Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 May 28 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. per WP:HEY. Reaching the highest rank for a police officer in the country has been agreed to show notability. (non-admin closure)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaram Padikkal[edit]

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

Article is without any good sources - links are

  • other wikipedia article
  • filled with information about his father but not about him
  • e-notes
  • dead
  • blog Bulwersator (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I can find several passing references to his crimes,[1][2][3] he doesn't satisfy WP:CRIMINAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. reasons mentioned in AFD 1.
  2. has an authorised biography Veṅṅānūr Bālakr̥ṣṇan (1997). Jayar̲āṃ Paṭikkalint̲e kr̲aiṃ ḍayari. Dhanuṣmān Grūp ōph Pabḷikkēṣans. which finds mention in the News article "From crime to spirituality". The Hindu. Feb 7, 2008.
  3. The subject has enough coverage in National newpapers[4] and books[5] to establish GNG
  4. I have cleaned the article, added references and removed the original research allegations, sources for which are highly unlikely and I have added few third party sources into the article-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:03, 27 May 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) 23:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am in two minds on this one. The Google searches show some but not many reliable sources - probably borderline by themselves for notability but (since the subject's career was almost entirely pre-internet) there are probably more offline. However, the real problem with the page is shown by its history, alternating between being a stub and being a largely unreferenced attack page. And the stubbing has, probably unintentionally, sometimes deleted more than just the attacks - for instance, the fact that the subject finished his career as head of an Indian police force (presumably the one in Kerala), which seems to have swung the previous AfD, has now disappeared from the article. Basically, a proper referenced article on the subject probably could be written but it would be a lot of effort - and the emotions the subject rouses are still clearly great enough that the article would still risk the addition of poorly sourced attacks. PWilkinson (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changing to "keep", see below), regretfully, because I suspect the notability is there. I agree with PWilkinson's comments. The current article is an attack page, full of unsourced assertions of cruelty and corruption. The references provided at the page are unhelpful, and basic biographical information is lacking. Google New Archive does provide some Reliable Sources but they are not significantly about the subject. To create a proper article (needing a complete rewrite), or even a neutral sourced stub, would require access to the books which are mentioned in the article and/or found at Google Books. If someone does do a neutral rewrite, with at least some citations to Reliable Sources, I will reconsider my !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • to some extent I agree that better sources and the book mentioned above are needed, to improve. I have now removed all the unsourced claims along with the attack page tag. All the info in the article in its current form are properly sourced. The subject qualifies notability guidelines so the stub article can be kept. I think all the concerns said raised by the nominator have been addressed. Any comments now ? --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is greatly improved now thanks to the revision by DBigXray. While they were doing that, I was creating a possible stub, which I posted at the article's talk page. However I think the article as it now stands is sufficiently sourced and neutral to retain. DBigXray is welcome to incorporate anything from my stub into the article if they wish. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks MelanieN I have now moved your version which actually is an even more stripped version of the article. The article now is fully sourced with no original research or attack of any kind. any more comments for improvement would be welcome--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, DBigXray, I think between us we have solved this problem. One thing that would help the article (if you have verifiable information, which doesn't necessarily have to be searchable online - it can be a book for example): any biographical information, such as when and where he was born, when and where he died, any education he had, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the local language of the subject's place is Malayalam (which I do not understand), and the kind of source we would be looking for will be found in Malyalam ( wp:BIAS in online coverage in the region is another concern). Nevertheless, as the subject was popular, we were able to find some coverage in the more popular national media (the hindu, India Today), but thats all i could get.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted a request at Wikiproject India to see if someone who knows Malayalam might be able to find this information for us. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current stub contains enough reliable sources to establish notability and appears to be both accurate and neutral. I noticed in the sources that Padikkal is deceased but no date or circumstances of death are included in the article. He was/is controversial. From the sources already listed, he was involved in and influenced historic episodes in the history of India. I judge that editors will eventually find consensus on how to deal with the controversies in a neutral manner and more sources to improve the article so it becomes truly encyclopedic. Until then, it needs close watching to revert attempts to add inappropriate and unsourced text. DocTree (talk) 21:40, 2 June 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 Shiquanhe. Early closure as policy says villages *are* notable. However, as this is merely a different name of the same village that already exists, consensus is to redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gar, Tibet[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable village. The article does not currently give us anything to help us with WP:V, not even a location. The article's creator has bulk-added a number of very similar articles around the same time as this article. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't a deletion criteria, but this page does not meet my personal standard of what an article is (third paragraph of this essay), and therefore I'm calling for the axe anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you search Geonames[6] you find Gar (aka Ga'er), Xizang, China, "seat of a third-order administrative division" at 32° 12' 00" N 079° 59' 00" E (ref 44SMA0417763058); there's also the administrative division Gar (32° 05' 49" N 080° 21' 24" E). However our article Shiquanhe (32°31′N 80°04′E) says it is the county seat of Gar County and is often referred to as Gar or Ger. So somebody with a better knowledge of Chinese geography can decide if there should be a redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shiquanhe, which appears to be the same village. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 10:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shiquanhe - There's no such thing as a "non-notable village" but this does appear to be the same place as Shiquanhe.--Oakshade (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unsourced geography substubs. A stub without information that helps to expand it later is worse than worthless (red links are better). —Kusma (t·c) 08:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replica manga[edit]

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

No notability asserted at the article. Also, no third party reliable sources. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 22:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – Allen4names 06:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment. A Google search reveals no reliable coverage, just those familiar illegal scanlation sites. Even a search using the manga's name in Katakana (レプリカ) was inconclusive. Note that, should the article be kept, the article should be moved to "Replica (manga)" (with "manga" parenthesis) per our naming conventions and the anime and manga Manual of Style. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We cant do much here without sources this fails per WP:N and WP:V. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No sources indicating notability, league is not currently fully professional.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Buckley (Irish footballer)[edit]

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

This was prodded by User:Sir Sputnik on the ground "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." I contested it by mistake thinking League of Ireland Premier Division is a fully professional league, which it isn't anymore. KTC (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. KTC (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. Since the league isn't fully professional during this player time playing, and he doesn't meet WP:GNG. KTC (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, your not permited to !vote. The fact that you support deletion is implicit in the nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case it's not necessarily implicit as I was effectively passing on your PROD to AfD. *shrug* KTC (talk) 23:49, 27 May 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. Two keeps, two merges, one delete, two comments and one reply does not a consensus make (non-admin closure). ChromaNebula (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIR . ...William 22:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with conditions If the article is converted/transformed into tables similar to those found at The Simpsons (season 10)#DVD release, Lost (season 1)#DVD release, Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8)#DVD release and others, otherwise delete. If ST:DS9 had individual season articles I'd say move the tables into there and delete this page, but they don't, and I think it would be a bit much to have them all at List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous AfD closed only a couple of days ago with no comments for or against. What's the point of renominating so soon? Dricherby (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The previous AFD was opened and closed by the same editor and done in a matter of minutes. No debate. Would anyone seriously consider an AFD open for a grand total of 3 minutes a serious one?...William 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DVD release information is an important part of the coverage of TV shows. In this case there is too much information to include inline in the article, so a spin-off article seems appropriate. Needs work per Matthewedwards' comment above, but that is no reason to delete. JulesH (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe DVDs are mentioned at DS9's article. The episodes are in a list article. What this page is doing is breaking it down. This is analogous to a editor creating a new article just to list the chapters of some best seller....William 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a little bit to the main article. Much as I like DS9, there's no need to list the episodes and special features. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, the little info on release dates can easily be added to it. Wikipedia isn't a directory. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to main DS9 article pbp 17:53, 4 June 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. Early close as keep per WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Neighbors[edit]

Bird Neighbors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as a notable 19th century American nature classic. There are many, many sources, apart from those in the article. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books finds over 2,500 references to this classic work. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the assessment of 202.124.72.86. The article, while lacking a statement of notability before 202.124.72.86's improvements, was easy enough to assess as notable by searching and finding many mentions of it in other sources. I'm afraid the nominator didn't spend much time assessing whether these books were notable. Rkitko (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article expansion work by 202.124.72.xy demonstrates notability. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wild_Flowers_Worth_Knowing, old books should be given the benefit of the doubt; there is no need to send other editors scrambling by nominating such articles for deletion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep as the article has easily passed the GNG. New York Times, discussions in several other books? It's a keeper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, this is a notable article. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 20:38, 1 June 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 withdrawn by nominator. RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Flowers: An Aid to Knowledge of our Wild Flowers and their Insect Visitors[edit]

Wild Flowers: An Aid to Knowledge of our Wild Flowers and their Insect Visitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on a benefit-of-the-doubt basis, as the other parallel noms have been strong keepers. It's clear that no WP:BEFORE check has been done. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are multiple sources establishing WP:N for this one too. They're under slightly different subtitles though, since the subtitle changed when the book was republished. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Among other refs, there's a substantial discussion of the book in Early American Nature Writers (ref [1] in the article). -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a few contemporary reviews are listed in the article. The article could be substantially expanded from the given references. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the question is how many refs constitute "multiple"? Two? Twenty? Two hundred? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 1,000 references in Google Books, in fact, under the original title of "Nature's Garden." Why would you nominate a notable and classic book of nature writing like this? -- 202.124.74.33 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The single line article (at the time of nomination) gave no indication of its notability and a rudimentary check did not convince me of its notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite often it's down to personal interpretation, which is where discussion and consensus come in. I think the five independent sources added since nomination are acceptable for a short article on a book published in 1900. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this one is a genuine mistake by the nominator, because of the title confusion (some of the parallel nominations are less comprehensible). However, I do wish the creators of stubs would give us more than single-line articles. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as nominator. I guess it is worthy of an article and the woolly guidelines that let though all and sundry will allow it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:34, 30 May 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. Early close as keep per WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Flowers Worth Knowing[edit]

Wild Flowers Worth Knowing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've buffed the article up a bit and included a few more references. There are several more contemporary reviews that I don't have access to at the moment, including one in the Springfield Republican newspaper. Google searches don't turn up everything, especially when dealing with older books. Passes notability criteria. Rkitko (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Humorously, I also found a New York Times review under the heading "Notable Books in Brief Review.") Rkitko (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the excellent expansion by Rkitko. There are other sources not yet in the article. Passes WP:N. -- 202.124.72.86 (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, excellent work also from 202.124.74.156. The basic research that would have established notability is part of the due diligence that the nominator ought to have done first. This wonderful old book should not have been considered for deletion. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Non-contemporary books:

The vast majority of books upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature.

  • Alan Liefting is prolific in his proposals for deletions; bald deletion proposals from him about old books warrant being cleared out, pending more thorough consideration by him. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). The article was impoved during the nomination, and it was pointed out that the remaining deficiencies can be removed without deleting the article.Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horror films of Cambodia[edit]

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

many wrong information and WP:OR, blog posts not WP:RS ប្រវត្តិសិល្ (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — ប្រវត្តិសិល្ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cinema of Cambodia already exists and better ប្រវត្តិសិល្ (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 May 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 Mikuni Shimokawa. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believer: Tabidachi No Uta[edit]

Believer: Tabidachi No Uta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The track is not independently notable, propose deletion or merge into artist's page. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the standard procedure. Well... by merge I mean convert into a redirect, but still... Sven Manguard Wha? 04:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this meets the notability criteria of WP:NSONG. Can't see that there is anything here worth merging that is not already included in the discography section of the artist's article, so there is no reason to leave a redirect. --DAJF (talk) 04:45, 28 May 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. G11, entirely promotional. It might be possible to write an article if they have built important projects, but it would need to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The article is also written as an advertisement. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11. Article is a clear and unambiguous advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. JulesH (talk) 18:46, 28 May 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. Early close as Keep per WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Kevorkian[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines. No third party reliable sources. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 21:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable historian, recipient of the Armenian Presidential Award: [7], [8], [9] etc. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's notable, you could search his name in French transliteration - Raymond Kévorkian. Google has 11500 materials on him [10], among them "Armenian Weekly" (calling him "renowned historian"), Macmillan, Gomidas Institute, Amazon, etc. Gazifikator (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Appears to be an authority on Armenian studies. Cites are not high but are not expected to be in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Vejvančický only. I'm not sure some of the other arguments for keeping are that strong, but Vejvancicky's is. Lord Roem (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vejvanciky Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Lynn Mar (poet)[edit]

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

Non-notable article about a poet. Of the three refs provided, two are blogs. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 21:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Searches fruitless. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete College student who writes poetry. I could not find any independent sources about her at all. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 2 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tiffany's Universe[edit]

Miss Tiffany's Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pageant Tinton5 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – with 115 hits in the news links and 41 in the books links of the find-sources tag above, this is clearly a notable pageant and could easily be extended to several well-sourced paragraphs. Oculi (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable pageant. Easily passes WP:GNG: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant amount of reference coverage from a good deal of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. LadyofShalott 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nezpique, Louisiana[edit]

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

Non-notable community from Louisiana. Unreferenced. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we normally keep reliably documented populated places, for the US that is pretty much any populated places References should not be hard to find. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I withdraw this nomination. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 22:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sorry Bcounsel but those who have commented here are right. Wikipedia is for things that have received significant press coverage and something that you and a few mates are planning to do doesn't even come close to being notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of ideas[edit]

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

Non-notable. Page says:"This is a page about the festival of ideas that is currently under creation by the young students of perth mod and other schools." Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 20:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is under creation, please do not delete this as i am currently having trouble with having anyone participate because i cannot contact them to tell them that this page is up, as they currently do not know that i have finally figured it out. If anyone sees this may they please help me to make these people not delete a work in progress. please, signed Bcounsel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcounsel (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need some advice: there is no way you can write up this school project that would make it appropriate for an encyclopedia article. There are many things of established importance that need Wikipedia articles-- perhaps you should ask at WP:WikiProject Australia for suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, could have been considered for speedy delete under A7, no indication of importance. Bcounsel, I understand your desire to promote your new festival, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. This is an international encyclopedia, not a bulletin board. In order to have an article here, a subject has to meet the criteria of being notable and having received significant coverage by independent reliable sources. You will realize that your new festival doesn't come close to meeting these criteria. Good luck with it, and I'm sure you can find other venues to promote it (Facebook for example), but Wikipedia is not one of those venues. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 2 June 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. Bduke (Discussion) 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast Stars Football Club[edit]

Gold Coast Stars Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable football club. No references on the article. Searching on Google returns nothing clearly notable. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 20:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - club looks notable, as it play on the second tier in Australia. Though the article needs cleanup. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I also think the team is notable, but needs a cleanup. I visit the talk page of User:Matchu01(which is the one who creates the article), I discovered that he has a lot of articles that has been deleted, or nominated for speedy deletion. So I think the user has a problem in terms of creating an article. The club is also playing for a semi-pro league, which is on the second tier in Australia. Cyrus35334 (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cranbourne Business and Enterprise College[edit]

Cranbourne Business and Enterprise College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unbalanced, unsourced article that has three references for the whole thing. Seems to have some very odd claims with no sources. Badly written and biased. User Talk:W.D. 20:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which is opinion, not policy. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which is perfectly acceptable in AfD discussions! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This nomination is an excellent example of WP:RUBBISH. The subject is notable, the article may need some work, but that's no reason to delete what's there. waggers (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a high school and the consensus is that we allow an article on all of them. The article may be a bad one, but that points to tagging for imnprovement, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronet[edit]

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

DePRODded without reason given. European Union-funded project. Lots of participants, total budget of a couple of millions of Euros (not all that much in astronomy): the usual Europroject puffery. In all, a non-notable research project that existed for only 4 years; no independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per meeting GNG, see: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] and more. WP:NOTABILITY explicitally says :Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The references added above mostly seem to be recycled public relations blurbs giving statements of virtuous intent. Has the organization actually achieved anything that would make it notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • They seem to have developed a strategic roadmap for European astronomy research, with a follow-up contract awarded in 2011.[37] But that is irrelevant with regards to satisfying WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG per:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 16:11, 28 May 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kc Toros[edit]

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

The article was deleted per AfD. The user re-created the article. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 19:48, 27 May 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. Early close as absolute delete. When some of the finest knowers of policy are this adamant, it's painfully obvious (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron shimshilashvili[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable actor/model. IMDB apparently autobiographical also, and shows nothing but extra work and work in local video productions. The only third-party external link (there are no references) only shows a poorly-photoshopped "magazine cover". Google searches just lead to more self-promotion. | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt While portions of the article haven't changed, there are sufficient differences that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under G4. But it doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a terribly written and poorly sourced article. The self-aggrandizing tone and style of the article aside, as an actor he almost pushes at WP:ENT,[38] but I have been unable to find any reliable sources speaking about him. Lacking availability of decent sources, we have a failure of WP:BLP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree G4 doesn't necessarily apply... References are useless & BIO notability hasn't been met. Skier Dude (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - blatant G11 violation; also fails notability tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball time, anyone? Same picture, but now claimed as from a 2012 event instead of 2008. DarkAudit (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Roy Baker[edit]

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

third-level military decoration non enough for WP:BIO Троянди (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, albeit reluctantly. While Clifford Roy Baker seems to have had a distinguished and honorable career in the military, he does not meet the WP:BIO notability standard. The article doesn't have any independent sources, and I did a Google search, and I couldn't find any independent sources. NJ Wine (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 27 May 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) 17:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elainee[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO. Other than her having a couple of singles available for Internet download, I can't find anything about her in any reliable secondary sources. If you wish to see the previous version before I cut it back, look at the edit history. It was mostly sourced to things like press releases and blogs. Some was not sourced at all or not source-compliant. Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the time being. I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, in addition to Google News, but was not able to find any sources that would be helpful in supporting WP:N notability. Apparently she is releasing an album later this year—if she then is the subject of third-party coverage, then certainly the article could be recreated. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Paul Erik says it best: she is not notable yet, so she may not have a Wikipedia article yet. We can't create the article in anticipation of future notability (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). If/when she becomes notable in the future—and when the secondary sources exist—we can create the article then. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 per article author's request on his talk page JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Tinted[edit]

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

There is no indication that this new self-published 96-page novella meets the notability standard of WP:Notability (books). Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher, no article for the author, no reception, this year, nothing but primary source links.... You know, this is one of those times where I think BEFORE is such a low percentage proposition that I don't think it's a good use of anyone's time. Delete for now; recreate if and when it actually has some notability or independent verifiability. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator for completeness: an article about the author was posted at the same time as this, but I deleted it per WP:CSD#A7, as the only claim of importance was that he has written this book and plans to publish another; that is what led me to this article. By way of BEFORE I did the standard WorldCat check to see how many libraries hold this book, and found that WorldCat doesn't list it. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 27 May 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, original author now supports deletion and no-one suggests keeping this. BencherliteTalk 10:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyamandir Classes[edit]

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

Unable to locate significant independent reliable source coverage to establish notability. This article was speedied, and the speedy was removed by the original author. After it was automatically replaced a new anon IP then removed it. The article was then PRODed and a new account removed the PROD, with none of the issues addressed. So as it stands this appears to be a non-notable private test training program with no significant reliable source coverage available. Note, there is also a pending sock investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vivek_Rai. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this laughably amateur attempt at self-promotion. Nothing says "we're nobodies" like adding a fractured-grammar article on yourself to Wikipedia. Wny do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? EEng (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11 (spam). Article is already tagged. As the original speedy deletion tagger, I endorse this solution. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I declined the speedy. Sure, the article is bad, but in my opinion it's not irredeemably promotional. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would make my replies to everyone in turn.
ConcernedVancouverite : I agree that the article lacks reliable external links and verifiable sources, however as I had originally added the tag 'Under Construction' for the article, I would have searched and added the necessary data at the suitable time. I could not sit all the time here. So an explanation that it cites no reference and hence should be deleted in vague.
To save wasting everyone's time, don't add articles to Wikipedia until you have sources. Then we don't have to listen to you say that you'll add sources when you get around to it. EEng (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EEng : According to what you mention, the following articles too are liable to be deleted - FIITJEE, Aakash Institute, and many more which I haven't seen till now. I do know my responsibility when I create articles. This is not, I assure you done for any PROMOTIONAL manner. I found that the article was requested Here , so I thought to create one. Please have a kind look at my contributions where I have created and contributed to articles in various fields. I have no personal or commercial interest in creating an article for this institute. And if you find any problem with the text grammar, you're welcome to show your skills as I belong to a non-English country.
I checked out the two articles you mentioned, and one of them should definitely be deleted as non-notable, and the other likely the same. EEng (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would try to show 4-5 more such articles which should be deleted. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that the article doesn't contains any such text which can be termed promotional. I took a very high precaution while creating it, since it has been deleted twice earlier. As the sock puppetry investigation, I'm a student and I do not have the time,nor the strength to waste my energy on those useless things to promote anything. I know very sensibly that Wikipedia is not for promotion. I assure that you won't find any such evidence against me. Kindly take appropriate action against those who are involved in such activities and try not to harass the genuine editors.Thanks VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your intentions are good, but an article about a non-notable commercial enterprise is per se promotional just by its very existence. As already mentioned, if you find sources before creating the article then you won't get into this trouble again. EEng (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sources thing. But the comment that the enterprise is a non notable - I wouldn't agree. It might be non notable for you or people abroad India, but not here, especially in context of Entrance Examinations in India, IIT JEE,AIEEE and others. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTABILITY before commenting again. EEng (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Dennis. Most of the refs on the net are PR releases, not notable, spam. GregJackP Boomer! 00:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to work upon your source requests soon. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I no longer support my earlier Keep recommendation for reasons that can't be disclosed. Please Delete VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:29, 30 May 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) 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Frail Becoming[edit]

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

Non-noptable album yet to be released (without a release date). After a quick search, no reliable sources could be found on Google, only blogs and forums. Also, the article of the group is unreferenced (only has primary sources). Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 27 May 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. CSD G12. Yes it is permissable to add a G12 tag to an article while it's at AFD as copyvios need to be gone "yesterday". Actually, I'm surprised that Metropolitan90 didn't just go ahead and delete it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Corps Mexico[edit]

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

Non-notable what? The articler doesn't mention what exactly the Peace Corps Mexico are. Alo, it is written as an advertisement and relies on a reference form the website of such corps. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Metropolitan is correct; the article is cut-and-pasted from the website. (Is it possible to add a speedy-delete tag to the article even while it is at AfD? I'm guessing not.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 2 June 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) 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structural economic problems (current)[edit]

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

Giant coatrack. Gathers together a bunch of different (sometimes fringey) content talking about subtly different things; it's not actually an encyclopædia article. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom, it is a coatrack article filled with WP:SYN. LK (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhujiecun[edit]

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

Stub has 11 words and zero sources. Appears to fail both WP:V and WP:GNG. There are quite a lot of others like this one... bobrayner (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subject is described as a village, and populated places are generally considered automatically notable. Is there doubt about whether this village really exists? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a source for that automatic notability thing? I had a look in WP:GNG and didn't find it. Even if there is a rule which supports some kind of automatic notability for settlements, I expect it's unlikely to extend so far that any article saying only "X exists" - without a source - suddenly gets a green light. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a policy of automatic notability, just the way that things are "generally considered"; see Wikipedia:Notability (geography). I haven't specifically recommended "keep" yet on this place because I am waiting to see if any good sources turn up. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Five pillars, Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. Here are the coordinates for the location: 29°55′40″N 91°4′37″E / 29.92778°N 91.07694°E / 29.92778; 91.07694, (which I also added to the article). Northamerica1000(talk) 20:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those coordinates appear to show a field. There is a farm 200m to the north, with a different name according to the map overlay. Is a field called Zhujiecun automatically notable? I note that the first pillar you cite doesn't say that all places are automatically notable, but it does says that en.wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". bobrayner (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In some more remote areas the satellite overlay isn't always perfect - I've noticed this when following detailed RSed coordinates for articles on individual Japanese trees, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - I see this name does indeed appear on google maps, but the best information I can find is that used by User:Symplectopedia in creating lots of township level pages over on the zh wikipedia, namely that published by the National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China; here's the link which includes Lhünzhub County, Lhasa, Tibet which is the page here on wikipedia that claims to have Zhujiecun amongst its subdivisions; while I can recognize most of the characters I have no idea how to transliterate so can only rely on Google Translate - which for the several hundred examples I've looked at today seems to match those used here on wikipedia; the problem is that of the township-level units here, only two transliterations match those on Lhünzhub County (although there is the additional complication of an apparent mix of Tibetan and Chinese names); I'm finding only Chunduixiang and Kazixiang; there may have been renaming or reorganisation in the intervening decade since the "in 2000" mentioned. I think this discussion (are there others too?) should be continued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar because it all relates to the same basic issues, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The townships in Lhünzhub County are sourced to this page on Baidu Baike, a collaborative web-based encyclopaedia; as far as I can understand it this does not include our Zhujiecun as a township-level settlement, although it does have 朱加乡（ZhujiaXiang）as one of the 19 townships in 1997, now seemingly reorganised into one township-level town and nine township-level townships; per same and the top entry on the National Bureau of Statistics page here 朱加村 or Zhujiacun is one of the village-level entries under 甘丹曲果镇 which I think is our Lhünzhub though google translate gives me the Chinese name of Gandanquguozhen; the Zhujiecun on Google Maps is located between Chunduixiang, Kazixiang and Qianggaxiang (强嘎乡) which probably corresponds with one of the ?Tibetan? names in our county list, which all have articles but don't seem to have this kind of information; even the zh wikipedia doesn't get as far as entries at the village level, and since there seem to be reorganisations these may go out of date and be a push to maintain accurately; I think it would be much more helpful for Lhünzhub County to be properly maintained, with Chinese and Tibetan names and scripts and a good source; I'm not confident to add this detail myself; other language wikipedias seem to be merrily translating the English page as it stands, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't a deletion criteria, but this page does not meet my personal standard of what an article is (third paragraph of this essay), and therefore I'm calling for the axe anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with the length requirement - say you're looking for a temple and you find a one liner that says it was founded in a, dedicated to b, is located in x, y, z, gives the english and local names and scripts, has an interwiki link, and a hard reference, that can be one line and an invaluable start and pointer, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete based on personal criteria, we judge an article based on the criteria for inclusion and subsets thereof. A short article is a stub, and if you deleted every stub, half the articles at Wikipedia would be lost. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No loss there. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Never get deceived by looking at an article and judging it by the number of words. Every article on Wikipedia has a potential to expand itself into a real one. This particular village could have a large population, as many of them actually do. I see that I've been mentioned here, so I would like to say that it would seem a waste to delete articles that have potential. Jaguar (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google satellite view shows a field. I have no doubt that more substantial settlements will have more sources covering them, which could permit us to build a decent article; but with this one all we have is an assertion that a settlement exists. This is not an AfD for "notable settlements which could be expanded sometime", it's an AfD for Zhujiecun. Do you have a policy-based reason to keep it? bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we are an encyclopedia, and any place on a map (above) seems perfectly logical to include. As to deleting due to size, WP:TOOLITTLE clearly says that this is an argument with no merit at AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way does it satisfy WP:N? bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The locality appears on some unknown number of maps, presumably many, which are reliable sources (albeit not in depth ones). It also appears in census data, which is more in-depth, and is presumed to appear in reports in local news sources that are not readily available to us at this time, and probably in numerous other kinds of publication. These things pretty-much automatically happen for inhabited places, which is why we assume that all inhabited places meet WP:N. JulesH (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And kudos to Maculosae tegmine lyncis who continues to impress me greatly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources now to demonstrate notability. First Light (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as it is a place that can be verified with sources, then it's notable, per the gazetteer part of the pillar on what Wikipedia is. SilverserenC 06:17, 2 June 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. v/r - TP 15:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phase (band)[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisement. No reliable sources Night of the Big Wind talk 16:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC on the grounds of not having two albums on a major label and none of the sources appear reliable, so no multiple mentions in mainstream media.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read before you act. It says it has to meet at least one of the criteria not all of them. Woud appreciate if you'd edit your vote.thank you --Asouko (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia:Notability_(music) Says "it may be notable if it meets at least ONE of the following criteria:" so 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. will do or Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country (Syria, Lebanon, Bulgaria, Turkey, Italy) there are live reports and stuff online [39] I can provide them they need scanning. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, [40] Duncan Patterson recorded in their album. they have been on Mojo magazine, Metal Hammer Greece and MTV Greece, ERA (Greek National Radio) and more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibaghanem (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Hibaghanem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Sorry, but the sourcing is a complete disaster. Link the sources to the place where the info is. Cut out links to weblogs, myspace and their own website. Thes unreliable sources make the article fail Wikipedia:Verifiability. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Duncan Patterson Blog is the only outlet the musician has to the public, if i won't cite from their press releases which everything that reaches to the press from bands comes from their own management where then? I also cited some legit musical sites... Also undeniable the show of the band in Dimasq is of undebatable notability, plus it was already cited the album's link on itunes, if i cite every site it's on like amazon and stuff it will become a mess... please help me out... Thanks Hiba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibaghanem (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also what i can't understand is how is this Anathema_(band) or this Firewind better linked and how are a ton of rubbish articles still on as i was searching what could be wrong with the article for you to have marked it for deletion like Acid_Death, Afterblood, Bare Infinity, Bewised, Dakrya, Memorain, Zippo_(band), Wizo, and i can go on for hours --Hibaghanem (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources are all terrible. "The only outlet the musician has to the public" makes no sense. Your sources are all personal blogs and the iTunes store, none of which are reliable. And saying "But What about this article? It's bad too!" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, She means this blog [41] is Duncan Patterson's only website like this [42] is jeff martin's website and [43] and this is Anathema's... How it can work for others and not this band? That is fascist and abuse of a certain "authority". What sited woould you accept as reliable for instance? --Asouko (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Asouko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • This means that you, conform Godwin's law, have no valid arguments left. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How come this thing means that? How do you work this? I didn't tell you have any connection to the Nazi party rather that you gather up and gang up against stuff without a reason... Just point what you find offensive and ways you think it should be resolved... its not science for gods sake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please stop with your personal attack? Thanks. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • your comment was obnoxious in the first place. Just point which facts you dispute. For a band of that scale and even smaller or larger like Inactive_Messiah / Inactive Messiah, Rotting Christ or so the article is pretty much ok to me. you dispute the fact that the band exists? that it has a record? that gives shows abroad? that duncan patterson plays in their record or what? And how else can it be proved? BBC? it's a rock band we are talking about not who went first in space--Asouko (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just start reading the nomination. And otherwise, read the comment just below here. The explaines the problem the article has: no reliable sopurces Night of the Big Wind talk 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted.

If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as notability, hoax, original research, or advert; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. you clearly didn't do these before you nominated the article for deletion... I don't care if it is deleted any more but this is going really personal here. Please inform fair minded administrators and editors who have to do with music articles. Some how justice works around here? This is not a personal attack but an obvious inquiry; i can't seem to see how come someone with learning difficulties such as dyslexia or very very poore use of english can be prooved useful in such a community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 May 2012‎

  • It is too bad that you have such a strong dyslexia that you are unable to read the problem on the article: no reliable sources, or, in your language: υπάρχουν αξιόπιστες πηγές Night of the Big Wind talk 09:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on Conditions, why don't you all sit and discuss on how to improve the article rather than playing the cops? I really can't understand... The instructions you give are so generalized like "this is not propper, go figure out"--94.66.152.15 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— 94.66.152.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG and that is the only thing which matters. Also, from the guideline noted above, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." All those notability guidelines are not actually relevant if X is notable and typically asserts whether or not it probably IS notable. Deletion is a last resort, the article can easily be fixed and an internationally recognized band. It doesn't even seem that a major contributor has a mastery of English, so phrases like 'engage tenths of thousands of listeners worldwide' are clearly mistakes. It needs fixing not deleting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Numerous interviews, critiques on its work, ranked #3 alternative and #15 nationally on Reverbnation's Greek charts. Doesn't seem to be a clear chart for any other, most mix top Greek sales (foreign artists sales rather then national artists). Seeing numerous magazine entries, in rotation at 3 radio stations from 2010-2011. (Needs verification, but it is mentioned with limited details) Has done 100+ concerts (by some sources) and has more then hundred thousand plays of their songs according to the records on the Myspace and Lastfm sites. For an indie band it certainly has enough comments to be verified, but as for notability, it generally meets it I think, though a lot of indie artists (even the popular ones) have stand out matters because they do not push the advertising and events as major labels can. There is more then enough (even without the 404s) to prove the band exists, plays frequently, released work and that work has been reviewed in several different sources and has done plenty of interviews for magazines, radio and is part of a fringe musical group, but still more important then Jimbo's garage band because they did international concerts (i.e Syria) and this is before we get into self-publication which they don't seem to be that good at. Is it the most notable thing, no, but it still verifiable and notable enough to receive press throughout the past 2 years. Even with a fair amount of that 404ing before it could be archived. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The arguments given by Asouko (the author of the article), the other single purpose account, and the single purpose IP amount to (a) mentioning sources which are not reliable, not independent, or both, or too indiscriminate to be an indication of notability (e.g. a blog, press releases, amazon), (b) asserting that it is "undeniable" that a performance by the band is of "undebatable notability", despite the fact that others clearly do deny it, (b) stating that there are other articles which, it is claimed, are no better, (c) saying that anyone who thinks the article should be deleted is "fascist" and "nazi", and is "playing the cops". None of these are reasons for not deleting under Wikipedia policy. The only independent editor to argue for "keep", ChrisGualtieri, says "Meets WP:GNG and that is the only thing which matters", but, as Ten Pound Hammer points out, does not give any indication at all of how or why it "meets WP:GNG". There are 16 references in the article. One of those does not mention "Phase", some of them barely mention it, or merely include it in a list. Some are clearly not independent sources, or not reliable sources. I am not saying "delete", because it may be that there are some reliable sources, but it has not yet been demonstrated that there are. None of the editors saying "keep" have been around for more than a few months, so it may be that they are not clear what is needed to establish notability. Those who are asking for "keep" need to read the guideline on reliable sources, if they haven't already done so, and explain clearly which sources are reliable and why. If they can do so, then that will be great, but if not, then the article will have to be deleted.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree... you are partially right BUT wikipedia on the so called verifiability article (don't let me cite it again it's supposed everyone who takes part in the discussion has checked what's been said) it says blogs are taken into account on conditions and we have to accept Duncan Pattersons Official website which happens to be a blog to verify the information that we actually recorded for Phase. it's not a newsblog which we can't ferify the informaation posted. also Uplayas blos is a part of Uplayas website and the post is not created by users but by Uplayas stuff it self and it verifys what's been said about the cover art. Uplaya is a legit organisation and it has also invented the Hit Song Science. Also the reverbnation's chart's are quite legit to my opinion and it verifys the significance of the band for the region. also in the bulgarian interview it's been said about a show in sofia. Eitherway the band meets WP:GNG and ChrisGualtieri is totaly right also for the corrections needed.--Asouko (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a music journalist my self and I agree that people in the community here should notify administrators who have experience in editing and/or supervising music articles in here. Criteria of notability is not a google search with the term "Phase" which as a word is really general and companies with Strong Search Engine Optimisation are in the World Wide Web. Wikipedia is the worlds most reliable encyclopedia at the moment and I have started doubting this reliability... "Teenage" arguements for the sake of arguing or for the gain of small moments of glory wont fit in here. Strongly believe that this article should be in Wikipedia but as you commented my reliability in voting would be of zero significance but I could not, not comment because some stuff simply insult common sense. Not only "Metallica" are demonstrated in Wikipedia and it shouldn't be like that anyway. I "Strong Keep" but bring some one who could really vote for it. Chris Papadakis --94.66.152.15 (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have nominated the article because it lacks reliable sources. But I guess people forget one tiny thing that might be very interesting in this case: sources in English are appreciated, but not mandatory. So reliable sources in Greek, will also be acceptable when reliable and independent... Night of the Big Wind talk 10:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Reply' - Reverbnation might not be the best to prove notability but they are ranked #15 nationally. They were previously in the top 100 worldwide on Reverb. Here's an interview in English from RockliveBG, a Greek music website. [44] Interview with RockOverdose (bad quality, in Greek) referred from Soundcloud. [45] One from Artfools. [46] There was a magazine special in Imagine Magazine, Feb. 2012, sadly only some facebook clippings were posted by the band. I've seen dozens of shows which they have played and I hate to say it, but since I don't read or understand Greek I won't be able to do a whole lot to grab native language reviews or content. Though we have numerous little sources, the content should be cut down to what we can verify. I believe deletion is a last resort, but the article is a bit distorted and has too many claims. I've begun cutting them down some. They may not be big, but we can verify that they exist, they play many shows, have a good amount of work, and have some recognition. While it may not be the guideline for Notability music, the fact they have attention is probably enough to pass if the article is fixed up. I'm going to tinker with it some now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Did a load of clean up and fixing. I can see the single being hosted on Feb 2010 from Microsoft's Playlist 7, but I can't get the actual press release for it. A minor mention from a notable companie's larger push for marketing, using Phase's work in the process. Still have numerous indie reviews and small interviews here and there, I'm mostly finding the English ones. According to lastfm's event list they've done more then 30 events recently, but Lastfm is not a reliable source. I've removed the ones which could be used for advertising and some useless sources, cut out the fancy timeline and all but the current members from the band. Its far from perfect, but if fixing these issues will help it stick around, why not. They seem to have released a song 'Red Alert' on a new album on 'Between the Lines'. According to itunes that is, but the album art uses 'Phaze' as the attributed band. So I'm not adding it in. Its one of the more notable indie bands, but no, its not highly important. If anything In Consequence should go and we should keep the band itself just for completeness. I think it meets GNG because we have numerous comments about its existence and has been in good standing with outlets like Reverbnation with #3 in Greek alternative and #15 nationally. Uplaya might not be the best source, but they do reflect the material in this page and did comment about its cover art. I see 8 different interviews, reviews and critiques, but none are major labels. They may not be famous, but we can vouch for certain claims and it is verifiable and repeated throughout numerous sources. Under WP:DEL-REASON it could only hit upon the reason "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)", but they seem to meet WP:MUSIC on some levels and even if they do not meet the exact criteria, it doesn't mean the article has to be deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the tags be removed by now? Thank you... --Asouko (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Citing press releases of bands when it's about a fact like Duncan Patterson (or duncanpatterson mentions him self on intevriews or own site) Plays in the record is not improper mention to self published reference because it's not faction (fiction mixed with facts or assumptions) also a year before there were so many more articles on that... not every publication keeps an online archive (especialy if it's in Syria for e.g. ).The article is online on and half a year before the nomination. --Asouko (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While true verification is part of the requirement. 404ing is a problem, but quite frankly the scattered information across the net doesn't help too much, reviews, sales, press releases are not individually able to bolster an indie group to Wikipedia level, but together they can prove notability. Self sources are fine for limited scope, but I'd really like to see additional magazine references, critiques and some of the bigger venues played. The Syria one is good, but for groups like this, more information is better then less information and Myspace and Facebook don't go well simply because the content is self-published. Its the 'do other people care about it' part that is the hardest thing to prove. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just found a review in the nominators native language here [47] in every review greeks mostly stand on Duncan Pattersons contribution due to Duncans and Anathema's scale on Greece, Poland and Middle East. --Asouko (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, a couple of the sources in the article are legit on second look, and the review above looks reputable too. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this has enough sources/refs to be considered notable.--KarlB (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 10 pound Hammer (if he thinks it's almost notable, it has to be notable). It has three good sources, so it's notable. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 5 June 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. G5 applies, as creating editor is just another sock of Pesf.—Kww(talk) 02:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fires (Ronan Keating album)[edit]

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

(Rejected PROD) Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." No verifiable information given about this future release (aside from its release date). It's WP:TOOSOON for an article. I'm bringing to AFD as I suspect that if I redirect then the article will simply be restored. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:12, 27 May 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XdC1[edit]

XdC1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable "2010 group of teenage friends which created a gaming clan". Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:03, 27 May 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) 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources for this group involved in Minecraft gaming. While it's neat that the group exists, topics here need to have received significant coverage in reliable sources for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Tagged A7. DarkAudit (talk) 00:28, 28 May 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. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krani (camp)[edit]

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

Non-notable camp site from Macedonia, without third party reliable sources, and no sources at all. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 27 May 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) 17:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mihmojsos[edit]

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

Non notable software with no sources and lack of context to completely explain the topic. it is also written like an ad. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 15:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references, no indication of notability for this software; created by an SPA as likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:47, 30 May 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. Early close as KEEP per WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynix (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software with no cover from third party reliable sources. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 15:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - A quick glance at your talk page shows that you have quite a track record of trying to get good articles deleted, and thus having your deletion nominations denied. You might want to reconsider the community standards on what really is and isn't worthy of deletion, to save everyone time and stress. If something needs improvement, you're supposed to tag it as such, not just throw your hands up and say "delete! delete! delete!"; this isn't a repository of perfect articles which need no further work. Skylarstrickland (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have an article for NOTIS - if that's notable, why isn't this? This was more widely-used. Nearly every American has used a Dynix terminal in a library at some point over the past 30 years.184.4.95.166 (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but as the article you've mentioned, we need third party reliable sources covering the matter, not common sense. Regards. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable per its widespread usage, as previously stated. I'm working on adding more references -- but even by your own [terse] admission above (and btw, love the "we don't need common sense" statement!), you've improperly handled this: you should have tagged the article as needing additional references, rather than nominating it for deletion. If we deleted every article that needs more sources, Wikipedia would probably lose half its content in an instant. Skylarstrickland (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid this. I recommend you to work first on your sandbox and then, when you feel the article ready, move it into the main namespace. Remember that Wikipedia relies on the notability of its topics, and the topics are supported by third party reliable sources. Thanks. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 18:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google Books turns up various references. I've added a couple of these into the article. With these and others, I reckon there's enough out there to confirm that this software played a significant historical role in its field. AllyD (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References are sufficient to establish notability. If you do a Google search of libraryjournal.com you'll get some more background info (other library journals are available in academic databases). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - The topic appears to at least meet WP:GNG, per [48], [49]. Per section WP:ATD of Wikipedia's Deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Northamerica1000(talk) 16:38, 28 May 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 The Witcher universe (non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starsza Mowa[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional language CyanGardevoir 10:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The related article, Yennefer of Vengerberg, is also nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yennefer of Vengerberg. People who have an opinion on this may also have an opinion on that, and vice-versa.

  • Merge: The fictional language used in the books can be discussed in the articles about the book series but does not seem to merit an article of its own. A fictional language should only get an article if its own if it gets serious attention as a language. There is no evidence that this has been taken up like, say, Klingon. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Witcher universe. The Witcher series has been enough of an international cultural phenomenon that I would be totally unsurprised to find this fictional language getting serious attention, but until and unless such attention is identified amd can be used for sourcing, this doesn't need a separate article though it's a reasonable search term. PWilkinson (talk) 13:31, 1 June 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) 17:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Gardens[edit]

My Little Pony: Friendship Gardens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game with a pretty much empty article. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SERIOUSLY, can you just stop putting these delete notices and fill up some details? It's not like everything to should be deleted in history.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's worth keeping, go find some reliable sources. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any third-party coverage or sourcing to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Normally I would be for saving this, but a reliable sources search only turns up Allgame hits, which do little more than mention it existed. I couldn't find anything significant in regards to reviews or anything of the sort. I would suggest games like this be put into a List of My Little Pony video games article. --Teancum (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources, which is odd since everyone's a brony now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:59, 27 May 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) 19:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 27 May 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 Speedied by request of author. Peridon (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idslot[edit]

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

Software with no indication of notability. Wording has been made less promotional by the author when declining prod, but notability is still not shown and no references are given. Peridon (talk) 09:52, 27 May 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) 17:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominal Accounting[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Reads like an advert for an accounting package. No WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fancy spam. No reliable sources are in the article now, and a brief online search reveals none. I only found a few press releases and Israeli government websites about this software, as well as many false Ghits. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 31 May 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. v/r - TP 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N8VEM[edit]

N8VEM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable as per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Significantly promotional. This was a contested WP:PROD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you were the one who removed them. I'm not clear why. --Kvng (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed extraneous items listed under an inappropriate section called "sources" that were unrelated. See wp:CITE as I already linked to above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Modified article to include references in a more appropriate way. --Wayne Warthen 01:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Warthen (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The bit-tech source looks like it probably counts as a reliable source, but the other two don't, in my opinion. I can't find any other sources about this, which means the coverage is just a shade too thin for us to have an article. If someone manages to find another reliable source then I might change my mind, however. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note from an N8VEM community member... Dear Sirs/Maam, I am a semi-retired software engineer that decided to learn about digital hardware. I am not quite sure how I came across the N8VEM project, but it was a GOD shot for me. For over a year now I have been working with the N8VEM hardware, building my boards, learning to debug digital hardware, and beginning to learn to design hardware as well. I cannot explain strongly enough, how valuable the project has been to me. It has served as a highly educational experience, as well as an opportunity to meet and collaborate with like minded hardware enthusiasts worldwide that has accelerated my learning process beyond my expectations. Since my successful build of my Zeta SBC, I have written 10k lines of new Z80 code and several dozen utility programs. Not only am I having a ball, but my confidence has increased significantly about the hardware and I believe this will enhance my ability to find work in the hardware area. As the project is a volunteer based project, with completely open source, and the community members are extremely helpful, I am getting the education I could not afford if I had to pay by the unit at a college. I understand there are about 350 of us. I am not sure exactly what "notable" is for you, but the project is making a BIG difference in the real world, providing an opportunity for people like me to learn, and as I progress, share what I know with others. While we may not have been written up in many journals, (and we can work on that), there is no doubt that the project is fulfilling an important need, and in my opinion, the project is worthy to be represented in the wikipedia, as it's non-presence would be a disservice to a large, very hard working group of people devoted to personal growth and community. Please give consideration to keeping the article, and granting it some time to become "notable" in your eyes. Gratefully, Douglas Goodall 19:00PST 28May12.

Hello Douglas, and thanks for posting here. These deletion discussions can be hard to understand for people who are new to Wikipedia, as contributors here often use shorthand, and there are various different rules that we use to judge whether subjects should have their own Wikipedia article. So, I'll try and give you the basics. The most important rule we use, and the one that applies here, is Wikipedia's general notability guideline. This says that there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of N8VEM itself for Wikipedia to have an article on it. For a full explanation of this you can read the guideline, or you can have a look at a shortened (and slightly in-your-face) explanation here. This is why most editors above are debating what sources are available about the group, rather than more general or subjective criteria like the difference the project makes in the world. These kind of subjective criteria have little effect on deletion discussions, I'm afraid. (See also the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would argue that while there are not many external sources to quote regarding the activities and outputs of the N8VEM and N8VEM/S100 projects, that reflects the specialised nature of the activity and its community mode of operation, rather than a genuine lack of "notability". For instance, the current article on the Raspberry Pi homebuild computer is comprehensive, including pricing information on the commercial (non-profit) product. The main difference is that the Raspberry Pi has large institutional and commercial backing, which allows for publicity and promotional budgets that generate "sources", whereas the N8VEM family of projects are strictly community-based, non-profit, voluntary and work entirely through online collaboration. This does not generate a publicity paper-trail.

A second argument for retention is that the N8VEM projects demonstrate the extension of earlier generations of computer technology, chronicled in Wikipedia, into the present day. Articles on Homebuilt Computers, on the Homebrew Computer Club, and on the S-100 Bus should be edited beyond their current scope to recognise that the technologies and activities described are continuing to develop actively among a world-wide community of enthusiasts. These articles should refer to other projects as well as N8VEM, but they certainly warrant cross reference to an appropriate N8VEM article.

It is understood that the N8VEM article needs to be informational rather than promotional and I understand several editors are willing to work on that.

Declaration of interest: I have contributed edits to Wikipedia on other topics. I have followed the N8VEM projects for some years and made some minor contributions to the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthwait (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lack of reliable sources. Only one Google News Archive hit. No relevant Google scholar hits. No relevant Google books hits, except for "BOOKS LLC" reprints of Wikipedia. Notability not demonstrated. Maratrean (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Monsuno#Characters. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 16:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lock (monster)[edit]

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

Nonexistent animal from an anime series called Monsuno. It is not notable enough to carr an article by itself. Also, it is unreferenced. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 04:35, 27 May 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 Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_discography#New_Zealand.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music 39 (N.Z. series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music 39 (N.Z. series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New Zealand series of Now That's What I Call Music 39. Not notable and doesn't meet the GNG and the Music notability guidelines. Only information on the article is a list of 18 songs. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 04:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If the previous 38 volumes of this series were notable enough for articles, I'm guessing this one probably should be also. The article needs to be improved but that should be a matter for normal editing rather than requiring deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography until/unless album can pass notability requirements. Notability isn't established by having an article on wikipedia and many of the other albums can simply be redirected as well unless some sources can be provided that do establish their independent notability. Right now, most are not much more than track listings. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the songs are notable Syxxpackid420 (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with KTC. Also, the notability of an album depends on how much it is covered by media, charts, etc; not by the songs it contains. An article about a compilation album with no cover art, no release date, no label, without chart positions os significant media importance whatsoever is completely irrelevant and fails the notability guideline. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - Notability is not inherited from the brand name or the songs/artists featured. There is no evidence whatsoever that this album in and of itself possesses any notability. The fact that its existence and content can be verified is no indicator of notability. The existance of a whole slew of shitty articles listed on Now That's What I Call Music! discography is not a cause for this to remain. Nothing against the creator, who I'm sure only acted in good faith.
    I've just read that discography and I am kinda pissed-off that there are a couple HUNDRED of these things which consist entirely of track listings and the odd token line about chart success or the popularity of an individual song on it with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that ranks higher than the most mind-numbingly trivial media mentions. None of those articles will EVER meet WP:GNG because they're just commercial compilations which are advertised, released and then forgotten about a few months later when they create the NEXT in the series. Hell, take a look at Now That's What I Call Music! (or try Googling reliable sources) and see how sparse the reliable coverage is! AND THAT'S THE PARENT ARTICLE!! Phew, I need a cigarette. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. As bad as the previous 38 articles are, they are about things that actually exist. This one isn't.—Kww(talk) 13:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amplifying: I've blocked the author indefinitely for vandalism. So far as I can tell, this article meets speedy WP:CSD#G3 as a pure vandalism article. I can find no sources at all for this, and I'm willing to bet that the Nonnie Black feat. K-Pal - Sittin On Tha Toilet track is pure vandalism with this article simply being used to showcase it.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. A 39th volume will surely be released at some point, but what's here ain't it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tow talk 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Illinois[edit]

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

Do we really need an article explaining this? Although the information on the article might be notable, it is not notable enough to carry an entire article for itself. All this time articles whould be merged into a Time in the United States article. Also, i think this is information that would only be needed on the articles related to time zones (which already have a list), and written on the infobox of each one of those states. Not in a separate article. Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 04:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is one of a large number of similar articles covering different US states that have been created over the last few days. I also don't see why each state needs a separate article: the content should be included in Time in the United States.TheLongTone (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Time in the United States per nom and TheLongTone. Similar articles for other states should be merged as well. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me revise my opinion on the similar articles. Things like Time in Indiana should obviously be kept as a stand-alone article (and possibly renamed, but that's another debate). However I still think the present article, and others with similar content, should be merged. If any of them can be expanded beyond trivial lists of time zones, etc., then I would be fine with keeping them as stand-alone articles, but I don't think that this will be the case for most of them. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Time in Illinois contains historic information about time observance in Chicago. This information AFAICS does not exist anywhere else in Wikipedia. Observance at other locations in Illinois can be added if that information is found. To collect that information at Time in the United States, would make that article larger than WP articles normally are. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Material and procedural. Material: There is so much information about time in every state, that it would be too large to merge into the US time article. Procedural: Also, if the nominator wants to merge an article, it is the wrong process to put an AfD notice. That's abuse of templates. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its a fair point that the Time in the United Statesrticle is already quite large. However, there is also a separate article, List of time zones by U.S. state, which covers the essential info about the time zones. I would think that the stuff about clocktowers would be best included within the articles(s) on individual states. It's a question of fragmentation of information: this information is useful, but a huge number of individual articles is not the best way to do it.TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I think it is also better to have historic time information on state specific articles. "Time in <some state>" may attract attention of local editors to add more historic information. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this ought to be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, in the case of Indiana, the time zone has been a matter of longstanding controversy and as such there's useful information to deal with. And there are probably articles on other states that could - if the sources are there - explore changes in time zones over time, or weird DST changes. OTOH, it's difficult to see how this article on time in Illinois passes notability requirements.
The clocktowers stuff isn't obviously relevant to these articles - but in practice many of them won't contain much else. If we really need articles to list every clocktower in the United States - if such articles are genuinely notable - they belong in a list of clocktowers series, not here. Kahastok talk 14:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge/redirect this and most of the other similar articles this prolific new editor has created, many international ones. He has also been doing out of process re-organizing clock categories, which needs to go to CFD. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and the others. I created a number of them as stubs to contain at least the county time-zone split info when it was too much for the main article. Some of it did not even exist elsewhere in WP or is inconsistent or incorrect. They are all a work in progress. They will include time zone maps like Time in Idaho and be a repository for other information that cannot be reasonably included in the already-long main article. Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Two of us have spent a bunch of time trying to fill a real gap here. Nobody wants their work or time disrespected. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I was assuming good faith. :) I do think that this information should be on Wikipedia somewhere - it's just that there's a difference between not assuming good faith and thinking that a topic would be better presented a different way. Looking at all the debate here, I think the issue is really outside the scope of AfD. The discussion has shifted from the one article at hand, Time in Illinois, to the whole set of state time articles, but at the end of the day the closing admin here will have to make a decision about this one individual article. I think we should wait until this discussion has been closed, and then start a request for comments over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time about how we should treat this subject in general. If the decision is to merge this particular article, then there are still a few different ways we can present the information. We could create a List of clock towers in the United States, for example. Or maybe we could work some of the information into History of time in the United States. As TheLongTone said, it's a question of fragmentation of information. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Its not a matter of not assuming good faith or of the value of the information: it is obvious that you are both serious about this. it is rather about how and where it is best placed in wikipedia, both to make the informtion readily accessable and to avoid fragmentation of data. Really for most of this information a large number of individual articles is not a good way to do this.TheLongTone (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was proposed for being deleted, Articles for deletion/Time in Illinois. Deletion is not really relocation, is it? BTW, I just found maps for the Standard Time Act of 1918, this gives more information to be added at state level. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off the main topic, but a small review of AfD/merger procedures, in answer to Royaume de Maroc's question: As described in Wikipedia:Merging, there are two processes that often end up resulting in mergers when they are done.
  1. The direct merge discussion, where someone tags an article with {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}}, etc., then users discuss it on one of the article talk pages. It's usually for articles in which it is difficult to see how one topic is truly separate from others. It's also used when it is obvious that the articles obviously cover the same subject, and there is a question about which one should be the "main" article and which should be merged in and redirected. This is a more informal process than Articles for Deletion, and sometimes sits around a long time before being resolved; on the other hand, sometimes it doesn't last very long at all, because the person proposing the merger is fairly sure about it and just wants to make sure that nobody objects. Sometimes only part of the material is merged (a "section merge").
  2. The Articles for Deletion discussion, where sometime tags the article for deletion and goes through the formal AfD process. This is usually when there is a question of whether the article's subject itself meets Wikipedia:Notability, but AfDs can be based on any reason an article shouldn't exist. AfD is a fairly formal process: it has rules for opening, closing, and requires administrator action to close it in most cases. "Merge and redirect" is a common response when a participant feels that the article subject itself doesn't meet the criteria for an article (that is, it is eligible for deletion), but it appears that some of the text might be useful in another article, or the article name might be something that would be useful for searching. When an AfD is closed as "merge and redirect", that basically means "Delete", but salvaging (some) text to add to another article. If "Redirect", then it's also the same as Delete, but with a useful redirect left to indicate which article the subject should be in.
I hope this helps. --Closeapple (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my further comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AlanM12012052901 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#AlanM12012052901. Specifically, I'm referring to the "Time in state" articles that cover more than one time zone (which, ironically, does not include the original subject – Illinois). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The creator, User:Royaume du Maroc, is now indef blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. I was and shortly will be travelling, so if anyone has the time to put noms up to resolve the chaos he's brought to time and clock categories I'd be very grateful indeed. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a stub now, but it's definitely worthy of expansion to a decent article. Aside from chopping the pointless clock towers section, we could improve it by discussing the state of timekeeping before the implementation of time zones, the process of adapting time zones, the relationship with Indiana's changing time zones, etc. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have sources for this, i.e. evidence that this passes WP:GNG specifically for the state of Illinois? It seems to me that most of what you discuss is all very well in principle, but is likely to be general information that doesn't need a specific article for Illinois but can be handled at a US level. The situation in Illinois is unlikely to be much different from, say, Wisconsin or Missouri. And we're surely best off describing the situation in Indiana in the article about Indiana - it doesn't seem to be a reason to have an article on Illinois. Kahastok talk 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. Look how long and detailed the information is for Indiana. It's entirely reasonable to think that other states might have similarly detailed histories, isn't it? Do we really want one article (Time in the United States) with 16 maps (based on the current number of multi-zone states with articles) and as many as 50 detailed histories? Note that my arg is not about IL currently – it's more about the states that currently have multiple time zones, though if and when someone wants to investigate and write about histories, it almost certainly will be about the rest of the states. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Indiana, the time zone has a long and thorny history. It would surprise me if more than one or two other states have a similarly complicated history in this area. But I'm reserving judgement on that. So far as I'm concerned, this is an AFD for Time in Illinois and I'm focussing on Time in Illinois. This AFD should not be automatically taken as a precedent for any state other than those whose position is clearly comparable to Illinois, and even in those cases we should be going to AFD on a case-by-case basis. My point is that I have yet to see evidence that Time in Illinois passes WP:GNG. If we don't pass notability requirements - if we can't write a policy-compliant article - we shouldn't have an article. Kahastok talk 10:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no one is arguing to delete the Indiana article, but that doesn't mean every state needs one. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think "Time in Illinois" needs a stand-alone article. The time-zone & general historical material belongs in Time in the US: I don't think there's a case for a list of clocktowers in Illiois article & would think it a pretty trivial inclusion in the Illinois article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 4 June 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. Early close as keep, per WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White House Grammar School[edit]

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

This page is written like an advertisement, and is not very notable. Lucasoutloud (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. A tiny school in Pakistan isn't very notable at all. Lucasoutloud (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a huge school serving many students and population.hussaintaha
  • Keep Relatively well written article on a high school. Its existence has been verified. Difficulty in finding sources is due to systemic bias. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the usual result for high schools. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000(talk) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Pakistani schools because, unlike US schools, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus is that all verified secondary schools are notable. The fact it's in Pakistan is utterly irrelevant and I'm mystified as to why the nominator thinks it is relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm disappointed by the quality of comments above, many are using the old "inherited notability" fallacy. The criteria for inclusion for high schools, per WP:ORG and WP:NHS is notability, not existance. ThemFromSpace 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the criterion is consensus and one has already been clearly established for secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the policy on notability of high schools and the comments by other users above participating in this AfD. Mar4d (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - user from Wikiproject Pakistan - per WP:NHS. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:22, 31 May 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. sufficient consensus that there is no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SIEGE (2011 video game)[edit]

SIEGE (2011 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single purpose account created this obvious spam for their game, which has no coverage anywhere, and might not even exist Dream Focus 02:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Dream Focus 15:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just not finding any coverage in reliable sources for this topic to warrant an article about it on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:11, 27 May 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Parrot[edit]

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

Article asserts that the subject, "better known as The Rattlesnake Lady" was a "television personality in the United Kingdom on ITV and ITV2". No sources found to support any assertions made in the article, despite the claims that she appeared in The Hunger Games and Mr. Bean's Holiday which one would have thought might generate a wee bit of publicity. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:31, 27 May 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Zombie Vlogs[edit]

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

Non-notable film; does not meet WP:GNG CyanGardevoir 01:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no reliable sources. Non-notable film uploaded on YouTube. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Here is a URL for the trailer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathegiver (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many issues wrong with it. Firstly, it's WP:PRIMARY. Secondly, it's from Youtube, not considered an acceptable source as it contains user-submitted content. Thirdly, the trailer only shows that it "exists" - but does not show how the subject is notable and thus suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. CyanGardevoir 02:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, we do not doubt the existance of the film, nor that the peices of The Zombie Vlogalypse series was put together to create a film to be released VOD in June 2012. The problem is a lack of reliable secondary sources speaking toward the film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did a lot of searching on Google, and could find very few independent sources for this film. Perhaps after the film is released, it may become notable, but currently The Zombie Vlogs does not meet Wikipedia's film notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Let it be released and get coverage before we welcome it back. I would be fine with it being userfied back to its creator as a userspace work-in-progress until ready for a return. And to its author, User:Sathegiver, I urge you to visit WP:Notability (films) to see what is expected in sourcing so that it might return. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any reliable sources. Does not meet WP:Notability (films). WheresTristan 19:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Arun Kumar[edit]

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

A traffic engineer in India. Article has been around awhile. Traffic engineer is not inherently notable. Only one of the external links mention Kumar, but both are about traffic. There were references, but they didn't help as they just said the newspaper, ie "Hindustan Dainik, Hindi newspaper, Patna Edition". From the article, looks like most of them were probably interviews. I'm unable to find any reliable refs about him, but his name is extremely popular. Bgwhite (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did some searching, and I found only one independent source, and this source does not indicate notability. To make matters worse, this article seems like self-promotion. NJ Wine (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite NJ Wine's digging, we have just one Powerpoint/PDF presentation and a newspaper article on one project; not enough to bear this biographical article (in which some peacockery still remains) and demonstrate the individual's notability. AllyD (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course delete, completely non-notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:47, 2 June 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 British Short Screenplay Competition. Sufficient consensus for a merge solution DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaos Films[edit]

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

Non-notable film production company. No GNEWS hits and G hits turn up only social media and other unreliable sources. This company only seems to have produced six unremarkable films. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Pol430 talk to me 19:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guldasta-e-Rahmat[edit]

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

Could be self-promotion. Article on author of this work, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, has been deleted already. Only reference or link is a suspect "article" from something called the Dardistan Times, which mentions "citizen journalists". Joel7687 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have similar text, the same author (article and the subject works), and the same lack of reliable sources:

Guldan-e-Rahmat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gul Afshaniat-e-Iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Joel7687 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any reliable sources for this article, except perhaps the one from the Dardistan Times. If the author doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, under most circumstances neither does the author's book. NJ Wine (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - fairly obscure books of poetry, subject to re-creation if someone can find reliable reviews. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Namthip[edit]

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

Only primary and other unreliable sources found. This may be due to language differences but a wider discussion is due as the simple claim of "actress" isn't a guarantee of notability anyway. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON, with unsourced BLP claims. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have attempted to locate reliable sources to establish notability. Searches in English have not been successful. All I could find was this passing reference [52]. If Thai sources can be turned up, then I would be willing to change my !vote. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not WP:TOOSOON at all - satisfies WP:MUSICBIO #5 having released four albums with GMM Grammy,[53] and also starred in numerous TV series. I don't dispute its deletion as an unsourced BLP, however. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Note that this close does not preclude a merge or redirect as an editorial decision. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Happy Record Store Day![edit]

...Happy Record Store Day! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no coverage for this promotional EP. SL93 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Weezer Discography. Not a promotional EP but rather a record store day exclusive. Merging the tracklisting and a few notes to the discography would cover the contents of this article, but given that the band's other EPs have separate articles it would be tidier to leave this here.--Michig (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fix. Weezer's other album's each have their own article, so I think it's fine for the one to also have its own article. Weezer definitely meets the WP:BAND standard, but this article needs a few more reliable sources, such as this one. NJ Wine (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:17, 27 May 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 Underground hip hop. There are many reliable sources that use the term, but by WP:NEO, they must actually discuss the term itself, and not merely use it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indie hip hop[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, fails notability guideline and cannot be attributed to reliable sources. As it is, article is original research. Dan56 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: Dan56 has been canvassing here and at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hip_pop. Arcandam (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyone who is a hiphop fan knows this is notable. Article should be improved, not deleted. Arcandam (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears the subject is notable. In addition, there are references at the bottom, they're just not cited inline. I believe those reference links could be taken and, with inline citations, be put in the relevant places in the article.  JoeGazz84  ♦  12:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources seem wholly unreliable: WeLiveThis.com has nothing to do with hip hop. And I think last.fm is user-generated content. The rest are blogs. Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To you that seems so. But underground and indie hiphop are different. And thanks to that other page you nominated we know how much you know about hiphop related genres. What do you think of that other possibility: improving the article? You just nominate stuff for deletion and then you canvass hoping it will be deleted. Arcandam (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what are you basing this difference on? Isnt it your opinion? What is this article based on? If you want to improve, then no one's stopping you, but take my points in good faith and stop accusing me of canvassing. I've only nominated "hip pop" for deletion, and now this. It's relatevily new to me. I just pointed out the problem with the references listed for this article, so what's your take on that? Dan56 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On years long experience listening to music, but there is probably a source out there somewhere if you spend some time on Google. But you are unwilling to do that. Unlike you I can name a lot of songs that mention the genre pop rap/hip pop for example. And I can use Google to find sources. Can you do that too? Maybe even better than I can? Please please show me. :-) AGF only works when there is no evidence to the contrary. Didn't I ask you if you had read WP:CANVASS? Didn't you answer yes? [54] Didn't you do the canvassing after that? You have not only nominated "hip pop" for deletion, you have also nominated Indie hip hop. Arcandam (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should put a notice with big red bold letters saying: Please be careful. If in doubt click here. Arcandam (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think both warrant at least a discussion. The burden is not on me to improve an article. I have experience listening to music as well, and there's probably not a source out there somewhere. You keep avoiding the points I present. Dan56 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you keep avoiding the points I present. First you wanted sources for poprap, now that even you have to agree there are more than enough sources and that they are fine you change your opinion and suddenly another change is "required". My advice is to go buy a monkey to do your work for you if you are too lazy. If those two articles are the only ones you've tried to get deleted so far you seem to totally misunderstand which pages should be deleted and which should be kept and why. You may want to read a bit about new page patrolling, if you do that you can nominate all kinds of terrible spam articles for deletion and everyone will like you and give you barnstars. Arcandam (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is very subjective terminology; there's a whole lot of indie everything in music, most if which suffers from lack of notability. The only content of use is the dicdef in the first line. Otherwise, this is an unnecessary content fork. MSJapan (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hordes of coverage for both. The Star Tribune Indie hip-hop fans finally get Paid; mentions indie-rap [55]. Hordes of people in the news media referring to it as this, therefore it must exist as a notable music genre. Dream Focus 20:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it coverage of the term, rather than just articles on something else that happen to use the term? (WP:NEO). Dan56 (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you look at Google News and Books, there are many articles that describe the concept in detail going all the way back to its roots. It is not just trivial coverage. This clearly makes it notable. Stedrick (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while such new genres are habitually deleted, this one appears to be the rare exception, due to the sources that prove notability. Canvassing does not affect my vote, much as the sins of the priest affects not the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or harmless error by the prosecutor does not mitigate the guilt of the criminal. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay?... Hordes of articles using the term, but same for other neologisms, like "indie jazz" or "old school funk". Who said "trivial"? I meant coverage in general.. of the term/genre, whatever the claim is, not what's in the criteria of WP:NEO. Are you referring to the articles on independent labels signing hip hop acts? I don't see anything on GoogleNews about the genre, though. A lot of the results are in the vein of "indie rap label(s)", referring to independent labels that happen to release hip hop music. This one has the author using "indie" in quotes, apart from "hip-hop", as if he's uncomfortable using "indie". GoogleBooks results, like Spin (10/2000), mirror what Underground hip hop's content (anti-commercial, conscious lyrics, indie labels, etc.) Content forking? Otherwise, which results on News or Books have anything "about the term or concept"? Dan56 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exception cited in WP:OUTCOMES#Music, alternative metal, is one that has at least some articles covering the topic. That discussion resulted in enough, albeit minimal coverage, with articles cited like About.com's entry and Allmusic's entry, soley about alternative metal. If such articles existed for this case, they would make it a notable term/genre, and an exception to deletion. Dan56 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as a unnecessary content fork of underground hip hop, which has basically the same meaning, and this term is much less used than the underground term. The term in its current use and how it is mentioned in sources is either as underground hip hop or original research by several blogs which aren't reliable sources. It seems like most of the "keep" voters in the AFD mainly participated because of the bloodbath between Dan56 and Arcandam and didn't do further research on the subject, which is one of AFD main weaknesses, that people who aren't familiar with the subject are mainly the ones who decides if an article gets kept or not. It is easy to decide if the subject/topic meets GNG, but it's usually misinterpreted like in this case, or there's other violations that trumps GNG. Secret account 18:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The article is just a verbose definiton of the title with a list of independent record labels added. Not a separate, notable genre, just a collection of artists who didn't or couldn't sign with a major label. DocTree (talk) 22:22, 4 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnstown Redevelopment Authority[edit]

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

Non-notable agency. There seems to be a ton of these being created and I'm not sure listing every single agency in every town, city, and county is encyclopedic. Seems to come close if not totally cross the line into being a directory. Ridernyc (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no significant coverage. Not inherently notable. SL93 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Fails to meet WP:ORG notability requirements, but its content seems informative, so merge into Johnstown, Pennsylvania article. NJ Wine (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:13, 27 May 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. Delete as Non-notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MicroOS[edit]

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

Non-notable Operating System. Ridernyc (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references, no indication of notability for this OS; created by an SPA.Dialectric (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:12, 27 May 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 Prince George's County Public Schools#Elementary schools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rockledge Elementary School[edit]

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

Elementary schools are not generally considered notable enough to be subjects of articles, and nothing in this article suggests that this is an exception. (PROD removed without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation- PROD removed without explanation= Prod removal edit summary in full: 'Needs disambiguation; I've identified redirect destinations for two schools with the name and a one-off which references misname; see Talk:Rockledge Elementary School.", supplemented by "Null edit, add Bowie, Maryland; meant to include in previous edit summary- '; coverage for each is routine.' Dru of Id (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason given for contesting the proposed deletion of this article. You commented on the fact that the title is ambiguous, but that is not giving a reason for not deleting it. You now say "convert to disambiguation", but you have neither indicated what existing articles need such disambiguation, nor given any reason why the present article should not be deleted. If there are other articles which might justifiably have this title, then we can create a disambiguation page for them, but creating such a disambiguation page is a completely separate issue from whether the present article should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given is implied, that 1) deletion is not necessary & 2) that it could serve a better function; while I could have just parroted "Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools", I went to more effort to try to locate all schools with the name, checking each state & the NRHP; there are 2 and a one-off, as I listed at the article talk page. None are on the NRHP or involved in momentous events which indicate articles are justified. A disambiguation page for them, therefore, should conveniently be located here. You could have redirected it, or renamed it with its locality and redirected it, justified per Common outcomes#Schools; instead you Prod'ed it which would have left a void, inviting recreation, and doing nothing to fix the problem, and bit a new contributor. I deProd'ed it, having done all the necessary verification. The school is verifiable; the article is not a hoax, an attack page, or a copyvio, but seems to be a good faith initial contribution by a new editor. I gave an explanation, you claimed I gave none, and I can see that it did not address your concern, skipping straight to the end result that fills the most voids. You could then have turned it into a disambiguation page; none of these schools meet current guidelines to justify existing articles, which is unlikely to change anytime soon, but are valid search terms which can be used to get users to relevant content. All of this you no doubt know as an adminstrator. Deletion is unnecessary overkill which invites the creation of the other school's article, and/or recreation of this one, when we can fix both situations now and get back to work. Dru of Id (talk) 05:55, 13 May 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) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:09, 27 May 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 Mike and Mike in the Morning . clear consensus for merge DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle for the Butter[edit]

The Battle for the Butter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mildly amusing retelling of a non-notable sporting fixture given an amusing(?) name thanks to the amusing(?) ramblings of a couple of minor presenters. Not a great event like, say the 1966 Cup Final or the 2011 Super Bowl. Does this belong anywhere in an encyclopaedia? Emeraude (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mike and Mike in the Morning. The game itself is not notable. The theme might be notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per X96lee15. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though humorous, subject meets WP:GNG. I could accept a merge as long as we don't obliterate all the content.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per national exposure and response that the game received. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please review what WP:GNG actually says. Of the three articles cited above, the first is a pre-game discussion of the "Battle for the Butter" name bestowed by the ESPN radio jocks (not the actual game itself), the second article was published in the on-line Stony Brook student newspaper and therefore does not qualify as an independent source per WP:GNG and cannot be used to support the game's notability, and the third article includes a trivial mention of the game and hardly qualifies as a meaningful source for determining notability. If these are the best available sources, the article should be simply deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mike and Mike in the Morning – After consideration, changed my !vote here to merge. (Sidenote: I'm well aware of the prose at WP:GNG, hence the initial "weak keep" !vote). Also, per WP:PRESERVE an actual merging of the verified information should occur, not just a "merge" that actually just ends up as a redirect without any of the information specifically/selectively merged. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on coverage found by clicking Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Dream Focus 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Just because a few sources mention it doesn't mean we have to have a whole article about it pbp 04:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Seriously? Six weeks ago, we were having a heated notability debate whether to keep a well-sourced article about a recent Michigan-Notre Dame game that we ultimately decided to delete, by a roughly 4–1 margin, because the UM-ND game had little lasting historical significance and little continuing media coverage of a meaningful nature per WP:NEVENT. This "Battle of the Butter" game in no way qualifies for a presumption of notability under the more specific game notability guidelines of WP:SPORTSEVENT, nor does it appear to satisfy the applicable guidelines of WP:NEVENT. In short, there is no reason why this relatively meaningless regular season Division I FCS college football game should have a stand-alone article. That it presently exists is a testament to inconsistently applied notability standards. I strongly urge everyone who has participated in this discussion so far to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game, as well as the event notability guidelines of WP:NEVENT, and then focus their comments on the applicable notability standards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some random midwest United States American football matchup that seems to have gotten no coverage compared to the Battle for the Butter's nationwide coverage seems a bad comparison.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Notre Dame - Michigan college football game is not a "random" college football matchup. It was a game with two of the biggest and most historically significant squads in college football, and got way more coverage than this clearly random college football matchup. This game only got some coverage because of a joke by some journalists and the coverage died off after a few days. It's like comparing apples and oranges here. Secret account 19:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secret, I'm pretty sure that Milowent was making a joke. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Dirtlawyer. Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, also per Dirty Dirt.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Dirtlawyer who nailed it right on, and my reply to Milowent. I'll do the merge if needed. Secret account 19:29, 30 May 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. After multiple relistings, I think the consensus is pretty clear. (I have no personal opinion.) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire[edit]

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

Still fails WP:GNG. The only sources that look decent are from a blog (Broken Frontier) which may or may not be reputable. In the last AFD, 84user dug up sources from the Hartford Courant, but further analysis showed them only to be trivial mentions. Any other arguments for keeping were only WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. Further searching on Google News only found one-sentence name-drops that say nothing about the comic, just that it exists. No one of good repute has reviewed it. It is not published on a notable site or in a notable work.

Both the first and second AFDs were closed as "no consensus". Can we finally get a consensus this time? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a consensus on whether or not someone should be able to nominate the same article twice, as you just did again. Sure, its been awhile since your first nomination, but someone else nominated earlier this year. Dream Focus 05:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, No Consensus closes are a bit of a mulligan - and the closing admin specifically noted that an early re-nomination would be expected if more sources were not brought forward. But YMMV. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus or no consensus, I can't help but feel that nominating an article for deletion repeatedly is a sign of some unfair amount of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here...Veled (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^Agreed with the above. I sense some serious bias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. For the same reasons I mentioned last time. Reliable sources do cover it. Click on [59] or [60]. Dream Focus 05:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes either of those reliable third party coverage? The former is an interview (therefore, a primary source), and the latter maybe. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A third party is covering them, by giving an interview because of this series. Ample mention of the series in them. And the confusion some have about interviews being a primary source has come up time and again on that talk page, please read through the discussions instead of starting it all up again. Notability is determined by coverage, and interviews count towards that, obviously. The primary sources rule involves the content of the article, not its notability. Dream Focus 12:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep weakly, but it appears to meet both WP:GNG and WP:WEB.Cavarrone (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The concern from the previous AFD about a lack of sources is a valid one - for such a long-running work, surely there's more referencing out there? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it has reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a simple google search pulls up lots of media attention.

Hcobb (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's not good enough for Last Res0rt's current AfD, I don't see those sources flying very far here. After all, in TPH's words, apparently "any derp with at least one good drawing hand can get a booth at a con..." Veled (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources do nothing but name-drop it. They say nothing about the strip except that it exists. Tell me how you expect to hinge a whole article on something that says "I read webcomics, such as Dominic Deegan, etc. etc.". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 04:32, 17 May 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) 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and WP:GNG. CyanGardevoir 11:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing any reliable sources here, with the possible exception of Broken Frontier, but even the coverage in that isn't sufficient to convince me that this comic is notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought sources already found were enough, but here are some extra bits from the highbeam account. [61] [62] [63] It mentions the guy who is best known for this webcomic, he getting plenty of his words repeated in the article about the webcomic conferences being his livelihood, etc. He is only there and getting coverage because of this webcomic of his. They mention one of the fans of this webcomic paying 200 dollars just to see the guy who made it. Dream Focus 19:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and WP:GNG. We should have no trouble finding significant coverage in multiple (more than two) reliable secondary sources for a ten year old webcomic if it were notable. None of the suggested sources here provide significant coverage in a reliable source. For example: Broken Frontier [64] is a brief post on a comics site, the site says "Come write for BF!" and "Post your own news directly to the top of our Headlines section." The Portland Press Herald article[65] that at least two editors have pointed to gives less than a single sentence on this topic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical-Vocational Teaching Approach[edit]

Technical-Vocational Teaching Approach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Description of the page author's unpublished masters degree project with no assertion of notability per WP:GNG and WP:NOR. Following proposed deletion, a "Related Literature" section was added in this edit, but there's nothing in these references mentioning this teaching approach by name, and the whole section appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS of existing published material which doesn't support the notability of the approach described in the first section. I can't see anything here that can be merged to Vocational education, Constructivism (learning theory) or Science education. Scopecreep (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no coverage about this technique to establish notability. Merging this material anywhere would be a bad idea as this dissertation represents original reasearch. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 16 May 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) 17:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources. Because educational theories and techniques often have multiple names, I did some searching on Google to see if there was another term for the Technical-Vocational Teaching Approach. I could not find any example of teaching chemistry as a way of learning a vocation, which is what this article is discussing. I agree with Whpq that this is original reasearch, which of course is also not verifiable. NJ Wine (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. But I don't think this is OR, but rather a discussion from somewhere we haven't been able to locate. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus was to merge to Thomas Bridegroom, but that article has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bitney Crone[edit]

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

May fail WP:ENT. Article was created by Thbridegroom (talk · contribs), who I believe is the subject's now-deceased partner. This video is of relevance to the subjects. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom. Pyrrhus16 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The article says Crone made headlines in May 2012 when he released a video [...]. Where are the headlines? -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: For example here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.112.169 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, thank you: "Why Gay Marriage Matters". The video is not in the headline. Yes, the video (with its narrator, Crone) plays an important part in this news segment. If there were more such appearances described straightforwardly (without exaggeration) in the article, I'd be more inclined to support the retention of the article and probably other editors would too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think your point is legitimate (and I note you asked much the same question in the related page for Tom Bridegroom). I agree there should be solid evidence re notability. Can I offer that there was a report in the Huffington Post here.Orfeocookie (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, this starts to look interesting. Feel free to add it to the article ... though I think that this would then be a "BLP1E". -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I agree with you on that. I think it's too early to tell, frankly, whether this single video is significant enough to be the kind of 'big event' that would overcome that concern. It might turn out that way, but not yet. It would be good if the issue could be considered further in, say 1-2 months but I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia policy (including deletion policy) to know whether that's viable, or whether the 2 pages could be 'undeleted' if this proves to have significant staying power.Orfeocookie (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • If an article on a given subject has been deleted via AfD but somebody thinks they can create an article that satisfies the objections that led to deletion, then they should contact the administrator who closed the AfD and deleted the article, explaining this. If the explanation doesn't sway the administrator, the would-be article creator can still appeal to "Deletion review". -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E in conjunction with WP:NOTNEWS. His importance to the same sex rights is not established. The coverage is of course recent as it cannot be anything but. More importantly, the coverage is not widespread and so is simply a news item. Yet another report on a popular Youtube video. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, possible merged with the Thomas Bridegroom article. The story was covered on CNN, giving it national coverage. 131.174.85.207 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 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, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:07, 27 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW-Eastern Suburbs Bulldogs[edit]

UNSW-Eastern Suburbs Bulldogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable sports team. In the third division of the local league. Apparently they made it to the grand final last year, but the photos of the event don't seem to have any specatators on the sidelines, which doesn't speak of much the team or the division being very notable. Does not appear to have a website and the only two refs are both link dead. There is some possible coverage at [66] but hardly in-depth. PROD removed with the comment "was a successful team in the top state league in NSW so is likely to have significant coverage" possibly referring to the University of New South Wales Australian National Football Club which merged into this team. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they are currently in the 3rd level, but from 2000 until 2010 they were in the 2nd level (Sydney AFL was then below the national AFL, the NEAFL now sits above the Sydney AFL. I have replaced the dead links in the article with live or archived links. The-Pope (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The-Pope. Sydney AFL teams are notable in my book, added to the fact that it has a Full Points Footy profile, which is significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Also has a some hits in gnews that could be added to the article. Jenks24 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, amateur team in a non-professional league. If they'd been a top flight club before the introduction of the AFL, then I might be more persuaded (as many VFL and SANFL clubs and players would be, per WP:NSPORTS), but I don't believe this to be the case here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:46, 4 June 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) 17:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Runet (term)[edit]

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

Article attempts to define the term Runet in contravention of WP:NOTDICT, apparently because of controversy about Internet in Russia to which the Runet article is often/currently redirected. The term may possibly be suitable for Wiktionary or a footnote in Runet but it is not appropriate as an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is a stub, but there is some information about this term can be borrowed from Russian Wikipedia. Runet is a term without clear definition, but it is widely used and has own long history. Runet is not Internet in Russia, because it was developed, for example, from Israel. And currently 14% of Runet is from Ukraine. Maybe it seems that Runet is Internet in Russian language, but sometimes TatNet, ChuvashTet, Bynet, Kaznet and Uanet are de facto included in term Runet and they are counted in statistics of Runet. Runet is a summation of Russian-language Internet, Ukrainian-language Internet (Yandex several years ago stated that they not devided Russian and Ukrainian news because they think that all users automaticly understand both languages), Internet in Russia, Ukaraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and all depended languages in any country in the world. Runet is commons news and information space. Runet needs a good research, but now we can understand what is Runet from such notable sources like mass media and sociological organisations. --TarzanASG (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These comments apply to "Runet" which is another article. That article may or may not deserve to be a redirect to Internet in Russia - but the matter does not concern us here. This AfD is about "Runet (term)" which is in addition to "Runet"; since it is purely about a (dictionary) term it has no place on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly about this article! In Wikipedia we must have 4 separate pages: 1) "Runet" (currently - Runet (disambiguation)) - disambiguation page, because nobody can exactly says what Runet means; 2) "Runet (term)" (or maybe Runet (terminology) is better according to WP:NOTDIC) - really big article about origin of term, its usage (including different meanings), cultural impact - "Runet in (popular) culture" (thousands and thousands cases, because in Russia often they say "Runet" instead "Internet"), notable quotes about "Runet", etc.; 3) "Internet in Russia" also with "state propaganda" called it as Runet; 4) "Internet in Russian" with statistics and opinion of users, that it is exactly Runet. Finally, "Runet (term)" is a stub, that has potential, which I showed. --TarzanASG (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as an almanac. This type of information is found in almanacs. Also, importantly, the term "Runet" also applies to other aspects of the internet besides just the internet in Russia. From the article: "in 2009, a Yandex report stated that Runet can pertain to sites written in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Kazakh languages​​, as well as sites in any language published in the national domain .am, .az, .by, .ge, .kg, .kz, .md, .ru, .su, .tj, .ua или uz".[1] Therefore, a redirect to the Internet in Russia article would not improve the encyclopedia and would be inaccurate, because this topic also pertains to other countries. Also, using a translation service, the article in the reference within this comment contains a very detailed analysis of the term. The term is exceedingly more complex than a simple dictionary definition.
1. (in Russian) Контент Рунета
—Northamerica1000(talk) 17:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its more than just a dictionary term. Dream Focus 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Russian Wikipedia article has 80 inline citations, and some of the sources may very well be usable for the topic here at English Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Russian Wikipedia article is an original synthesis, and the online citations mostly just verify facts in separate sentences, but do not represent any coherent picture.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ruWP article is a good explanation, and an excellent history of the concept, with good sources.I'm not entirely sure we shouldn't translate it as Russian internet, but it's a suitable article. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm seeing significant coverage of this subject matter in secondary sources, notably, books. — Cirt (talk) 14:59, 2 June 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. Consensus is that the event was non-notable/historical and the individual responsible is also non-notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Koso[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news agency. This is a pseudo-biography of a person who is only noteworthy for being the perpetrator of a crime which was newsworthy for a time but not a "well-documented historic event", and so the article fails our notability tests. Dominic·t 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CRIME states: A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: 1.The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; 2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
The individuals involved in this case are not "renowned national or international figures", and this case is not a "well-documented historic event", so Wikipedia's crime notability guidelines have not been met. Furthermore, this article violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. NJ Wine (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria[edit]

Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. notability needs checking 2. multiple factual/misleading assertions removed leaving increasingly hollow article (alternative is merge to Silverbird Group) Widefox (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, so full of cruft, trivia, misleading info, puffery and crap, notability only vaguely asserted, few if any sources are good. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect/comment - This seems to be the contest run by Nike Oshinowo-Soleye who has also been NFD'd. However, it seems to me that Nike herself is notable (she has been described as one of the 20 most influential people in Nigeria) with sufficient sources out there about her, and the contest is mentioned quite often in relation to her, both as a former winner and as the person behind the current incarnation. So I suggest that the two articles be combined, with the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria article made into a sub-section of an improved/rewritten Nike Oshinowo-Soleye article, and the contest itself turned into a redirect to Nike's page. Mabalu (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment As I just said on the Oshinowo-Soleye AfD, the "20 most" source is a copy/paste of the Oshinowo-Soleye article itself! so not a WP:RS. Refs from that website should be marked unreliable (also it is unattributed). Widefox (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but this article is not 'full of crap'. New citation has been added. And Nike Oshinowo is in charge of Miss Nigeria, not MBGN; her page will soon be re-written.Cleanupbabe (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria beauty pageant is by far one of the largest, if not the largest, beauty pageant in Nigeria. All major and minor newspapapers and magazines, tv & radio stations in Nigeria devote extensive coverage each year to the events prior, during and after the beauty show. The scores of print media in Nigeria alone suffice for this pageant to easily pass WP:GNG, as there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The MTV Base reference in the article has given the pageant notable international recognition (MTV Base calls the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria beauty pageant "...a much loved event..."). MTVBase recently broadcast a 30 minutes interview with the founder of The Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria pageant, Ben Murray-Bruce. Wikipedia's Guideline on Notability for Organizations stipulates the following:

    Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them).

    I have thusly included below a list of reliable sources which all either directly address the pageant or report about it. Surely, from these source, it is established, that the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria beauty pageant has attracted the notice of reliable sources, and thusly fulfilled WP:ORG, WP:ORGIN, WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. Since I'm presently short on time, it'd be good if another editor could please add some of the sources into the MBGN article to improve it. Thank you. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Amsaim (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Jemma, and since 2008 I have been responsible for editing the MBGN and Miss Nigeria pages. In recent weeks I have been accused of creating pages which are subsequently used to attack the subjects and add false information. These claims are ridiculous, and I can assure the administrators that as a Wiki editor, that is not my intention, as I am aware that these article are read by people all over the world, and indeed a few of the subjects have contacted me to voice their complaints, which is never intentional but always rectified.

As far as the MBGN page is concerned, I would like to point out a few facts which have been questioned by Widefox:

  • MBGN in Nigeria is a genuine beauty pageant, the biggest in Nigeria, and the most consistent; therefore the website cited is reliable [1].
  • In the late 80's, Nigeria's rights to Miss World were sold to Silverbird, organisers of MBGN.
  • It is a well-known fact that the pageants winners have been mostly Igbo women, stating with Lynda Chuba-Ikpeazu in 1986. The current titleholder, Isabella Ayuk is the first non-Igbo woman from the South-East to win the title in nine years. The reference cited clearly states that Ayuk is a Cross River-native, and most people from this area are Efik. The previous five winners of the contest were Igbo - any Nigerian can tell by looking at their surnames; for all those who are not familiar with African names, I can provide citation. Omotu Bissong, who won the contest in 2003 (as Celia Bissong) was also from Cross River. After her reign, no other Cross River-native won the title; the winners were mainly Igbo women like rapper Munachi Nwankwo. Regina Askia, who was also a non-Igbo contestant from the South-East did not actually win in 1988 - she replaced Bianca Onoh, yet another Igbo winner.
  • The history section may work better in prose, so that will be re-written, adding more references where necessary.
  • Some of the links are dead now, but they shall be revived. I should also state that most of them were reliable sources as they came from newspapers such as The Punch and The Vanguard which are reputable journals in Nigeria.
  • The 'Trivia' section is actually a Crossover section - other pageant pages like Miss World have similar segments.
  • Finally' I have noticed that anytime I try to clean up or update this page - with references too - it is changed back to the former contribution. Please bear in mind that these article are being read by people all over the world...and Sylvia is no longer the reigning queen.

Thank you.CleanupbabeCleanupbabe (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Question for Editor Cleanupbabe: can your two postings be interpreted as a 'Keep' recommendation? Amsaim (talk) 18:23, 4 June 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 Noise music. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Noise (music)[edit]

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

Promotional: editorial invention, unsourced, zero notability. Semitransgenic talk. 14:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Structured noise as a musical genre exists; it wasn't invented by the article's author. It's a matter of finding coverage in reliable sources that discusses the term. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice. With the only source in the article being "404 compliant" this is an unsourced BLP. However, if someone wants to write a new sourced article then it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan James (disc jockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio DJ. Single reference is dead is not archived. No other reliable sources can be found. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. (Previously deleted as self promotion at Nathan James.) Tassedethe (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


He has recently been heard on BBC Radio 2, Newbury Sound and various stations across the Global Radio Network, including LBC 97.3. Although no sources can be found, he has worked with some big names, and has links from various pages such as BBC Southern Counties Radio so may be worth giving it a few months to find more sources! --85.210.80.47 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree that there should be sources and refrences sourced and listed, but to be fair, he has been heard on a variety of stations over the past few years, mainly in London and the South. Therefore I feel this article should remain. There are so many individuals listed on Wikipedia with no refrences, some of which are Non-notable. Nathan James is a notable DJ. 132.185.240.122 (talk) 01:55, 30 May 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 Userfy. Consensus is to userfy OR delete as TOOSOON - I will userfy to User:Panic Reaper/Escape (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Escape the Fate's fourth studio album[edit]

Escape the Fate's fourth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was WP:PRODded by another editor (which was contested) and I can't help but feel it doesn't meet WP:CRYSTAL. Content is more about the band and their recent endeavours than the album, relying extensively on first-party references which fail WP:Reliable sources. Much of the content seems more appropriate for a magazine interview than an encyclopedia. Rushyo Talk 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Escape the Fate. I PROD-ed it as per WP:HAMMER as the album was untitled AND didn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Facebook isn't a reliable source. That being said, I don't see why all the material about the band itself can't be merged into the band's page if it's properly referenced by reliable sources. §everal⇒|Times 15:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The album will be released soon and the sources are highly reliable Ericdeaththe2nd
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A decently-written article but the sources do not deal with the subject itself (the actual album) in depth. If you cut out the fluff (bust-ups, collaborations, tours, etc.) then there is very little viable, verifiable info on the actual album. It doesn't matter if an album is unreleased or already released if there's insufficient sourced info on the album itself to demonstrate independent notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Beard[edit]

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

Subject of dubious notability, does not meet software guidelines. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Forums are not reliable sources and so is howtogeek. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I came here looking for more info on Sickbeard and programs like it. I use it and thought the article would be more verbose. I know not a perfect reason for keeping it... -Andrew (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why?: This article is too short to be of any use but to act as a pointer to its references. A simple web search would probably yield more useful data. While a short, succinct paragraph can be a wealth of information, this does not provide that. It would be better as part of an article on the class or type of software, like Newsreader_(Usenet) (under "Types of Clients") or in List_of_Usenet_newsreaders as a paragraph not a link (most of the linked articles there are too short for their own page also), than as an article of its own - then the paragraph on it could be included as part of a listing of such programs. Yes, I know that is a run on sentence, I'm too lazy to break it up. RavanAsteris (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:58, 4 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cg (newsreader)[edit]

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

I only found unreliable sources - no reliable sources significant or insignificant. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't even really an assertion of its notability, and sources are lacking too. Brambleclawx 22:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not Notable as per WP:N. --Tow talk 22:22, 4 June 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 libertarian socialism. Apparent consensus for a merge, & I agree it seems the sensible solution DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial market[edit]

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

Article was deproded by an anon IP. But still suffers from the same issue of WP:NEO - I am unable to uncover significant independent reliable source coverage of this neologism. All cites go back to the original author of the neologism either from pieces authored by him, or in journals closely affiliated with him. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep In Google News, there are boatloads of examples of ill-informed writers using the term incorrectly as a pejorative, and possibly hidden within that large list, sources using it in its proper sense. I will admit that this is evidence of a less widespread use than would be ideal to show notability. However, that is not the whole story, and sifting through the pile of purple prose is unnecessary, as there are a great deal of instances of it being used in its proper sense to be found in Google Books and Scholar. Anarchangel (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:NEO, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into libertarian socialism. I don't see a lot of independent sources for this term, but based on the article, it is a real economic concept developed by libertraian socialists. The other reason that I prefer merger is that artificial market has an alternative meaning refering to a real economic market that has been distorted by some non-market factor, or unusual business behavior. Here's an example of the other usage. NJ Wine (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as NJ Wine. I agree that this fits within the libertarian socialism article - if that were thought to be getting unwieldy the best course would be to divide the historical survey in that article from contemporary theories on how such a society might be ordered. I share NJ Wine's concerns about articles on an unusual or local use of a word or phrase in common use occupying that title in WP. It happens too often and is very confusing to users. If the article is kept it should be renamed to distinguish this use and users be offered a link to an article explaining the more common application of the term. --AJHingston (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems to be the common sense outcome. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 31 May 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) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nielsen[edit]

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

Can not find independent reliable sources to establish notability for this artist. Ridernyc (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Times and a leading academic institution would indicate reliable independent sources. User:Williamcrosswiki (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A staff bio is far from substantial coverage in an independent source. Ridernyc (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic meets GNG and passes WP:BASIC:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 22:14, 27 May 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LYTE Records[edit]

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

Non-notable can find Independent sources to establish notability. Appears there may be some self promotion involved as two accounts are creating and editing multiple articles related to this label. Ridernyc (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete as WP:TOOSOON. A thorough search found many mentions of LYLE Records but no articles devoted to the label. Many of the label's artists are talented and notable at least within their musical niches. My crystal ball tells me the article will be reintroduced and accepted in a few years but LYLE Records doesn't meet Wikipedia notability requirements now. DocTree (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 3 June 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. sufficient consensus for deletion after the relisting. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McDowell[edit]

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

DeleteThe article has no independent reliable sources and does not appear to meet WP: Notability guidelines.--Regeek (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither the subject nor his enterprises appear to be notable. What I find on the web is the same as the references in the article: primary sources, sales sites, blogs, press releases, Youtube. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not appear to be notable. The article reads more like a billboard for advertising an enterprise insignificant and not worthy of a WP article. The references provided do not establish WP:Notability and even worse break every guideline set forth in WP:NOTPROMO--Regeek (talk) 15:21, 27 May 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.
  1. ^ (in Russian) Контент Рунета
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_May_27&oldid=1142634225"