorporate into those articles since the there are many small points that be rearranged elsewhere. The case of the Hmong people in Merced is similar to many other cities around the nation and it is not notable on its own. (A similar article, replete with reputable sources could be written about several.) I don't have the time to do the work, so I'm unwilling to suggest a deletion at the moment. --Nposs (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As shown through the sources, Merced has some unique characteristics. The usage of Merced as a place for subclan gatherings is one. The number of clans in Merced is another. You have the unique founding history of Dang Moua. You have the specific socioethnic and unemployment characteristics of Merced county, which clashed with the Hmong. There's Lia Lee and her history with that hospital, and the same hospital later introduced the use of Hmong shamans as part of the healing process. There are also specific statistics related to the Hmong in Merced.
- Some information in the article could be used in other articles, but that could be said for a lot of topics. I did include some information from the education section in articles about area schools and school districts in Merced. The thing is, Fadiman and the authors of two journal articles treated the topic "Hmong in Merced" as a unique topic, and Wikipedia could cover that same topic in one article. If one could write articles about the establishment of Hmong communities in other cities and/or states, one is welcome to do so.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of particular urban centers for clan gatherings is found in basically every region that has a decent Hmong population. The number of clans is also not unique (many Hmong centers have a diversity of clans). Hmong people have faced backlash in almost every city they live in. None of the points you have mentioned here make the Hmong population of Merced more notable than any other. Perhaps the only notable thing here is that Fadiman used this city for the basis of her research.

You have added some excellent facts to Wikipedia with this article, but the subject of the article itself is not noteworthy. Those facts would be more useful in the relevant articles that already exist and would allow more people to make use of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nposs (talk • contribs)

While certain urban centers are used in every region, one thing to note is that Merced happens to be the one in the Central Valley, hence Fadiman's comments. Mentioning the particular clans of a particular community can be notable since it can indicate which groups of Hmong are there.

While the Hmong have faced backlash in many areas, the reasons may be different in different places. Existing unemployment and the politically conservative nature of Merced County were possible factors mentioned in the literature I encountered.

The facts can be added to other articles as well as this one. In particular I have added some education info related to certain schools or districts to both this article and school and district articles.

I think the other distinguishing factors, besides Fadiman's book, are Lia Lee herself, and that Merced's Hmong community was also the subject of Jonas Vangay's book. So far I do not believe Google Books has archived it, but there is a copy on Amazon.com.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Turns out there is another book on the topic. It is:
- Vangay, Jonas. Hmong Parents' Cultural Attitudes and the Sex-Ratio Imbalance of Hmong Merced High School Graduates. Mong Pheng Community Inc., 1989.
Jonas Vangay is a Hmong community activist, and he was mentioned in Fadiman's book. Much of the material in Vangay's book originates from Vangay's cultural anthropology master's thesis from California State University, Stanislaus. The publisher is a non-profit organization founded to help refugees adjust to life in the United States. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per several already mentioned reasons. Material on this one urban center is significant enough that notability arguments don't hold water, and I agree with RightCowLeftCoast that the article is too substantial to merge into existing Hmong-american related articles. Wyvern t (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly significant and encyclopedic topic. Nicely done piece. Kudos to the content creator. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 17 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.

^ http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/11/02/3354613.htm this], [http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/02/06/3424222.htm

[1] ttp://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/11/02/3354613.htm this], [http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/02/06/3424222.htm

[1]