Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 May	10 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)[edit]

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

This article does not come close to meeting the requirements of WP:N. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That's a fascinating and well-done article. Meets GNG from the footnotes showing. I learned something today. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Dravecky (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Dravecky (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a high school essay masquerading as an encyclopedia article. But it's going to be kept anyway. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup so it reads less like an essay, and possibly rename so it reads less like an essay. Suggested rename Robert Kennedy's 1948 visit to Palestine or something similar. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any reason to delete it. OreL.D (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nom makes no sense; it comes close, and goes beyond WP:GNG. Like Carrite, I learned something today. I'd actually like to see a clearer connnection between this visit and his assassination 20 years later by a Palestinian. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nothing worse on wikipedia than the middle east axe grinders who make nominations without explanations. the topic meets GNG as a simple search will tell you; AfD is not for cleanup.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:10, 16 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. After improvements. Sandstein 05:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Humour[edit]

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

I tried to quietly redirect this page to Off-color humor, but I was reverted. I don't believe this page is appropriate for Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this topic exists then why delete it? There's enough information out there online to warrant an encyclopaedic article on this topic. The previous redirect tag put upon this article was just a sneaky attempt to obscure information on this topic and mask it with a general term which is the equivalent of redirecting the Holocaust article to the war crime article . Just because an article appears controversial doesn't warrant a deletion. If you don't like it then don't read it and certainly don't redirect it.--Chelios123 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What "information on this subject"? The current article is predominantly a joke book, with about 2 sentences of non-joke content. You've written it cargo-cult style, throwing together a collection of jokes in the hopes that if there are enough examples in the article it will magically reach a critical mass and spontaneously become an encyclopaedic discussion of a subject. You've even called for expansion of the joke book on the article's talk page.
  Prove that there's information to be had, and that there's really a properly documented encyclopaedia subject here, as you claim so far without showing any evidence at all. Show where folklorists and others have documented a joke cycle for this. Point directly to this "information out there" that you claim exists but only vagely wave a hand in the direction of. Adhere to Wikipedia:Deletion policy in AFD discussions, and write articles properly, working from reliable sources that actually discuss the purported subject, rather than lists of jokes that do not.
  Wikipedia articles are not collections of jokes and Wikipedia is not a joke book. (And yes, I speak from a lot of experience, but I'm not going to do your work for you in this instance. Wikipedia needs more than just one person who can write properly on these subjects, and experience should be a good teacher.) Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article complies with all the rules and this article's format is consistent with other Wikipedia articles that discusses humour topics e.g maternal_insult. Like I said before if you don't like it THEN DON'T READ IT. Furthermore if you wish to critique this article then feel free to add your concerns on the articles talk page . In addition I've asked for more examples of 9/11 humour as the examples listed on this article are mainly Q&A jokes which is very tedious and I was hoping for more variety in the examples section. --Chelios123 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can take the advice of someone who knows what xe's talking about from years of rescuing articles like this, or you can foolishly continue in the same silly vein as what you've just written. Only the first will end up with anybody other than you opining to keep. Write properly and stop making such specious arguments. You need to learn about the subject from reliable sources that document it, and your immediate burden is to answer the questions that I asked, that you must answer to make a deletion-policy-compliant argument, proving your vague handwaved and so far wholly unsupported claims with source citations showing that you even have a real subject here in the first place. You're supposed to be an encyclopaedia writer, not a joke collector. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find more thorough documentation of this phenomenon and make it more than just a joke page. In other words: if this is something people have actually researched, it deserves an article. Otherwise, it's better off incorporated into the broader off-color humor or black comedy. Harej (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least rename the article. "Humour" should not be capitalized. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is mainly just a list of "jokes." Yes, a few people have gotten into trouble for making these jokes in public, and that information should go on their individual pages. I don't see sufficient notability here to give this its own page, though.JoelWhy (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep I added a popular culture section to give examples of 9/11 humour with references. In addition I added an example of why 9/11 humour is taboo to enhance the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelios123 (talk • contribs) 2012-05-10T16:44:49‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like perhaps every facet of 9/11, there has been a fair amount of serious writing about 9/11 humor. In 2011, the book "A Decade of Dark Humor: How Comedy, Irony, and Satire Shaped Post-9/11 America" was released. As the Amazon info states, the book "analyzes ways in which popular and visual culture used humor-in a variety of forms-to confront the attacks of September 11, 2001 and, more specifically, the aftermath. This interdisciplinary volume brings together scholars from four countries to discuss the impact of humor and irony on both media discourse and tangible political reality." I'd need to look into this subject further to determine whether it merits a separate article, but even New York magazine has a 9/11 humor entry in its 9/11 encyclopedia. If an article can exist, it will look different than how this looked when nominated.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the more I look, there really is a TON of stuff out there about 9/11 humor. I would ditch the joke examples though (leave one in for a true example), and summarize the scholarly work and other commentary.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not conflate scholarly work on 9/11 (even 9/11 and humor) with the page being discussed here. This page looks like it was written by someone in middle school looking for an excuse to post a bunch of tasteless jokes on Wikipedia. I am not voting for delete because I find it offensive, I'm voting to delete because this page isn't about humor + 9/11; it's just a list of anecdotes and crude jokes. I will be dollars to donuts that you won't find much in the way of scholarly works discussing what is listed in the Examples section (and, if I am mistaken, I eagerly await citations for the jokes -- citations to reliable/notable sources.) In any case, I will be glad to change my vote should someone provide a few citations and additions dealing with the scholarly issues. As it stands, I see virtually nothing worth salvaging here (although, I can see how a proper article may reference the Gottfried incident.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if you spend an hour or so on the article you could make it worthwhile. If this article is deleted, its only because on one cares to make it into the article it should be.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I'm not really favoring deletion. The only reason this ended up here is that the page is a piece of shit (a giant copyright violation) and my redirect attempt was reverted.

Yes, there's plenty to write about regarding 9/11 Humour, but that's a tangential question to whether Wikipedia wants to cover the topic. It's a legitimate search term, but I think a redirect to Off-color humor or some simliar page (or even a redirect to a section) would be better than this page. And, broadly, I think a small section describing this phenomenon (and it's hardly unique to the September 11 attacks) would be sufficient. I'm not sure why more in-depth coverage (and examples, for Christ's sake) are really necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The beginnings were abysmal, but there's hope for developing a substantial article out of this stub. I've culled the 'examples' as they will never be suitable content, and added a little from a research study on the topic. This is a notable topic, and the current stub doesn't breach any policies. Fences&Windows 20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Fences, that's definitely an improvements. I believe the 'popular culture' section can go as well. If there is something notable that occurred in such an episode which warrants serious discussion, it should be discussed. For example, if the incident on Family Guy prompted a huge backlash (I don't recall that it did, just as a hypothetical example) it may warrant a mention. But, just listing media appearances doesn't seem to serve any purpose, IMO.JoelWhy (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added text from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Back_to_the_Pilot&oldid=491154653#Reception about the Family Guy episode. Fences&Windows 21:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a great addition, thanks! (Perhaps the first time I've ever read an article with a 'In popular culture' section that didn't seem like just a random collection of anecdotal accounts that never should have been added in the first place.)
Keep: Based on sorely needed improvements.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the removal of juvenile list of "jokes" and significant improvements to the article.JoelWhy (talk) 11:44, 16 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) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ubercart[edit]

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

No evidence of sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline. Bulwersator (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reasonable unaffiliated sources on the subject, no evidence that it meets WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:15, 26 April 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, B music ian 04:20, 1 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, BusterD (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. A podcast and software vendor's site are not sufficient to meet the requirement of reliable sourcing. Dialectric (talk) 11:21, 13 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) 17:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew P. Hutton[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Article was deproded by SPA anon IP, but still suffers from same lack of notability. Also appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why there is a question over the subjects Notability? As the subject is author of 3 books, and contributed to another 5 all in the field of Paranormal. Also the subject has been part of the editorial team on three separate publications and written for numerous others, including London Weekend Television. As Wiki is designed as an extensive encyclopaedia, and includes such entries as George "Geordie" Ridley, who is virtually unknown outside of the Northeast of England, I have to question the motives for nominating this subject for deletion. a Google search reveals multiple references to Matthew P Hutton. However, as he has been writing under the name Matthew Hutton, the name is linked to Matthew Hutton (Tax Advisor), Matthew Hutton (archbishop of York 1529), Matthew Hutton (archbishop of Canterbury 1747–1757), so maybe this is the reason for the confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.73.234 (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — 82.152.73.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Since my last comment I see ConcernedVancouverite has added George "Geordie" Ridley for deletion, who I used as an example of other notable people who are not easily verifiable. This seems unfair - I could add hundreds of other examples of people and subject already on Wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.73.234 (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — 82.152.73.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The subject has written numerous forewords to books which fulfill WP:AUTHOR paragraph 1 “The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors”. Spiritmover (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)— Spiritmover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As one of the previous entries already claims, Wikipedia designed as an extensive encyclopaedia, the contents of which should be diverse and thorough. One of the problems with ConcernedVancouverite argument is that it is not from an objective view. His nomination for the deletion of George "Geordie" Ridley illustrates this point perfectly. Ridley wrote a song about the Blaydon Races and Cushie Butterfield both of these are legendary in the North of England, but virtually unheard of outside of the region. The music hall versions of the songs are well known in the region, but do not appear in a Google search? Wiki gives these stories to a wider audience, such as researchers and historians looking in to regional folktales and legends, in very much the same ways as researchers in to paranormal investigators or ghost hunters will be interested in Hutton's life and work. The word Geordie and Geordie dialect words or Hutton's hometown of Gateshead would not reach the type of notability required by ConcernedVancouverite yet they appear on Wiki. Wikipedia rules are guidelines and people who choose to set themselves up as monitors should show a bit more discretion and commonsense. Hutton is unquestionable a leading researcher in the North of England, and his notability has reached across the UK. I imagine that Cushie Butterfield, Gateshead, Geordie and Geordie dialect words will now be nominated for deletion by the overly zealous “concerned Vancouver citizen” I only hope the Wiki Admin team are monitoring his activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitomi Kurihara (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Hitomi Kurihara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Since my comment on this AfD was deleted by one of the above editors, I am reposting it, and would like to remind other editors it is inappropriate to delete another editor's comments on an AfD. An AfD is meant to discuss the merit of the underlying article, and deleting other editor's comments regarding such content is inappropriate. Here is my original comment....Regarding the content of this AfD, the three books referenced in the article that are written by him turn up no reviews on Google Books. (In fact, one of the ISBN numbers turns up an entirely different book, and one turns up a book that the article claims he co-authored, but only lists the other author). Overall for an article to appear about an author, there has to be a certain amount of notability, and it seems he does not meet those standards as detailed in WP:AUTHOR. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one of the above editors had deleted your previous comment, then there would be a record of it (please check history). The article has three Links to Google Books, which verify that Hutton is indeed the author and co-author. There is also a couple of reviews about the Hylton Castle Ghost book on Google Books? I would imagine that as he has contribute forewords to other peoples works, and is a literary correspondent, then this is consistent with WP:AUTHOR 82.152.73.234 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — 82.152.73.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It was you who deleted it with this edit [1], so it is very unclear what you say, "If one of the above editors had deleted your previous comment....." I would like to remind you once again, it is inappropriate to delete another editor's comments on an AfD, and doubly wrong to then make comments as if it didn't happen. There are two books by this author on google books: [2], and one of them is listed on Amazon "The Further Words of Wisdom" without him listed as a co-author [3], so the google book addition of his name as a co-author is not even clear. Neither has any non-social media reviews that I can find. Regarding the merit of the notability of the article, being an author of a book that is non-notable does not make the author notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI was going to join this discussion but the above user ConcernedVancouverite seems to have a hidden agenda. So I'll pass77.103.114.137 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)— 77.103.114.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage of subject by independent and objective reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. Appears to be an author whose work has received little to no notice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Being the author of books by itself is not an indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia's notability requirements and specifically fails WP:AUTHOR. I could find absolutely nothing about him at Google News, and nothing but self-referential things at Google and Google Books. The article itself contains no significant external sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing administrator: I note that Wikipedia already has articles on Matthew Hutton (Archbishop of York) and Matthew Hutton (Archbishop of Canterbury); the two of them and this one are listed at the disambiguation page Matthew Hutton. The other two are already DABed from each other by hatnotes, so if this one is deleted, the DAB page becomes unnecessary and you might want to consider deleting it as well.

Another note to closing administrator: there is a page Matthew Hutton (ghost hunter) which redirects to this page. If the result here is delete, the redirect page should also be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another redirect page at Matthew P Hutton (without the period). --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 16 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) 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BASIK[edit]

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

This article is about a charity that lacks the coverage necessary to establish notability. There is this local item from the newspaper Wharfedale where this charity is based, along with some other local coverage alread in the article, but that is insufficient to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NGO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - having read the existing references, there appears to be marginal notability. Hopefully, the subject project will continue to grow as will the notability. Stormbay (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, another reference has been added from this years fundraising activity and more will be over the coming months. The charity is growing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Normington (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Chris Normington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be no further interest. Make a decision on the past debate. This one is suffering from dead horse syndrome. Stormbay (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sounds like a great idea - a bunch of high school kids start a charity to build schools in Kenya - but it really hasn't gotten the required coverage to have an article here. All links at the article are from a hyperlocal news source. Google News Archive finds lots of stuff about the concept of "build a school in Kenya" but virtually all of it relates to other charities, particularly one in Canada. As for the word BASIK alone, it finds a few commercial uses but nothing at all about this well meant but very small charity. Maybe a paragraph about it could be added to the article about the village or the school where it originated. I would advise against a redirect, however, since there are so many better-known uses of the word BASIK. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To convey a sense of just how small this is, virtually a private charity - four of the six members of the board of directors have the same last name. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 16 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. Sandstein 04:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Piovra 3 (soundtrack)[edit]

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

WP:V, WP:RS, These albums do not exist. A soundtrack album titled La Piovra was released in 1990. http://www.discogs.com/Ennio-Morricone-La-Piovra/release/2687076 MrBlondNYC (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [No La Piovra 4 or 5 releases either. WP:V, WP:RS, articles created by same user]:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:56, 1 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) 01:01, 2 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, BusterD (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. If there's anything to these various editions, it can be added/merged into La Piovra (soundtrack), but otherwise I see no evidence of these individual volumes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:25, 9 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) 17:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChoqoK[edit]

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

Non-notable software application. No substantial coverage in google / google news. Tagged for notability > 2 years. Doesn't appear to be distributed independently. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 26 April 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) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I can find some third-party coverage (e..g [4]), I can't find anything to suggest this is a particularly notable piece of software deserving of an article. Robofish (talk) 15:31, 6 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, BusterD (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:22, 17 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) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 06:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Northrup[edit]

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

his how to books do not seem to be extremely notable JDDJS (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new, but respectfully disagree. These types of books are sold world wide, and people build careers on this type of how to book. They're especially important in under-privileged countries where secondary schooling is not available. Applies to Joseph Davies as well. Prastol1958 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prastol1958 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I'm seeing nothing of secondary coverage to say that his works were considered notable by any secondary sources. Yes, people do make careers out of this - careers alone aren't notable. Yes, people do become famous for writing such books - so cite the sources that describe him as just such a famous author.

His greatest claim to fame would seem to be a "Sexiest Geek Alive" contest a decade ago. Much of the sourcing for which appears to be a pack of stale pages behind newspaper paywalls. Now if that's what "notability" has come to, it's time to give up the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 26 April 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) 00:23, 2 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, BusterD (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sourcing to establish notability. Warden (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His book most widely held in libraries, "Home hacking projects for geeks is in 349 libraries--and this tisthe sort of books most libraries do not catalog, so that;s very significant. Even more significant is that according to WorldCat Authorities [5] his books have been translated into German (56 different titles), French (21), Chinese (12) , Japanese (6), Spanish (5), Czech (2) & 1 each in Polish and Finnish. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources establish notability. Sexiest greek thing is supported by the Chicago Tribune. --Kvng (talk) 16:37, 13 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Machine (band)[edit]

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

Nonnotable band. The only references I can find are eGigs and eFestivals, which, I think, aren't reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND. Pburka (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:30, 25 April 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) 00:17, 2 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, BusterD (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content with Ozric Tentacles - not notable enough for their own article, no reliable sources, doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND, wildly disproportionate level of detail - but worth mentioning in the main Ozric Tentacles article for sure. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 14:49, 15 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) 00:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus O'Fay[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in independent sources[6][7] indicates that this person does not meet notability guidelines. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 26 April 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, 2 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, BusterD (talk) 21:08, 9 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. Treating as an uncontested PROD. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Turri[edit]

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

Filmmaker whose three films are all non-notable. Although The Bigfoot Election won the Albuquerque Film Festival as "Best New Mexico Feature", this amounts to local recognition at best. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 27 April 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, 2 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, BusterD (talk) 21:08, 9 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samui Centre of Learning[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering the subject. I.e. The school doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. Paul_012 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consensus is that verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 27 April 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, 2 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, BusterD (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNG ZachFoutre (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Account created a short time ago solely to vote for deletion in school AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Sorry, BusterD. Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 11 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 Suffolk Wildlife Trust. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Roughton[edit]

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

I think this is a fairly clear A7: no claim to notability in the text and no indication of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (Contested speedy and prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 9 sources are shown a lot of which are from the BBC therefore reliable sources exist. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far from a db-A7. However, I've expanded this but its all about the trust. I propose a merge of what I've added into the main article and then redirect his name. There is nothing biographical on the web about him whatsoever but his trust is most certainly notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: redirect to the Trust - his only notability is as its Chief Executive (or MD, according to the article). If someone else was in that post, they'd be getting quoted in the media in just the same way. PamD 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This person is not notable enough to have his own article. We can't have an article for the owner of every single company and anyone who was mentioned by the BBC. Adam mugliston Talk 18:38, 27 April 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, 2 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, BusterD (talk) 21:05, 9 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. If this article were about a Pokemon I would have closed it as "no consensus" but it's an unsourced biography of a living person. I looked through the entire history and no version of this article ever had sources. It has been suggested that a sourced article could be written so if somebody wishes to do so then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Moritz[edit]

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

According to WP:BIO footnote #6 (Wikipedia:BIO#cite_note-note5-5) just being listed on IMDB isn't enough to meet notability requirements for a BLP. I can't find any 3rd party sources for this person, and those would be necessary for inclusion? Hes listed as an editor for most(all?) of these films, I can't find any 3rd party source discussing him in context of his editing carrier or anything else. This page has been around for quite some time, but I don't see any reason for inclusion? Speedy was declined so we'll proceed with AfD to decide. — raeky t 18:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources are available through Google (ex [8]). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked but couldn't really find any, I found a picture of him at some award show in a big group of pictures of people who attended, but that was it. Not sure a press release about him being a speaker at some event is really enough to establish notability though.. It says hes award winning but I can't find what awards? Maybe that would be enough if a source could be found but it also could just be an exaggeration and hes not a winner of a notable award? — raeky t 01:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pictures was in this set: [9] but I have no way of knowing if this is the same guy? And the website for that organization does not list him as staff anymore [10] nor is he mentioned at GLAAD... Only place a David Moritz is mentioned on glaad.org is in a press release [11] which says hes of "Society Awards" and the website for Society Awards does not give a bio of him so how are we to know this is the same guy? The name David Moritz isn't THAT uncommon. There is a list of press articles about the company though, several mention a David Moritz [12]. So I suspect by the picture in the article you listed which does sound like him is NOT the same guy that is pictured as being part of Society Awards, so we can assume none of those are sources for him. — raeky t 01:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, what? The information included in the source I gave matches that given in the article, so it would seem to be the same guy. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes but my point is there's not much else out there, a press release for him being a speaker I don't think meets the basic requirements for inclusion... which is all that "article" is. — raeky t 02:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 27 April 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, 2 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, BusterD (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though the article could obviously use improvement, the subject appears to be notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 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 nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding "delete" !vote per WP:IAR and per sources added. OrenBochman, if you wish to discuss this further then you can renominate or I can reopen this AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Hedman[edit]

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

Biography of porn performer, sourced only to IMDB and something called the "European Girls Adult Film Database". I have removed the unsourced material and doubt sources can be found to satisfy WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after rescue by cavaronne, seems like she passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW and lack of WP:BEFORE. Not an anonymous "porn performer" but an easily sourcable actress, active in genre films, auteur films and pornograhic films, in which she is recognized by many reliable sources as the first/one of the first stars in Italian industry. Passes our general notability guideline and multiple specific guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands this is a WP:PORNBIO and not a WP:N one. As far as I can see it is also a WP:BLP without a WP:RS. If the porn section is removed or significantly reduced, I might be induced to reconsider whether if it passes WP:GNG BO; talk 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are not exclusive of each other. You don't disregard WP:N simply because an article qualifies for consideration under a more specific guideline. So all of those references, you can confirm that none of published books are RS? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this vote... anyway 1)This is not "a WP:BLP without a WP:RS" 2)She is not just a pornographic actress 3)if even we should consider her just as pornographic actress, she passes PORNBIO#3, "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" 4)as said above, as it is obvious, guidelines are not exclusive of each other 5)it seems you vote "delete" when an actress passes PORNBIO as she does not pass GNG and "delete" when an actress passes GNG as she does not pass PORNBIO. Bad faith? Cavarrone (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to my opinion - though there is much more to discuss this Afd discussion, this is no longer a discussion for me - it has denigrated to a personal attack despite my good will to compromise. BO; talk 11:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - passes GNG. sure its a porn actress but still..--BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Thanks to Cavaronne for sourcing this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 13 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) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Plugaru[edit]

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

Unless we've started counting "The Romanian Erotic Industry Awards", this performer fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Without being able to read the text of the Romanian-language sources, I am concerned that they may not be reliable (based only on a general impression of the sites). It would be nice if someone could confirm that the sources are reliable and that the information in the article actually appears in the sources. Otherwise, it should probably be stubbed if kept. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've thought about pulling the trigger on this article myself, but whenever I struggle through a sample of the surprisingly many GNews hits via Google Translate (which is only marginally literate for the language involved), I come to the conclusion that she's a second-or third-rate Romanian Jenna Jameson, who's somehow managed to cross over into the mainstream media. The article is rather lousy, and the awards aren't enough to satisfy PORNBIO, but there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Someone more familiar with the language and sources might be able to reach a better informed conclusion otherwise, which would hardly distress me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Hullaballoo. Awards appears too weak to satisfy PORNBIO, but she received tons of secondary coverage in reliable sources to easily pass GNG requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable as an entrepreneur. The website listed indicates that this is still an active star. Does not seem to have a single WP:RS required for a WP:BLP. This is therefore clearly a non notable PornBio listed here to sell movies and promote her web site. BO; talk 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you so certain that Click! and Libertatea are not reliable? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are listed as tabloids and when tabloids publish online they are not particularly stringent about checking their facts - so you just conviced me - thanks! BO; talk 17:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look up the article on tabloid based on that ignorant statement. "Tabloid" refers to the format of those newspapers, not their reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Woodman is a identifying reliable sources? If the answer is yes, then read the next review! http://www.woodmanforum.com/girls/alina-plugaru-t1040.html#p45534 Jonathan Archer (talk)

Keep - Reviewing the references indicates that the subject seems to pass the GNG with the Romanian newspaper coverage. The possible consideration of a subject under a specific notability guideline does not exclude consideration under the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 11 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zebediah Dingle[edit]

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

Speedy deletion was declined. I can find no record on the net that this character existed. The only reference on Wikipedia to this character was added by the same user who created this article. That user has created a hoax article, Sean Glover, that was speedily deleted on my nomination. While I am not familiar with the series, I believe this is a hoax as well. The information in the article is dubious: two actors are listed as playing the character, but both link back to this article. Michitaro (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the other article as a hoax, but there are a few things like this out there, that while miles of being reliable sources, do show that this isn't a hoax. It's obvious though that WP:GNG cannot be met. I've transwikied the content to wikia so that it isn't lost. SmartSE (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. Nothing I looked at, including IMDb, lists the character as being played by an actor. My impression is that at best the diagram you found refers to the fictional universe of the show, but that the character itself has never physically appeared on the show. It thus might be a hoax in that sense. The article itself has many of the same qualities as the Sean Glover hoax article, such as creating the impression of having wikilinked content by having the link just go back to the article itself. IMDb has no record of an actor named George Keegan active on British TV--and no record whatsoever of an actor named George Dingle. Both omissions would be unlikely for an actor appearing as a regular for many years on a popular show. Michitaro (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now. I've found this "From the pieces I can gather from various sources, Zebediah is the youngest brother of Zak and is head of "The Southampton Dingles" and has a son called Job. The family also include a Bob and Mantha." on http://www.emmerdale.org/emmerdale/dingles/dingprofiles.htm#zeb where there is no mention of Lilith and Delilah, or Luke. No actor is listed, whereas certain others are named. The page also lists characters as 'mentioned in passing in 1995', and that certain characters appeared on screen but didn't speak because they were extras. Obviously a fan site, but I would think fairly reliable. Partly down until June, but possibly accessible via Google (the way I went in). There is a contradiction in the article: "he married his childhood sweetheart Colleen Gascoigne. The couple moved to West Kensington, where Colleen grew up." Beckindale is a long way from West Kensington. Another possible contradiction is that 'Colleen Gascoigne' has two brothers who apparently have the surname Adamson, to judge by the rather strange wikilinks they both have. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually found the page you found as well. So it does seem that in the universe of the series, this character exists, but even that page does not list an actor playing it. I'm not quite sure what to do with this page. It has some information that fits the story universe, but also a lot that does not or is contradictory (as Peridon points out). I don't know the series well enough to say. Then the claims about actors playing this character all seem basically untrue (again, it was created by a user who has created hoax pages). We could trim the article down to the basics, but the question remains whether this is a notable enough character to pass WP:GNG. I think it stinks enough that it would be best to just delete it and have someone more reliable start it again with real RS. Michitaro (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax can be about a real subject (or, in this case, a real fictional subject...). It appears from their Wikipedia articles that Delilah and Lilith exist, but no father is given for them (not until the author of this article added them). However, in the Dingle Family article, they are listed as a family group with Colleen. I think I'm going to take up theology - it's simpler. Peridon (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was fooled into thinking there were two actors - they are producers, I think. Steve Frost (now called Steve November after he got married) is the current executive producer. In the Glover article, there was a blatant use of an irrelevant picture - really of Joseph Fiennes. Pity we don't have a pic of George Dingle. When a suspect article has a pic, always look at the info for it. Can tell you a lot. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely no Zebediah or George Dingle at IMDb. No Colleen except for Colleen King, a different person altogether and, unusually, not a Dingle or married to one. (I counted 36 at IMDb.) Peridon (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think theology will solve this. Apparently another user (or the same one, but without logging in) (User:92.3.228.56) went through some of the other Emmerdale pages and added Zebediah. The problem with the actors is that the page lists two of them, George Dingle (in the infobox) and George Keegan (in the text). How one fictional character can be played by two actors is either an issue of avant-garde art or of quantum physics. And then IMDb lists neither actor. Michitaro (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who and James Bond manage quite well... I think the Dingle in the infobox might be a mistake. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those were consecutively, whereas this is at the same time. The infobox might be a mistake, or it might just be another bit of evidence of a sloppily written hoax. Michitaro (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. This character may exist in the fictional Emmerdale universe, in the sense of having been mentioned; but there is no reliable source even for that, still less that he ever actually appeared, and so he falls far short of the notability required to have an article, even if there were reliable sources on which to base one. The details in the article are certainly false: it is inconceivable that if the character had been a full-time regular for years there would be no mention of him in IMDb and so little on the internet generally (compare the results of a Findsources search for him and for any of the real characters); and while IMDb has two George Keegans, neither of their CVs mentions Emmerdale. The article author's only other contribution was an undoubted, deliberate hoax, complete with falsified illustration. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if true, this very minor character just isn't notable. Bazonka (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete John has confirmed my suspicions - as has the absence here so far of the author of the article. Peridon (talk) 21:17, 18 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) 01:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfolded Film[edit]

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

Contested prod on an obscure and as-yet-unreleased film. No indication that it comes even close to meeting WP:NFILM, most probably also fails WP:CRYSTAL, and none of the references are even remotely reliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NFF. While a promotional style might otherwise be addressable, a lack of any valid sources makes this one far too premature. Good catch by User:Hrafn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally marked this for speedy as non-notable web content, since this doesn't appear to exist off the internet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 16 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) 01:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Sharma (actor)[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources evidencing the notability of this voice actor under the GNG or ENT. Existing sources point to a non-reliable source. Two people come up in searching for the name of this fellow and Pokemon that I could find, a newspaper writer/editor and a 12-year-old Pokemon fan's friend; there's also a santoor player of the same name. Additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON. Just one significant role isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Also fails GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is clearly not notable. Vincelord (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above conclusions regarding the notability of the subject. No good sources available. Secret of success (talk) 15:05, 11 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) 00:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akar Araz[edit]

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

This is a difficult one: The article originally had no sources, after BLP prod only one source was added, which is a blog - which may well be the blog of the article's creator. A Google search turns up nothing - but that may be due to the fact that this is a Kurdish songwriter, so we'd need someone that speaks Kurdish to check for sources. Equally I'm not certain how important/notable (or even how truthful) the purported award wins are. The two entries in the article under personal life and career "Akar is known for keeping a maximum low profile and secrecy on his social life and commitments in Norway. In 2007" and "An inteview with Zagroz-TV in 2010, Akar said I won't come back until I have finished school and fully grown up, I have big plans for the future." don't really bode well.... Travelbird (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of sourcing, we can't really keep any BLP. That said, this might be a case where WP:USUAL applies - if they find some sort of notability, and if sources show this, an article in the future might work. Not today, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 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)} 18:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a heavy heart - Ugh, I really hate to recommend deletion, since I'm sure we have scant coverage of Kurdish cultural topics and this Memi Alan story he was in certainly seems popular judging by Google hits, but it looks like there just isn't going to be any verifiable information about him at this point. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is definitely a lack of sources. Perhaps an article in the future? Stormbay (talk) 02:35, 15 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) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Koletsos[edit]

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

Insufficient indication of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence on page or from Google searches that subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Google Scholar search for "G Koletsos" gives top cites of 39, 18, 9, 8, 7, 4. Qwfp (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too slim a publication record (for this field) to pass WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. It's not uncommon for faculty in this area of engineering to have hundreds of publications, patents, and so forth, and often many of those with high citations. The subject of this article only has a handful of publications. There is also the issue of the quality of sourcing. None of the sources cited in the article includes more than a passing mention of the subject (and indeed very little actual text at all). This is not enough to write a WP:BLP on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several misconceptions: It is extremely unussual for people in engineering to have hundreds of publications of any sorr--possibly 1% of faculty might have 100. 2. we count only peer reviewed journal articles & peer reviewed conferences & patents, & look for citation of the work, not raw count of publication, 3. We dod not expect to find biographical sources as such--scientists are notable for their science, not thei details of their private life. 4.All we expect to include in a BLP is their education & their professional life. Emphasis of their families and hobbies is promotional writing--their not figures in pop culture. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's never been my impression. Most people who do computer engineering that I am familiar with have at least one order of magnitude more publications than comparable faculty in the mathematical sciences. Even associate professors frequently have on the order of 20 or so publications. Also, I have no idea how you are getting that I somehow feel that we need sources of private life details, etc. The only references have the subjects name in a list. Our policies do require the existence of sources that address the subject more than in passing like this. That appears prominently in WP:N, WP:V, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I work with a lot of researchers as part of my job (not exclusively computer engineers). Its exceedingly rare to find scientists with hundreds of publications, in my experience. It generally takes a good amount of time conducting research before they are ready to draft an article for publishing. So, a top-tier researcher may have dozens of publications, but hundreds? I could see how writing articles related to computer engineering would take far less time than, say, articles based upon experiments related to cancer treatments. But, hundreds still seem like an awful lot. (Not saying I'm doubting you, Slaw, but are you sure about these numbers?)JoelWhy (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems unlikely that we will agree on an exact range for a plausible average number of publications for faculty in this area, the claim is being made that the subject presumably passes WP:PROF#C1 on the basis of exactly five publications over a 27 year period. Hopefully we can all agree that this is low by any standards. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Joe's wonderment about top-tier researchers having more than dozens of pubs: here are some top computer engineers: [13]: Sharad Malik has 288 pubs listed, Janak Patel 240, Alberto Broggi 231, Hans-Joachim Wunderlich 263, etc. Of course, we should not be counting number of publications, but some stand-in for their significance such as citation counts, but Koletsos falls down very badly there too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David, that's at the very top--WP:N is much less than "famous". DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of our opinions of absolute numbers of publications, do you believe that five publications rises to the level of WP:N? If not, then perhaps we can move on. Do you believe that mere mention of someone's name in a list is adequate sourcing per the standard of "significant coverage" also articulated in WP:N? Again, if not, then perhaps we can all agree that the article should be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:07, 9 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)} 18:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find evidence of sufficient notability. Apart from Google, I looked at MathSciNet (8 publications, 2 citations) and World of Science (4 publications, 5 citations). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:47, 10 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) 18:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SUN OF A STARVE[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Just debuted and debut mini-album did not even chart according to Oricon. Internet search finds a few blog entries, but little significant independent media coverage. Fails WP:BAND. Have to say that it is WP:TOOSOON. Michitaro (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a non-charting debut album by the same band:

Weak Delete—both of 'em. I have a sneaky suspicion that they might be notable in Japan/among Japanese (they are signed to a label, but I can't reliably find the name of the label, let alone tell if it's notable), but not even a liberal sprinkling of Google Translate can make much sense of it for me. Delete because there is no evidence of notability, though I'll gladly flip if someone with language skills can find references. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 07:57, 4 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)} 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - WP:TOOSOON - may meet WP:BAND in due course, doesn't yet. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard (heraldry)[edit]

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

This article is full of misinformation, and based on a distinction made in foreign languages, but not in English. The information in this article is already covered in the article Lion(heraldry). I could rewrite the article completely, but I don't think the leopard as a charge is notable enough. For a source, that such a charge is a lion and that leopard now refers to the spotted feline try the Oxford Guide to Heraldry by Woodcock and Robinson, page 203 Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The meaning of the term has changed: early on (until the late 14th century) the term meant a lion passant guardant in English heraldry, but after the 15th century these were more often termed lion passant guardant, leaving the door open for the unmaned, spotted species to eventually enter the heraldic lexicon under the term leopard. To confuse matters, the heraldic term leopard continues to refer to a lion passant guardant in Francophonic heraldry. Then there are the terms lion leopardé and leopard lioné. I think regardless of its notability in terms of Google hits or number of appearances in Siebmacher's, this is a murky enough topic to warrant a fuller explanation than can be given in a few lines. Besides that, I think the charge's appearance in English and Danish royal heraldry alone makes it WP:Notable. I would support merging into Lion (heraldry), but I would prefer simply rewriting this article with high quality sources, and including a "main article" hatnote in the Lion (heraldry) section to direct readers to this article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural leopards are quite rare in heraldry, and have no special rules and we certainly don't have separate articles for deers or dragons. Redirecting this article to lions would just confuse the matter more. How it is done currently, and what I want to fix is the confusion created with people suggesting that leopard is still an acceptable term for a lion passant guardant. Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Malformed debate found—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ryulong (竜龙) 01:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to say? This article is about two heraldic charges, the leopard and the lion passant guardant. In languages such as French and German, the lion passant guardant is known as a leopard. The depictions of Panthera pardus are referred to as leopard in English, but usually referred to as Panthera pardus or zoologische leopard(in German). I don't think I have ever heard a heraldic charge referred to as zoological. There are other cases in heraldry where there has been heralds distinguish between an animal as depicted in nature and in heraldry. For example; the heraldic tyger and the seahorse. The natural tiger, is blazoned as a bengal tiger, and the natural seahorse using its Latin name. The Leopard (heraldry) article is about heraldic terminology and jargon but is adopted from a German language article, and relies on cognates and close to literal translation. Anyway, the natural, or zoologische leopard is a modern and not very common charge, does not need its own article. Lion passant guardant, is however an important charge and may justify its own article, although I thing articles on heraldic charges are not very good and tend to be lists, and there is no avoiding repeating information on the Lion (heraldry) article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is so generally used in this meaning that an article is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 8 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 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Edward III and the symbol of the Leopard for an extensive account of the matter. The article needs expansion to include all this material but that's ordinary editing per our editing policy, not deletion. Warden (talk) 18:43, 9 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) 01:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amruta Sapre[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this dub artist and singer under WP:GNG. The SPS in the external links probably indicates she exists, but the forum listing, directory listing, Wikia article and unsourced HIB wikipedia article that appear in lieu of sources in the references section don't, in my view, make the grade. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of sources. Secret of success (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a case of TOOSOON. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:52, 16 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Verma[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice artist. A random Word file in the downloads directory of an Institute for Fashion does not appear to me to be a particularly convincing source for a voice actor. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly as a speedy A7 as this unreferenced biography is not even making any obvious claim to the person's notability. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable refs whatsoever. Bgwhite (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite sure how I missed the existing BLPPROD on this one, but removing it was an unforced error on my part. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:44, 9 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) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 06:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aleemiyah Institute of Islamic Studies[edit]

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

Not even remotely notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources mentioning the institution on Google Books [14] and plenty more on Google. Mar4d (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15[15] is a lot is it? And how many of those give in-depth coverage? None that I can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have used unnecessary quotation marks to define search result, perhaps that might be the reason why you get 15. I get hundreds. Mar4d (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation marks are entirely necessary, or anything with Aleemiyah comes up. Perhaps you would be so good as to provide actual sources which give in depth coverage of this institute. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - from Wikiproject Pakistan's listing - sourced article and per WP:NHS. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this needs relisting and an admin to close it out. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 8 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 17:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do not really have much experience ttrying to decide on notability of universities and other higher schools that are not on the Western model. For most of those bnrought here in the past, we habven't even been able to fullfill basic verification, because of cultural bias. Now that we can at least do that, we should keep this one. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 10 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana Sandeep Chandratreya[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this dub artist. Address book listings, and a doc file in the random downloads directory of a fashion institute don't strike me as either. Unable to find sources to replace those listed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly as a speedy A7 as neither working as a voice actor nor being friendly with another is in itself notable? AllyD (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why the BLPProd was deleted and the AfD was added. No reliable sources were in the article or can be found. Bgwhite (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bgwhite is correct that the removal of the BLPPROD tag was wrong in both this and the other article. I spent a fair bit of time looking for sources here, but missed the existing tag. What's stranger is that I filed the AfD with Twinkle. And here there was a multiday gap between my restoration of the BLPPROD tag here and my AfD tagging. I can't explain how I could, without noticing, remove the BLPPROD tag in filing the AfD using Twinkle. And yet, that is, according to the history, precisely what happened. I of course take responsibility for it, but I'm kinda mystified by how it happened. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:06, 9 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur (Kesha song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:DUPLICATE. Although this article is somewhat lengthy, and sources are included, everything in it (including the source links) is copied directly from either the main Kesha article and/or Kesha's Animal album article. The only "new" information provided in this article is the item about it being covered in an episode of Glee, which does not warrant it notable enough for its own page. The Glee item can easily be inserted into the main Animal article. Suggest deletion or merge. - eo (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete agree with nom - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After expanding it it now meets requirements. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure "Dinosaur" met the requirements when I expanded it. Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk)

Keep we have plenty of articles that are about a track from an album. The song notable for charting on the UK Singles Chart and there is also capacity for expansion. Just give the article's creator some time to expand and write it. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Till I Go Home (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to keep an article. WP:NSONG is clear: "Notability aside (meaning charting), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." None of the above is a valid reason for a keep. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 15:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uhhh did you not read my argument? I said the song is notable for charting and there is coverage in reliable sources in the links above. Just because there is not much information in the article currently, doesn't mean it can't be expanded to satisfy WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uhhhh did you not read WP:NSONG? GNG is an overview of notability, NSONG is the precedent that deals in depth with articles related to songs (GNG = overview; NSONG = specific requirements). To reiterate, as you obviously didn't read my response, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable", NSONG goes on to state: "Notability aside (meaning even tho the song has charted), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Therefore your "argument" is moot and based on opinion, not rules, and this article will be deleted. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree. The links above prove that coverage indeed exists for the song, meaning there is a valid argument and not based on opinion. Plus even if "Dinosaur" was to be expanded, that would warrant a fairly detailed article AND pass GNG. One notability guideline should not outweigh the other. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant; we argue based on rules, not your interpretations and what you deem acceptable - this is an encyclopedia, we have rules and regulations for a reason. Further, you are basing your entire argument off of a WP:CHRYSTAL violation; being that you think this article might grow a few sentences (still a stub, still not allowed a page). If all you can do is argue based on what you want - which is the direct opposite of what Wikipedia is - I'm done with this discussion. Further, 6 references is not significant coverage; prose determines coverage. If you want the article kept, you expand it significantly yourself, don't expect someone else to. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "...we argue based on rules" -> WP:SONG isn't a rule it's a guideline. Also 6 references may not be 'significant' coverage but it definitely shows that there IS coverage, and not once did I say that I "think" the article "might grow a few sentences". I will begin writing the article. Kthanksbye. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charted and has enough info. Passes notability. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - issues noted have been resolved since nomination. The Kesha page doesn't even mention this single at all and the Animal one contains only a couple of development mentions. Nik thestoned 16:09, 15 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian intenational school[edit]

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

Withdraw nom as I was unaware of the inherent notability of this type of school. ~~Not getting anything to pass WP:ORG.~~ CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps the nom didn't notice it waa a secondary school, and we've in the last few years kept every single one of those that had a real existence we could verify. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is that all verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Necrothesp ZachFoutre (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 11 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 Restore Disambiguation Page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpreet Singh[edit]

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

I came to this article from 'Category:Pages with missing references list' to correct the {{reflist}} template. However, I found that the article was referenced to only a single external website which was listed in Mediawiki spam blacklist. I tried googling for more references, but couldn't locate anything relevant. As a result, this is a BLP article without even a single reference. Also, I find Gurpreet Singh to be borderline notable and propose this article for deletion. EngineerFromVega ^★ 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was originally a redirect to a disambiguation page [22] and it was modified by Gurpreetsinghactor (talk · contribs) to the present form. Shall I just revert the changes and redirect it back to the disambiguation page? EngineerFromVega ^★ 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. EngineerFromVega ^★ 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to dab page here. The actor does not have non-trivial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Revert to dab page , per above.Cavarrone (talk) 06:54, 10 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 as CSD G3, a blatant hoax. Deleted by Scientizzle. (Non-admin closure) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gujula[edit]

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

The references in the article are reliable enough, but as far as I can tell, none of them actually mention the word "gujula". I suspect this is a hoax, but I would like some more opinions. Even if it is not a hoax, the fact that I couldn't find any sources means that it likely doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:07, 9 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. It's yours if you want it MQS Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are All Men Pedophiles?[edit]

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

In December 2011, we held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are All Men Pedophiles? that this documentary did not have sufficient notability to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Later, the article was re-created verbatim from a copy of the deleted page, and the only significant change since its re-creation is the addition of ref. VIII - regarding a petition signed by the Lolita community to oppose the use of a certain image in the documentary's promotional poster. In my view, minor controversy about the film's poster does not increase the subject's notability by such a degree that we can justify its inclusion. AGK [•] 12:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AGK [•] 12:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only statement that I see in the article even asserting any notability is that it claims it is the first feature documentary to use CGI nudity. I an unable to verify that statement from the source because of my ignorance of the language of the source; but, even so, that is not enough to make it notable. It is possible that it may someday become notable; but, until that time, the article should not be here. WTucker (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation in a few months if it gains the expected coverage. The article was deleted last December as being premature: being then-unreleased, it lacked coverage, commentary, or analysis in independent secondary sources. But it was finally released to film festivals just this last March,[23] and is now beginning to receive attention due to its controversial topic and title. This is a strong indicator that it may gain decent sourcability due to its topic, but for now, it is still a bit too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but can we get a volunteer to userfy this? (I don't want to, but that's because I'm afraid I'll forget to recreate it if/when it should be). Otherwise, I agree in full with Schmidt. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... I'll take it under my wing if no one else cares to. As the film has been released,[24] and is receiving positive response at festivals,[25] all that is required is to remove inappropriate sources, track down those proper ones which speak toward the documentary (IE:[26][27][28] for example), improve the article acccordingly, and bring it back in better shape that when userfied. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 11 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. Consensus is that this isn't a notable enough topic for a stand-alone article. If somebody wishes the article userified to work on and/or to merge content (with attribution as required) to one of the other Gitmo articles, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base[edit]

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

This is yet another article on a non-notable topic related to the war against terror created by Geo Swan (talk · contribs). The references provided in the article note that it is routine for US military bases to have Starbucks and other fast famous food franchises (eg, one includes a quote that "There is (of course) a Starbucks, a McDonalds, a combined Subway-Pizza Hut, a Wal-Mart-like big box store called the Nex and a gift shop" and another that "fast food options remain in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Washington Post obtained a line-by-line breakdown of capital expenditures at the U.S. naval station in Guantanamo Bay, and it turns out that the Pentagon has spent at least $500 million since 9/11 renovating the base, including "$683,000 to renovate a cafe that sells ice cream and Starbucks coffee, and $773,000 to remodel a cinder-block building to house a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant" so there's nothing unusual about this (though it does seem a bit odd to people unfamiliar with the kind of facilities on US military bases)). The sources provided to link this cafe it to the goings-on at Guantanamo mention it only in passing - for instance this article is actually about the duration and dullness of the current court proceedings and not the cafe and this story says only that "F.B.I. interrogators provided Al Qaeda suspects with “food whenever they were hungry as well as Starbucks coffee". To cap it, according to the US military website used as a reference in the article ([29]), the cafe isn't actually a Starbucks, but is a coffee bar called 'Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)' which sells Starbucks products as well as products produced by other companies. As such, I don't see how WP:ORG is met here. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First this nomination lapses from our standards which state the discussion should be about the article, and the topic of the article -- and has instead commented on the character of the individual who started the article. Second, it is marred by selective bias in the choice of references criticized, and, sorry, the way those references are criticized is misleading.
As Starbucks go this is a small one. But it is a significant one, as several aspects of it have tied it to the torture debate. Commentators have asked, since the second set of interrogators were able to get the suspects to acknowledge their role in terrorism simply through offering them a Starbucks coffee, then was it really necessary for the first set of interrogators to torture them? Geo Swan (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you've got a habit of creating similar articles, I thought that was worth pointing out. The "subject of coffee from Starbucks and torture" (to quote the article) is about whether torture was needed, and not actually about Starbucks. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no statement asserting the notability of this topic in the article. WP:ORG is not met. The title of the article is misleading too and does not even match the subject. The actual name of the facility is "The Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)" (misspelled in the image description) where among other things they happen to sell Starbucks brand coffee. So, what? Not notable. WTucker (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, are you suggesting that an article on a topic that has had many WP:RS address it over the last seven years has to explicitly state it is notable?
  Second, we never delete articles on notable topics simply because some contributors think the article should be at a different name. Instead we discuss alternate names. Could you please suggest your alternate name on the talk page?
  Third, commentators have questioned why the USA needed to torture its suspects in the first place when sympathetic listening and Starbucks coffee was enough to get them to talk about their role in terrorism. Could you please explain why you do not see this as conferring notability?
  Fourth, while Starbucks has something like ten thousand outlets, the location of this location makes it special enough that it has come in for significant coverage. The following reference I just added devotes half a chapter to Starbucks at Guantanamo. Starbucks has something like 10,000 outlets. How many have required Starbucks HQ to repeatedly go on record on controversial political issues? They did so with the Starbucks at Guantanamo -- and not 9,900 other outlets. Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nick Turse (2009-03-03). The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives. MacMillan Publishing. p. 61-64. ISBN 9780805089196. Retrieved 2012-05-09. When questioned about its implicit support for the prison camp/torture center, in correspondence made available by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Starbucks claimed it had always 'been committed to operating its business in a socially responsbile way and to living by a set of Guding Principles that includes treating people with respect and dignity.'
  See WP:SPEEDY#A7. An article about an organization (among others) that does not indicate why it is important or significant is a candidate for speedy deletion. I see that you have now added a statement that the presence of the Starbucks has stirred controversy thus asserting importance. This statement appears to be unsourced and only inferred from the statements from human rights groups who, I assert, are trying to stir controversy. By the way, I have no better title suggestion -- I voted delete. WTucker (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the store itself, which is not a Starbucks, is not notable enough. Any notable information - and there seems to be some - should be moved to the Guantanamo Naval Base article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For goodness sake, it's a coffee bar on a military base! Big deal! Any relevant info can be merged with the Guantanamo Naval Base article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order -- several contributors here have asserted that this article should be deleted because this coffee shop is "not a Starbucks".
As seen in the nearby image the coffee shop displays Starbuck's very closely guarded logo, stating "we proudly brew Starbuck Coffee". I suggest when a coffee shop legitimately displays the Starbucks' logo, uses Starbucks' coffee, in Starbucks' cups, it is legitimate to call it a Starbucks.
I invite those who based their "delete" opinion on the challenge as to whether this coffee shop should be allowed to be called a Starbucks offer their alternate definition of what does and doesn't constitute a Starbucks. Geo Swan (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a rather odd claim: the US military, which runs this cafe, says its called 'Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)' and also sells other company's products (such as the ice cream being advertised in the window at the bottom right of the photo, I imagine). Anyway, the reason I nominated this for deletion was that it doesn't meet WP:ORG, and by my reading that's the reason the other editors who have supported the deletion have given. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true at all. Many outlets sell Starbucks coffee. That doesn't make them a Starbucks. There's a big difference between "we sell Starbucks coffee" and "we are a Starbucks" (is every supermarket with a Starbucks coffee machine a Starbucks? Of course it isn't!). But whether it's a Starbucks or not is actually irrelevant to this discussion. Even if it were, so what? It's just a coffee shop whether it has a famous logo or not. Starbucks as a chain is notable. Individual shops are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. I suspect the article creator, like myself, is keen to point out instances where U.S. capitalism has a conflict of interest U.S. military strategy. However a Starbucks at any U.S. military base, on the mainland or abroad, is completely unremarkable, it's common practice. This could be conveyed in one sentence on the main Guantanamo article. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base per User:Ryan4314, although to be fair I think it could get at least three sentences in that article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment I think the essential information that GeoSwan is attempting to convey is that offers of mainstream mass-market food and drink have been used to induce cooperation with Gitmo detainees by interrogators. That's notable, and worth including somewhere. However I agree with Necrothesp and others who point out that this *isn't* a Starbucks, and even if we were to create a 'Caribbean Coffee and Cream' article it wouldn't be sufficiently notable to survive a deletion discussion. However, we should include the inducement-by-food-and-drink, and I would strongly support it's inclusion somewhere. Exactly where is up to GeoSwan, but that place is not a frankly misleading article citing a cafe that simply doesn't exist under the name the article title is at. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for goodness' sake. Entirely non-notable. Starbucks, McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, KFC, and others all have outlets on U.S. military bases all over the world. There is nothing special about this one, whether or not it actually a Starbucks. This article seems to be a desperate attempt to link Starbucks to torture, although I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's claim of notability is because it's a coffee shop at GITMO. Notability is the place, not the shop, notability is not ascribed, not inherited, and not based on location. If the coffee shops and fast food joints at GITMO need to be mentioned, it should be in passing about GITMO itself as a naval base.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sweet jesus, if we have an article for every Starbucks we are gonna run out of electrons and break the internet. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included this {{afd}} in the deletion sorting for news events. Hundreds of news articles refer to this outlet. While many of them don't say much more than to say it never occurred to them that they would find a Starbucks at Guantanamo, dozens of WP:RS go on, and repeat what I regard as a notable meme, which I will paraphrase here: "If the 2007 'clean team' interrogators were able to get the 9-11 suspects to incriminate themselves merely through patient listening and Starbucks coffee, was it really necessary for the the 2003 interrogators to subject them undergo waterboarding?"
Individual Starbucks outlets, in general, are not notable. Starbucks has over 15,000 outlets -- and most of them don't stand out. The topic of Starbucks at Guantanamo does stand out, because it has been represented as playing a key role in enabling the Guantanamo military commissions to go forward against individuals whose original confessions were inadmissible due to the extreme coersion used to extract them.
The topic of Starbucks at Guantanamo does stand out, without regard to whether the Starbucks coffee was purchased from a facility operated directly by Starbuck corporation, from a franchise liscensed from Starbucks corporation, or even a vending machine that dispensed Starbucks liscensed coffee -- because WP:RS referred to the use of "Starbucks coffee" as an effective alternative tool for encouraging suspects to incriminate themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Thus, if someone said "If the 2007 clean team interrogators were able to get 9-11 suspects to inciminate themselves through careful listening and green eggs and ham...", green eggs and ham at GITMO would be notable? Do you see the problem? You are ascribing notability now through an off-handed remark mentioning a chain of coffee shops. It does not merit its own article, it does not create notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think homeopathy is nonsense, but if multiple reliable sources asserted that the suspects volunteered incriminating information after being dosed with homeopathy potions, I would cover those assertions in spite of my personal doubts about homeopathy. Our policies require us to respect what reliable sources say, and to give very little regard to our own personal opinions, when we disagree with published reliable sources. This is not a meme created and forwarded by "someone". It is a meme published, over the course of several years, in multiple reliable sources. Yes, I understand that some who voiced a "delete" opinion here are amazed by the idea that the use of a particular brand of beverage to encourage self-incrimination merits coverage. However, I suggest the repetition of this meme, in RS, over years, does merit coverage, without regard to how amazing it may seem to you. Geo Swan (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your response, and making my point so well. Our policies require us to start articles that meet notability requirements, they do not allow us to start separate articles based on the mention of store A, which was mentioned in an off-handed manner by person B, which must then be notable because store A is located at spot C and sells the product mentioned, which is a notable place. Nor are your arguments, that coffee is used for self incrimination purposes (which applies to domestic law enforcement standards, and does not apply in military detention of irregular combatants) very compelling in this case. The quote you provide shows that offering some negligible incentive does not force a hardened operative to talk. I am quite certain a coca cola, big mac, subway sandwich or any other item of consumtpive value would not work either, and any of those could have been mentioned as well. Sorry, but this is not notable. The proper course is to delete the article, and you can then cite the source for the techniques used and precise source in the GITMO article, which actually passes notability requirements. Thank you again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WiFi -- WiFi is ubiguitous at Starbucks in the USA and other Western coutries, and at Starbucks competitors as well. But this shouldn't be taken for granted. Guantanamo had very strict rules about photos taken by visitors. Reporters and other visitors had to submit all their photos to military censors, prior to departure. I found the open WiFi access remarkable because, of course, the wily reporter or human rights observer could stop for a coffee, use the wifi to transmit images the censors would consider non-compliant, then erase their device's memory prior to the pre-departure inspection. Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could very well be the Navy has reporters on the honor system—that is, the reporters have to voluntarily hand over their stored pictures. These days it would be just about impossible to force the reporters to hand over everything. It would be pretty easy to conceal a USB memory stick on one's person. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:20, 14 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. Sandstein 06:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caiman Consulting[edit]

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

1) Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) 2) One non-independent source 3) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 11:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! We believe our company is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and would love advice on how to improve the article in order to avoid deletion. I'm not sure I understand point #1, since the article is written in a neutral POV manner and doesn't contain any language that I would consider "Advertising". Is there a way we could rephrase the article to avoid this problem? Point #2 is fair - I just added one additional independent source (Consulting Magazine, the #1 US trade publication in our industry) and we are working on finding more. Point #3 I think is really the same as Point #2, since I couldn't find anything in WP:CORP guidelines that would disqualify us except for a possible lack of independent sources. Thanks! TimCrockett (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read some or all of the following: Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?, and WP:COI. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reason to keep this article is a 2008's Best Small Firms to Work For award. The problem is that it's only the company's press release. Where is the third party coverage which tells us that this award was a big deal? And even if this one award were kind of a big deal, we've got no other reason to keep the article. Lacks substantial and sustained coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might be of interest. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Caiman offers a diverse array of consulting services to companies such as Microsoft, Real Networks, and Boeing." That has an apparent advertising tone. The section on "Service Offerings" should go. If you want to have a chance for the article to be kept, delete "Service Offerings". Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote the first paragraph to sound less like advertising. I can't agree with you about the Service Offerings section. Since we're a services company, this is a list of what we sell, similar to a list of products for a manufacturing company. It's core information and taking it out would be like having a page about a restaurant chain without listing what type of food they offer.TimCrockett (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added links to Consulting Magazine and also an article in Harvard Business Review that talks about us fairly extensively (although that part is frustratingly behind a paywall). I will try to come up with a rewrite about our clients and service offerings that doesn't have an advertising tone. It's tough to describe who we are and what we do in an NPOV - frankly almost every business-related page on Wikipedia seems to have similar tone to ours when discussing the company's products and customers. Thanks for the guidance.TimCrockett (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding comparison with other company articles, see WP:OSE. There are thousands of pages on Wikipedia that suck; having one fewer of them is a small step forward. If you want examples of what a company article should look like, it's better to stick with Featured Articles, such as Wikipedia:Fa#Business.2C economics and finance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added one more external link (from Inc Magazine). TimCrockett (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry Wikipedia has so many rules; it's confusing and hard to learn overnight. Keep in mind, your company is likely to thrive very well indeed without a Wikipedia article -- thousands of them do. Anyway, you should know that everybody only gets to !vote only once, so multiple "keeps" only muddies the waters, and kind of makes you look bad. I'd erase the extra ones. Even your one "keep" doesn't really count, since it's there's a conflict of interest -- see WP:AVOIDCOI. The core issue is can you convince other editors to keep it, and that requires that Caiman Consulting has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If the article is bad, it can be fixed in time without deleting the article. But the coverage either exists or it doesn't. A 44-word, unsigned profile in Inc. with some company stats, but no actual journalistic reporting, is not significant coverage. It's routine coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for setting me straight on the voting thing. I didn't realize it was a voting mechanism; I thought we were just labeling our arguments for clarity. At any rate I changed it to Comment, and I appreciate the guidance. Ultimately I know that my company doesn't need a Wikipedia article to thrive, and I'm not here to try to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform (for the record, I'm not a marketing person nor am I here at the behest of my company's management). I'm here because I think my company is significant and notable and an emerging key player in business on the West Coast. I would agree that the Inc profile isn't impressive, but the Harvard Business Review article is certainly an example of the kind of significant coverage talked about in WP:Notability. Whether that's enough by itself to save the article is up to you and other esteemed editors, but I believe we have a lot more coverage coming our way and if you choose to delete the article it will eventually be resurrected as Caiman's media coverage begins to catch up with its economic importance. Thanks for your consideration and thoughtful comments.TimCrockett (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability criteria for a standalone article at WP:FIRM. I could find absolutely no independent coverage at Google News Archive, just press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW responding to TimCrocket's comment that the company is "emerging": this may be an example of WP:TOOSOON in that the company just hasn't achieved notability YET. Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal ball, we can't predict whether a person or company is going to be notable later. In a few years if the firm gets significant notice by major outside third parties, it might be ready for an article then. But it isn't now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Qualifies for speedy deletion IMO: this is another business that offers business and IT consulting services to businesses, universities, and public sector institutions advertising on Wikipedia. If they've done anything at all that has the lasting interest needed for an encyclopedia article, I don't see it in the current text. Instead, what we have here is a repetition of the vague and monotonous horsepuckey found in most spam articles:

Caiman’s services focus on:
Program and Project Management
System Training and Deployment
Product Management
Process Analysis and Optimization
Creative Services

This vague and meaningless menu simply does not establish a minimal claim to encyclopedic importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 17 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 per WP:CSD#G4, exact copy of the article deleted from the previous AfD. - filelake shoe 10:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Borcich[edit]

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

Has some short films to his name on YouTube, but he doesn't seem to have done enough to meet the notability requirements set out by WP:BIO. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 11:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as G4. Shadowjams (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - per Shadowjams. -- WikHead (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G4 - I have tagged it for it also. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 06:52, 15 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) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 06:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Payback Season[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only sources cited are two reviews, each two sentences long. Searches have failed to produce any substantial coverage in any independent reliable sources anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF (just). Notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not that they be used in an article. Even if a panned film, it was not too difficut to find that Variety reviewed the film, as well as did View (New Zealand). So what other possibe sources did the creator of this poor stub not use in expanding and sourcing this recently released film? [30] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Update: What was sent here in pretty bad shape,[31] is now looking somwhat better. Sure, we do not have sources giving over reams of print to reviewing this film, but we do have reliable sources giving us enough, even negatively, with which to write an encyclopedic article. I just spent a few minutes doing some work there, and yes... there is always more that can be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Schmidt, clearly notable. Cavarrone (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage from multiple major media outlets. SL93 (talk) 02:00, 13 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 by Jimfbleak as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Corporate Sustainability[edit]

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

Reads like a personal reflection or essay. jfd34 (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 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 by Boing! said Zebedee Peridon (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kanshiradio[edit]

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

Doesn't sound notable Yash t 101 08:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a near-direct copy of their "about us" page. - Dravecky (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very close to source text, and not showing any notability either. If they come back and prove it's the best thing since sliced bread, OK. Till then, no go. Peridon (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as a copyvio. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 15 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. Sandstein 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharepointboost[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; all of the references are self-published (press releases etc.). The "Andy Dale Award" was an online poll with no assertion of notability. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Company is one of the major SharePoint Gold Partner and the source I have included are reliable, 3rd party and have been already used as reference for thousands of articles on wikipedia(I am referring to cmswire, sharepointreviews and microsoft)

I would appreciate if my answers are not deleted, like someone just did. I have spent almost to 2 hours to give a thorough answer, with references and example, just to see it wiped out again.

Please check if cmswire is or is not already a reliable reference for Wikipedia just by searching.

Press Releases have also been included as references by other articles. in 11 references I have included, only one is a press release

The Andy Dale awards is a well established and respected award by the Sharepoint community, the fact that is awarded by voting as no assertion of notability is a complete nonsense; is like saying that the democratic process as no assertion of notability because people elect their candidates through vote.

I will be more than happy to provide AGAIN reference and example for each one of my points, resting assured that you won't delete my answer again.

Regards Laurahappy85 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Honestly, I don't understand why these references are seen as not reliable. CMS WIRE is an important source of news for the SharePoint Community, and I am quite sure that does not publish payed reviews. Anyway, this is not really the point, if so many other wikipedia pages can use CMS WIRE as reference, why can't this page do the same? What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterminator (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Sterminator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It depends, to be honest. I will admit that I'm not an entire whiz at computers, but I do a lot of editing and can give some feedback on the sources in this article. Offhand, it could be due to the people publishing the articles. If an article has been released by someone working for the company, then it's considered to be a primary source and those can never show notability. If it's an article by someone who is just a random member of the site (and not an official staff member), then it cannot show notability regardless of how respected the person is within that community. You also have to realize that if the article is just a "how to" about the service, then that doesn't really entirely show how the service is notable either. I will say offhand that things such as business listings or listing that it's a "Microsoft Gold Certified Partner" isn't always something that will show absolute notability. It's not something to scoff at, but neither is it something that will show that this program is notable beyond a reasonable doubt. What is really needed are things like news coverage by uninvolved third parties and reviews by notable persons. In any case, here's my rundown of the articles:

[32] The issue with this one is that you have to show how the award is notable per Wikipedia guidelines. I'll be completely honest and say that out of all of the awards out there that are awarded for anything (books, movies, etc), 99.999% of them are not notable.
[33] This is pretty much a press release and does the same thing that the first link does, which makes it pretty unnecessary. Since it is a press release that has been published by SharePointBoost, it's considered to be a primary source per WP:PRIMARY and can never show notability.
[34] This is another link for the awards in the first link. Again, the biggie here is showing that this award is notable outside of the SharePoint community.
[35] The problem with this one is that it's not really an article as much as it's just a product page. It is not what Wikipedia would consider to be an article about the product.
[36], [37], These seem to be done by staff members, which is good, but you have to show that it's a reliable site. A good place to start asking questions would be with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as they can tell you if it's reliable or not. Be aware that just because something is used on other pages does not automatically mean that it's actually a reliable source. Generally yes, it can mean that it's an acceptable source but not always. There's a lot of people who go on adding sources without really checking to see if they're considered reliable. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more on this. Whether other articles use it isn't really relevant as much as just trying to prove that it's reliable. It could just be that there's a lot of articles using a non-reliable source. (It's happened before, believe it or not.)
[38] The issue with this article is that it's simply too short to be really considered a reliable source and seems like it was predominantly written from a press release. Even if the site is considered to be reliable, even if it's a staff member... if a source is too short and is written almost entirely from a press release then it can only be seen as a trivial source at best.
[39] These are press releases and they are never ever seen as a reliable source that shows notability.
[40] This is definitely a reliable source, but the issue here is that it doesn't mention Sharepointboost at all, so it can't show that the product is notable at all. You might be able to use it to back up other information, but it will never show notability for the product. It just backs up a fact and backing up a fact is not notability in this instance.

The only other thing I see is that the article feels like it's written to be a little promotional, so that will need to be worked on. It's not terrible, but there's phrasing that feels a little advertise-y, such as "More than 3,000 companies from over 50 countries worldwide have adopted integrated SharePointBoost". :Also, please do not remove the AfD rationale by Scopecreep. You might've done this by accident, but please be more careful in the future, as this can be seen as vandalism by some. Removing the AfD rationale does not stop the AfD. (Not saying you did it on purpose, just stating this outright.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now!

"If it's an article by someone who is just a random member of the site (and not an official staff member), then it cannot show notability regardless of how respected the person is within that community".

What's this??? So all the online magazines and newspapers are all not reliable because you don't know if the person writing is an expert??? This is insane!

CMS WIRE is a source with authority, just look at all the links you can find about it in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=cmswire&title=Special%3ASearch.

[41] About this link. Maybe you are not familiar with SharePoint, but there are not many awards you can get in this field. You can make a research. One either can be awarded by Microsoft (and Microsoft Award has value!) as partner or be awarded by SharePoint Community, which is Handy Dale's award. You can't expect a SharePoint web parts developer to get a Nobel Prize or an Oscar!!Sterminator (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Sterminator[reply]

It doesn't really matter how many awards are given out in a field, you just have to show notability. One of the things that the nominator voiced as a concern was that the award is voted upon by the general public. The thing about the SharePoint Village award is that it doesn't seem to actually be run by Microsoft itself, but by Action SharePoint Limited, a company that just started back in 2010. [42] The Microsoft award would indeed have value but just because there's only 2-3 awards for a specific thing does not automatically mean that it is notable. Like I said, Wikipedia is incredibly strict about what it considers to be a notable award. I've been looking at the company and while the company isn't a complete nobody, SharePoint Village seems like it's still a little young to be an absolutely notable company giving out an absolutely notable award. I do acknowledge that being a site devoted to a very specific product makes it difficult to gain notability, but it doesn't mean that you are exempt from the rules of notability. I know it's strict and that it might seem unfair that an award you see as notable might not necessarily be considered to show notability for a product/company you support, but most awards simply aren't considered to be notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Believe me, I feel your frustration. Rather than arguing that the sources and awards on the article are notable and reliable, I really recommend that you try to find other sources and articles to help bolster your claims as well as looking for help from the WikiProject community for computers.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, since we have so many new users here for this article, I'm going to elaborate on what is considered to be a reliable source per WP:RS. A reliable source would be an in-depth article from a source that Wikipedia considers to be trustworthy and reliable. An example of this would be an article in a large news site such as CNN or a newspaper that even though it serves a smaller community, has been established as a reliable source. Now I'm not saying that the article has to have CNN articles about it- far from it. You just have to show that the sources you are using are from established places, which is one of the concerns that the nominator had over CMS Wire. It may be considered a reliable source, but it might not be. The thing is, you need to ensure that it is rather than saying that such and such an amount of article use it. I'll run it by the RS noticeboard for you and let the people there weigh in on it. Now I also want to elaborate on the worries about what is considered an expert or not. There are many sites out there that will allow any user that's signed up to create an article. This is what I meant by "staff reviews". For example, if CMS Wire is considered to be a reliable source then you'd have to ensure that every article used is by a staff member. No matter how intelligent a non-staff writer might seem, unless you have a way of guaranteeing the credentials and identity of the person, you cannot use that article as a reliable source. This is part of the reasons that blogs are so notoriously hard to use as reliable sources: anyone can write them and it's very hard to verify a WordPress or Blogger account holder is who they claim to be. (I know that CMS Wire is not a blog, but it's sort of the same premise when you have non-staff members writing articles.) Now as far as why people are pointing out the press releases, that's because press releases are issued by the company itself. Anything that is released by anyone involved with the company, whether it's the company president, a staff member, their publicity company, or anyone that is involved with the company or its software is considered to be a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. These sources can never show notability regardless of who issues them, although they can be used to accent an article. The only thing about using primary sources is that they are really only supposed to be used when you have multiple independent and reliable sources to back up the claims in the article, meaning that you should have so many other sources that using anything released by the company should be unnecessary. As far as who is or isn't considered to be an expert, an expert is someone that is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject. This means that they're considered to be so knowledgeable about the subject that they are quoted in books, articles, and/or other forms of media. You have to prove that they are considered experts per Wikipedia standards. I'm not trying to be mean or even trying to delete the article. I simply saw that there was a very new set of editors coming to Wikipedia to defend an article and I wanted to explain where the nominator was coming from. Maybe CMS Wire is a reliable source, maybe it isn't, but you should probably try to find more sources than just the CMS Wire articles because this is where it gets tricky. Some can argue that there hasn't been a wide enough span of coverage for the company or its software and that only one site has covered it. You've got to be able to show that other people than CMS Wire has talked about it. I'll run the page past the RS noticeboard, but again, I highly encourage you to seek assistance from the computer wikiproject members, especially if any of you are related to the company in any format. (See WP:COI)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurahappy85 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Hello, I am the contributor who started this article. I have carefully read this discussion and I would really appreciate if someone who has at the least some notion of what he/she is talking about can say anything sensible.[reply]

> First of, CSMWIRE is a reliable source because is an indipendent, 3rd party and reliable source (as stated on the wikipedia rules). If someone hadn't wiped out my answer you could have checked the links I have provided of other articles NOT MARKED FOR DELETION that uses the same sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=cmswire&title=Special%3ASearch

Here is an iconic example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogix_Software

16 references sorted like this: 4 CMSWIRE 3 from the company website (a real 3rd party reliable source) a bunch of blogs...expressly banned by wikipedia rules

2nd example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avepoint 3 references in total

1 from cmswire and 2 press releases...my compliment!

both are from the same niche market and both have never won any awards. Then, SHAREPOINTVILLAGE has a PR 4, has been online for over 4 years (and not 2 like you said) and is a reliable , n3rd party source. SharePoint developers software company CAN NOT win Oscars (If you assume that an Oscare is a reliable 3rd party source and not the background agreement of powerful production companies...which is) so each niche has it's own awards. Probably you have never heard of 'Premio Strega' but your ignorance about a particular award, does not mean is not NOTABLE ENOUGH because you don't know it. One of the CORE idea of Wikipedia was share knowledge I believe, or Not? The Other guy before you has suggested that because an award is achieved thanks to a vote is not reliable...now here is my question, NAME TO ME ONE AWARDS THAT IS NOT ACHIEVED VIA VOTE. Just one is enough.

Just to put a period to this point here is my WIKIPEDIA REFERENCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colligo_Contributor Colligo is in the same niche market, its reference include, sharepointvilalge, cmswire, blogs. Reference 3 and 4 are ^ Dale, Andy (8 April 2010). "SharePoint Awards 2010 Winners". Andy Dale SharePoint Blog. andydalesharepoint.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2 August 2010. ^ Dale, Andy (21 April 2011). "SharePoint Awards 2011 Winners". SharePoint Village. sharepointvillage.com. Retrieved 6 June 2011.

Just a precisation, all the examples I have provided are legit wikipedia article that no one has flagged for deletion, so my question is, why? Is that enough Or I should produce more examples...giving for granted that no one delete them?

So, please, before you juggle with assumptions, next time check your fact straight before.

Um, Laura? I'm trying to help you here and being rude is not exactly endearing me to try to continue helping to explain how Wikipedia works and to continue to try to bring other people to your article to try to help rescue it. Let me repeat that: I've not only gone out of my way to try to explain the arguments brought up in this AfD, but I've also gone out of my way to find people in the computer WikiProject to come over to help save the article as well as gone over to the reliable sources board to try to verify that you can use CMS Wire. This might not seem like much until you realize that about a hundred people might've looked at this AfD and your confusion and done nothing. I'm not the enemy here, despite you trying to depict me as such and despite you getting nasty with me. (sighs) You can argue the award and the current sources until you're blue in the face, but it's those same sources that made the nominator nominate the article for deletion. What I'm trying to say is that you need to start looking for sources other than the press releases and an award that is of questionable notability per Wikipedia's standards. Note that I said "per Wikipedia's standards", because Wikipedia is very strict about what it considers to be notable. This is not my own personal idea of what is notable, but what Wikipedia considers notable as far as awards go. And as far as other articles go, you cannot hold them up and say "but this article hasn't been deleted" because there might be other things that gives that article notability or it might just be an article that hasn't been noticed yet. Again, you cannot hold up the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and expect that to win your case. You must try to argue the point with reliable sources and if someone is saying that the sources on the article aren't enough, you have to go out and find more. Seriously, I'm trying to help you out here because it looked like nobody else was bothering to do so. As far as the whole "reliable sources" and "is this award notable or not" stuff goes, that's going to be the same regardless of whether it's an AfD about a person, company, or computer software. There's very little difference in the rules, which is why it's so hard for smaller niche programs and awards to show notability, which is also why they frequently get tagged for deletion. So please, before you start biting the hand that's helping you, please try to look into what I'm trying to do to help you. Just because I'm not a top programmer doesn't mean that I'm completely ignorant of what I'm talking about and that I'm not trying to help you out. In any case, I'm done trying to help you. I've tried and as there are plenty of other article to try to rescue, I'm going to focus my energy on them instead. I've told you what you need to do to work on the article. You can either choose to use that information and work towards making your article notable beyond a reasonable doubt or you could ignore it and hope that the meager sources you have right now will keep it. As someone who has been around the AfD block for a few years now, I can tell you that it's better to keep adding reliable sources and polishing up the article than to say "it's great as it is now, I'm not changing anything". That's the type of outlook that makes it more likely that an article will be deleted. If you are finding sources and someone is deleting them, try asking on the reliable sources board to see if they're usable as sources and if they are and someone keeps removing them, go up another step and report the reversions to the admins. I'm out. Good luck with your article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just coming back on to say that the RS Noticeboard members have looked at the CMS Wire links and so far do not feel that they would be reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards. If you have any comments, complaints, or feelings about this, please comment on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and debate it there, as this will hopefully be my last attempt to help with this AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now review this, unfortnally i can not find one source that be deemed realible that would mkae this subject notable, i am not denying the existence of it as i have used it myself but wikipedia is based on Notabilty and Realible soufrces, unfortnally this does fail both, now if a source can be foudn that is realible and proves the existence of the subject in a third party then i see no reason why it oculd survive with help from experainced editors to guide the process of getting the article to minimum C standard and above. Sorry i can not give anything better or hope for the article--11:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails PP:CORP, bluntly the sources are junk. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS. ProQuest, a considerable and reliable news database that includes computer and Microsoft-related publications, returned one hit from M2 PressWire, which gave this disclaimer: "M2 Communications disclaims all liability for information provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties." Hardly a reliable source., so zero at ProQuest. LexisNexis returned nothing on the company. And while I think a list of awards would be fine if it were used to reference a company's receiving that award, SharePoint Village citations are not being used for that purpose. I've also looked at CMS Wire, and their reviews have conflict of interest issues. They publish reviews on products from the same companies that buy advertising at CMS Wire, and these reviews are not comprehensive, critical reviews. See my notes at the reliable sources noticeboard for further details.Encycloshave (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Encycloshave's reasoning above. Dialectric (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now can one tell me what is a reliable source for SharePoint related stuff? Cause I am really curios. And do not say BBC, cause BBC will never say anything about SharePoint's web part providers!!!

And also, no one has answered to the main question: why Avepoint and Colligo can use these references as notable references? What refences do they have that are notable??

Sterminator (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AvePoint has similar problems to this article, and may also get deleted if more reliable references can't be found. Colligo Contributor has references from Windows IT Pro, Network World, eWeek and Profit (magazine), all supporting notability per WP:COMPANY. If you can find references like those for the company, verifying that either it or the product is notable, then the article would probably be kept. Scopecreep (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that AvePoint was listed in Deloitte and Inc. magazine's lists of fastest-growing companies: any similar listings or recognition for this company? Scopecreep (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless new sources can be found that raise the bar. I'm a little concerned that there are no local (=Chinese) sources for this company, which is what I would expect if it was truly notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have a look at these two new refs: http://www.informationweek.com/thebrainyard/news/galleries/file_sharing/231500073?queryText=sharepointboost http://www.thesharepointdude.com/?p=1189

Information week is absolutely a reliable source! Sterminator (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niether of those counts as indepth coverage and the first one doesn't even seem to mention the product. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 17 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 Covenant Theological Seminary. No prejudice against re-creating the article if he does get the top job. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dalbey[edit]

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

Disputed prod. No third party coverage in the article, nor does any substantive, reliable coverage appear to be adducible from Google News/Books/Scholar searches (though a fair number of irrelevant Mark Dalbeys appear to exist). The only claim on WP:PROF that has been made, that of "held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" is invalidated by the fact that (i) he has not yet taken up the presidency (WP:CRYSTAL), (ii) it is an explicitly "interim" position & (iii) the position of Chancellor (which the current president is taking up) has been created above it (also it is questionable whether a sectarian seminary such as the Covenant Theological Seminary qualifies as a "major academic institution". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is censorship, not editorial. It is petty, and strikes at the heart of being a WIKI-pedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastor todd (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry that you see it this way. I did warn you that this might happen on the talk page. Please understand that this is nothing personal against Dalbey or yourself. Sometimes people make articles in good faith but the subjects are just not quite notable enough. It is just one of those things. Anyway, it is not censorship. We are having this discussion in the open and anybody can say their piece. Whatever happens on Wikipedia, you can take what you wrote and republish it anywhere else you like. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:PROF and, being a pesky petty censor, per Pastor todd. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not enough notability is demonstrated but I will change my mind if more can be found. I can't say I am hopeful though. I would expect to see more in Google Books or Google Scholar for a notable academic. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per WP:CRYSTAL without prejudice to re-creation if and when the subject assumes the presidency in a permanent capacity~~ Keep per below. I reject the sectarian argument (the denomination has over 300,000 members) as well as the chancellor argument - it would seem the new president's position is like that of a Vice-chancellor. St Anselm (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In the form used in countries such as the United States, the Chancellor is the chief executive of a university." (Chancellor (education)) Therefore a president/vice-chancellor in a US instiution that has a chancellor is not the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post". So "the chancellor argument" remains valid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I emphatically reject the implicit claim that a single-purpose institution catering to that single purpose exclusively for a group making up only 0.1% of the population of the US, comes any way close to "a major academic institution". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US News & World Report [43] or Forbes[44] college rankings don't seem to include the the Covenant Theological Seminary. Sectarian schools can be notable, e.g. Brigham Young University, but my understanding of US law is that anybody can set up a degree-awarding institution, so we'd require evidence to show this is a "major academic institution". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you would need a rankings list of seminaries. The only list I can find is this one, where it comes 14th. St Anselm (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the link I posted below, which displays information about all the members of the Association of Theological Schools - the accrediting association for schools of theology. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The list on the right are the top user rated featured seminaries", rather than any objective standard or expert assessment, therefore not WP:RS. BYU is a university not a seminary, and thus teaches a far wider range of subjects than just religion, which would explain its considerably greater stature. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary. As a college with 812 students this is hardly a singificnat institution. The article gives no indication that he has published anything significnat. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this 9 May 2012 reference, Dr. Chapell notes that he is currently on sabbatical. The Aquila Report of 28 April 2012 reports Dalbey's statement of the same date, that he is currently the "Acting President" of CTS. This should clarify that Dalbey is the current head of the institution. Unscintillating (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary. Since Dalbey currently holds the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution", WP:PROF is satisfied. But since this constitutes breaking news, and we follow the sources, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I can also see making this topic a redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary while the "world at large" notices the topic "over a period of time". Unscintillating (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have seen nothing in WP:PROF (or any other biographical notability guideline) to suggest that "interim", "acting" or otherwise temporary positions confer the same notability as their permanent equivalents. I would further suggest that it is likely that Chappell will have returned by the time that the "world at large" notices to anything substantive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per the news release from (1) Acting President Dalbey's office on 28 April 2012, (2) the statement from the Board of Trustees on 1 May 2012, and (3) the letter from soon-to-be ex-President Chapell, Chapell is currently on sabbatical and will not be returning to his duties as President. His role as Chancellor will be "external". Since Vice President Dalbey had already assumed the role of Acting President, Dalbey's role will not change on June 1, what will change is that Chapell will not get his job as President back. The information that we have is that Dalbey has been, is, and will continue to be as per WP:PROF the head of one the twenty largest seminaries in the country. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it refers to the "the search committee our Board has established to seek the institution’s next President." This indicates that Dalbey will not necessarily continue to tbe the seminary's head. But you're right - he is the head now, and that is enough to change my vote to "keep". St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is not unusual for the more senior, Chief Executive Officer, to have a more external focus, whilst the, more junior Chief Operating Officer, is internally focused. This does not change the fact that in a US setting, where the Chancellor position exists it (not the President position) is the " highest-level elected or appointed academic post at [an] ... institution". 04:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sez who? At major universities I am familiar with, the Chancellor is in effect the second-in-command, behind the President. --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sez" Chancellor (education), quoted above, for one thing. Also "sez" the fact that the existing prez is being promoted to the newly created position at CTS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of the University of California type of system - in which the University as a whole has a President, and each campus under him has a Chancellor. I really can't think of any American universities which have a Chancellor (as opposed to a President) as their head. Take a look at pretty much any university you please - from Stanford to Harvard to Mills to Occidental to the University of Texas - and the head of the university is a President. Maybe that definition needs to be updated, or at least sourced/verified. BTW note that the quote above says Dr. Chappel is stepping DOWN from president to chancellor.[45] --MelanieN (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that press release indicates it is a demotion, merely that he is (immediately) stepping down from the junior position in order to take up ("transition" to) the senior one when he returns from sabbatical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interpret it as you wish. But from the valedictory tone of Dr. Chapell's letter [46] it sounds very much like he is relinquishing his leadership role as president, and that the trustees created the largely ceremonial role of chancellor for him as a kind of "president emeritus" position. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Covenant Theological Seminary, where he is already listed as Acting President. This will preserve the article as a redirect page, so that the article can be recreated if appropriate later. For now, "Acting President" is not a notable position (and in some places he is called "Interim President"; it doesn't appear to be at all certain that he will receive the permanent appointment). The school website just describes him as "Assistant Professor of Practical Theology, Vice President of Academics", which falls well short of notability. In another issue, the school is so small I'm not sure it qualifies as a "major institution of higher learning". (BTW it's hard to believe that the claimed enrollment of 800 students makes it the 20th largest seminary in the U.S. The chart at the website of the Association of Theological Schools lists many seminaries with more than 1000 students; Covenant is listed with a head count of 698 and a full-time-equivalent enrollment of only 391.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great table - it's a pity that it isn't sortable. Table 1-4B says there are only 18 schools with a FTE enrollment of more than 500, so the above claim is certainly plausible. What is very clear, however, is that Covenant is in the tenth percentile - about half the schools have less than 150 students. So, getting back to WP:PROF, we have a strong argument for Covenant being "major". St Anselm (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to say Covenant is in the ninetieth percentile - rather than the tenth? It does appear that Covenant is one of the 30 or 40 largest seminaries by Full Time Equivalent (that's Table 1.5B, not 1-4B). I guess what that tells us is that almost no theological schools qualify as "major academic institutions". Even a small university, like the one down the street from me, has an enrollment of 2,500 undergraduates and 400 graduate students - and I doubt if it would claim to be a "major academic institution". --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, that was a howler. You wouldn't believe that I have a math degree. ;) Anyway, if we conclude that no theological schools qualify as "major academic institutions", we have to completely rethink our definition. Of course, the definition isn't given at WP:PROF - perhaps it should be. The word "major" was added in September 2010 with the edit summary "not really meant for community-college type places." So the sort of argument used here is completely unwarranted in terms of the history of WP:PROF. St Anselm (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we certainly differ on whether a tiny college like this can be considered a "major academic institution." But it really doesn't matter. The point is that the roles he holds there - interim (or acting) president, associate professor, vice president of academics - would not qualify under WP:PROF even if we were talking about one of the world's great universities. --MelanieN (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says, "highest-level elected or appointed academic post". We know of no one with a higher position, so the clause is satisfied. Perhaps you mean to be arguing that the topic is not "worthy of notice", even though the guideline is met. Unscintillating (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere along the way here people are missing that point that comparing a seminary with a school down the street with 2500 students is not apples and oranges. That is easy enough for people to agree with, a bit more of a challenge is how to compare the apples and oranges. It would help also to know not just how many students, but how many faculty, because with the faculty you can do a thought experiment that any one of them could be a full time pastor at a church. The same is true for the long term effects of students graduating with pastoral degrees. How big are the churches that would be being pastored, 100, 200, 300? Also, seminaries cross over between being 4-year colleges and schools offering graduate degrees. Since I have not really studied the issue nor have I heard of CTS before, I don't want to go out on a limb, but nothing in this discussion gives me pause to doubt that CTS is a major institution, in the spirit by which WP:PROF intended it. Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Covenant Theological Seminary and checking a ref shows that there are no undergraduate students at this seminary. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the denomination shows that the seminary played a prominent role in the merger that created PCA. Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 19 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lennonism[edit]

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

this is a neologism with little plausability Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism, possibly made up at school one day. The article even fails to define what Lennonism is actually all about. JIP | Talk 06:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article has no reference as to where it originated from. Not really notable.--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lennonism is apparently a belief in not completing sentences. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NONSENSE. I miss WP:BJAODN. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a Chuck Barrisist I believe this should be gonged as a non-notable neologism that may not be around in the morning when the ganja and IPA wear off... Carrite (talk) 00:41, 11 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) 02:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee-Corner Phenomena[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. No Google hits for "coffee corner phenomenon yemen", no non-Wikipedia hits for "coffee corner phenomena yemen". No Google hits either for the Arabic equivalent cited by page creator on the talk page : "ظاهرة الكوفي كورنر". Google seach for "coffee corner yemen" reveals that there is a shop called "Coffee Corner" in the capital of Yemen: [47], so this may be some sort of joke. Article has a troubled history of creation: see User talk:Imothana. Proposed deletion contested by probable block-evading sockpuppet, who also removed the speedy tag one more time [48], removed the failed ref tags[49], and re-factored the talk page just to round things out nicely [50]. Speedy declined by admin on the grounds that A7 doesn't apply here. Please put this poor article out of its misery. Thank you. Scopecreep (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the references links I left wasn't even reviewed rather than read. The second reference on the 2% controlling 80% of the income is quite clear. I don't understand why the admin added "not in citation given" tag to it. I urge you at least to check the references rather than arbitrarily deleting the content every time I try to improve it!

Moreover, googling something related to a recent cultural development in Yemen to try to find references or google hits to it seems quite laughable to me. Yemen have an internet penetration of less than 4% internet penetration so please take off your hi-tech western glasses while judging content of people in the third world countries like Yemen. And Scopecreep is simply acting like our former dictator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwaterweek (talk • contribs) 06:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL, and refrain from personal attacks. I did read the references: they do indeed describe inequality, but they do not mention the subject of the article in any way, and therefore don't support what's said in the article. Wikipedia requires WP:Verifiability of all content, so if you're going to write an article about something, it's going to need references. Arabic references would be fine, if they actually support what's said here. Scopecreep (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, says nothing other than that Yemen is still an oligarchy. Online resources may be thinner, but are not non-existant: nothing on Al Jazeera or Yemen Times.TheLongTone (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, garbled OR. Hairhorn (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above —Hue Sat Lum 23:25, 12 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. Sandstein 05:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Madia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E DelDrazo (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Unsuccessful candidate for political office, with no strong claim of notability per WP:POLITICIAN otherwise. Note this is a recreated page previously deleted for lack of notability. As with many other unsuccessful candidates for office, WP:BLP1E also applies here if he can't credibly be shown to be particularly notable for anything else.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. On the WP:POLITICIAN section it notes the following: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

Madia was the candidate for the Democratic Party in a heavily contested district when the incumbent Republican had just retired and Democrats won a large number of seats nationally. This race garnered heavy attention both locally and nationally because Madia was perceived to have a significant chance of winning the seat. So I think this article qualifies for "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I did a simple google search and found 25,000 hits for "Ashwin Madia," not exactly the most common name. Madia has been in the public eye since the elections as a columnist. This seems like an obvious keep. David Straub (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Madia is known primarily for his Congressional bid, he has also received media attention as the chairman of VoteVets.org and for his advocacy of veterans' issues. [51][52][53] Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Secret of success (talk) 15:15, 11 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. No substantive content, apart from the lack of vending machines. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona emerson middle school[edit]

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

No indication of notability. West Eddy (talk) 02:37, 9 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 keep !voters do not address why this report is notable or why an article about it belongs here. If someone would like me to userfy to aid a transwiki to Wikisource I would be happy to oblige. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Report No. 761[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion that this report was notable. This article contains extensive word-for-word plagiarism of source text with no credit. Even if this is not technically a copyright violation due to its US Government source, this is still poor scholarship. This is a very detailed technical report with no overview or context for its significance suitable for an article. Essay-like tone, not encyclopedia tone. There is no need to preserve it on Wikipedia as the owner of the document is already doing that. Similar deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 133, prods for reports No. 134, 102,104. Entire category of these reports (collectivity, not Wikipedia category) nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_2#Category:National_Advisory_Committee_for_Aeronautics. Contributor was notified of the problematic nature of these excerpts during the deletion discussion for No. 133. A discussion of NACA's research and reports resulting from it would be an encyclopedia article, but cut'n'paste of the report texts themselves is not. Wtshymanski (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it says at [[54]], "This category contains 50+ articles based on NACA technical reports, e.g. NACA Report No. 132 These are now being proded individually (e.g. 99, 102, 104), for a variety of reasons. A centralised discussion is more appropriate" --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a summary of this is considered acceptable, then rewrite this as a summary (or, more even excerpt it, since it's PD_US) DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why you want it kept? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also think that article is valid. I do completely agree that it is poorly written and needs to be cleaned up. Kumioko (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would change my vote on this and any other NACA Report pages that don't add to what is in the report if they were all put on Wikisources. I do think that is a better place, but having them here is better than having them nowhere or having them on an apt-to-change government site that Wikipedia cannot control. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 133 resulted in consensus that while suitable for wikisource it was not for wikipedia, and the article was deleted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no establishment of notability per the General Notability Guideline, there is no indication within the article of its influence, or lack of, on aviation. Article is orphaned and I doubt whether many incoming links are likely. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per GraemeLeggett and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 133. --Kvng (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article asserts notability. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero notability. Whatever information worth having is better put on relevant articles, such as in engine knocking, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator It's probably too late to bundle the remaining 40+ items into this discussion but if this one goes to deletion, the others should be considered for similar treatment. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:27, 15 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. All agree subject isn't notable, no one rebutted that the salvageable content already had been merged. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Communications[edit]

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

It's unclear that this campus is notable apart from Marysville Getchell High School . I would propose merging it to the school article, but there does not appear to be any content worth salvaging. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly selective Merge/redirect to Marysville Getchell High School - there are key facts in the infobox that are worth keeping. TerriersFan (talk) 00:58, 3 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) 00:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marysville Getchell High School. Not independently notable. The number of water fountains is not encyclopedic content, and a list of faculty is a bit excessive too. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing worth merging--it's already in the article, and a redirect from this utterly non-distinctive and even confusing title would be misleading. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG: No indication of notability through coverage in reliable sources, any information of substance is already in Marysville Getchell High School, and a redirect there would be unhelpful because the name is so generic. Sandstein 06:12, 20 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 Hamish & Andy. This is a bit of a supervote, but I think that Bazonka's suggestion will best effectuate the consensus here, which is to remove the article now, but make it easy to bring back. A redirect is superior for this because it can be undone by anyone without having to determine which user space contains a copy of the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish and Andy's Euro Gap Year[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hamish and Andy's Euro Gap Year

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

Not notable. Announces a future TV program. Only citation is announcement on a gossip page. Web search found only repeats of the announcement on fan sites and media outlets. Previous season Hamish and Andy's Gap Year is most notable in reliable sources for losing more than half its audience as the season progressed although a loyal fan base remained. Although this TV program may become notable in the future, it is too early for an article in WP. DocTree (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'll probably get called out for crystal balling, but there's no doubt that this show will be notable once it begin airing in a few months. These guys are two of the biggest names in Australian TV/radio, Hamish and Andy's Gap Year won "Most Popular Light Entertainment Program" at the recent Logie Awards and Hamish Blake won the Gold Logie, basically the biggest award in Australian television. The show has already began to get a little bit of coverage in major media sources, e.g. Herald Sun, The Age. Basically, although it would probably be in line with policy/guideline to delete the article, I'm not seeing any benefit in doing so, because we will have to recreate it in a month or two. Jenks24 (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few problems: Logie Awards for 2012 results are unsourced but the external link in that article, http://tvweek.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=1001386&showcomments=true, indicates that Spicks And Specks (ABC1) was chosen as "Most Outstanding Light Entertainment Program," not Hamish and Andy's Gap Year. I found references to "Most Popular Light Entertainment Program" in unreliable blogs and the WP Logie Awards article but the official site and reliable sources list the category as Most Outstanding... rather than Most Popular.... The Logie Awards of 2012 article's unsourced Winners and nominees table appears inaccurate. It was tagged {citation needed} on 16 April and can properly be deleted by any editor. What you refer to as "a little bit of coverage in major media sources" consists only of repeats of the promotional announcement about plans for the show and are not substantial or reliable. If Hamish and Andy's Gap Year actually did receive a Logie Award, please provide some verifiable citations from reliable sources. DocTree (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* This is one of those things that's obvious from my point of view – I watched the awards so of course I know they won. Anyway, there are two awards for most categories, "Most Outstanding ..." and "Most Popular ...", but I can understand that you didn't know that; here are a few articles that mention Hamish and Andy winning Most Popular Light Entertainment Program [55], [56], [57], [58] – all reliable sources.

About the mentions in newspapers, those articles are from the Herald Sun and The Age, two of the biggest newspapers in Australia – to dismiss them as unreliable is ridiculous. I do, however, agree that they are not substantial – if I did think they were substantial coverage I would have voted "keep" rather than "meh" :) Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until it airs, per CRYSTAL. Softlavender (talk) 12:01, 3 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) 00:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per User:Softlavender above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamish & Andy until something notable actually happens. Bazonka (talk) 11:20, 18 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 discussion as a whole, particularly as viewed by disinterested commentors, failed to rebut the assertion that the subject is not notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Documents on the Persian Gulf's name : the eternal heritage of ancient time[edit]

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

Non-notable academic work. Article has been written by the book's author, or one of his cronies/meatpuppets/sockpuppets (Basp1 tends to edit only the same articles as Maahmaah). Maahmaah has identified himself to be Dr Ajam - see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/Files from User:Maahmaah. Poorly constructed and written article, which serves to push POV - Maahmaah has a history of this in articles such as Arabian Sea. Bazonka (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. the book and atlas itself is an academic work but translation into English is poor . but first you didnot mentioned according to which principal it should be deleted . is it not allowed to introduce an Academic work in wikipedia? if the policy is that then i will not protest deletion. but as far as i know User Bazonka is sensitive to the issues of Arabian sea. first he refused to accept that there are other names for the Arabian sea on the maps and books and he was deleting the alternative names. yes my field of study and research is a little bit similar to Dr. Ajam but he is also a famous linguist but i am not. HE is this [59] and i am another scholar and i will announce my name and my pages in net.soon 09:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)

@Basp1, I have no particular agenda when it comes to the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, etc. But what I don't like are messy and unnecessary articles. I did say why the article should be deleted - primarily because it it non-notable. You do claim the it was "among best book of the 50 year book on the Persian gulf issues in Iran", but this is not sourced. I also suspect that there is POV-pushing - one of your references is a YouTube film entitled "A Documentary exposing origins of naming fallacy of the Persian Gulf", which seems a bit biased to me. In any case, this article is a horrible mess, and if it is to be kept then it needs an awful lot of work. Bazonka (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is another thing to consider. Bazonka (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes the book was short listed from among 800 book in the festival of 50 years books on the persian gulf. and was among 7 best book to compete for golden prize and finally another book by Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh was announced as receiving first golden prize. and the book also have received 2 other awards. the news about this event are in Persian.one of the link here:[60] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What may be of marginal notability in Iran does not necessarily equate to notability in the English-speaking world. Remember that this is English Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bazonka you are abslutly wrong. Remember that this is English Wikipedia and not UK wikipedi. it belong to all scholar all around the world not to you in UK.all scholar around the world are participant in developing wikipedia English. i think you people in UK have the less participation.

remember if you continue to discourage developing of wikipedi i would complain to the managers of wiki of your negative action. and i have a record of your negative action.Maahmaah 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maahmaah (talk • contribs)

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) 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to attempt some aggressive copyediting. In the meantime, I would remind all participants to assume good faith, be civil, and refrain from personal attacks. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having done that, here's my summary. The book isn't notable. The subject matter of the book is, and the book should be cited in any article about the subject (even though the book is definitely not NPOV). Rewrite as an article about the history of the "Persian Gulf" name unless that duplicates an existing article such as Persian Gulf naming dispute. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable book. Badly written WP:COATRACK article. Yes, we get it already: the name of the body of water is the Persian Gulf in English. We already have a Persian Gulf naming dispute page. --Folantin (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that the book is notable, and we already have an article about the naming dispute. Sandstein 05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

keep it. usefull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.104.24 (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — 94.182.104.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep it , useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.7.60.181 (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 31.7.60.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Some pretty obvious sock/meat puppetry here and WP:COI issues which should be investigated. --Folantin (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that these IPs are socks of User:Basp1. See his comment at the bottom of this page, in particular the use of the words "useful" and "keep it". If I had more time I would report him, but I have to go and drink beer now (clear priority). Bazonka (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bazonka Sir. millions of people uses"Ok" or some other phrases the same. it is very funny to think "Keep it useful. is only used by me ! i am leaving in a far East Asia country not Iran and i really do not know those Id belong to whom and to which area or nation but i know the subject of the article is very interested by many Iranian.i wish nobody report this page to those Iranian bloggers of Persian gulf in that case you will see unfortunately hundreds of person will comment in favour of this article.then you may also blame me . i really do not want this page to become politicized . neutrality is the best way. i keep silent. i even do not continue edition of the page.i am a user of Persian Wikipedia i write and edit in Persian wiki and not English Wikipedia.drink your beer cool!very cool.ice . 08:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)

keep it usefull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.184.243.137 (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — 94.184.243.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremi Richardson[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. West Eddy (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge or redirect to Avalon (band), as a member of which (but apparently for little if anything else) he is probably notable. PWilkinson (talk) 12:22, 6 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) 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avalon (band), no evidence of notability per WP:MUSICBIO outside of the band. Scopecreep (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avalon (band), no independent notability outside of the band. Cavarrone (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest waiting a time period of 3-6 months to see if persons notability increases. Person's notability may increase during carrier with Avalon. Suggest not deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.46.70 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If his notability increases, then you can recreate the article. See WP:TOOSOON. West Eddy (talk) 23:16, 13 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 firm consensus, I will redirect to Joe Arpaio#Investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate. I am finding this one a rather tough call, since the POVFORK and NOTNEWSPAPER arguments in the nomination are rather persuasive, and from an editorial standpoint a care must be taken not to violate WP:UNDUE when deciding how much coverage should be granted to the birther movement's views. Still, there are calls to merge whatever is "salvageable" with the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

As an administrator, I am closing this without a deletion. As an editor (who, like any other editor is subjected to seeing his edits altered by anyone who disagrees), I am using my discretion to select what I believe to be the most appropriate target for the redirect. The article on Joe Arpaio has a mention of the Cold Case Posse, and already shares a paragraph with the current article, so I think that is the most useful redirect possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Cold Case Posse[edit]

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

This should be deleted as a WP:POVFORK and per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I can't find any reliable sources about the posse itself so WP:GNG is not met. If anything can be salvaged, it belongs in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories rather than here. SmartSE (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All I'm really finding so far are mentions about them in relation to the whole birth certificate thing, which could be considered a "one event" type of scenario since all they really seem to be known for is getting in the news concerning Obama's birth certificate.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it does show that they certainly merit a mention in the citizen article that you mentioned. This might be good as a redirect to said article, with the original editor being able to userfy a copy until it can show notability outside of the Obama BC.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I started to look at this, I expected to find at least a few references to other cases taken on by this group, and I thought I'd probably end up recommending merger/redirect to Joe Arpaio; but I didn't. It seems that Sheriff Arpaio has a whole mess o' volunteer "posses"[61]. This one is notable only for its role in the birther wars. I find myself agreeing with Smartse and Tokyogirl79: the most likely target for any salvageable content is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 3 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) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything salvagable as above; this is an unimportant organization caught up in the birther wars. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worth mentioning in the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but I suppose anyone who wants to can add it. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge or delete This is a content fork of material at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. There is so little information in this article that it's hard to see why it would ever need to be a sub article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:42, 18 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad Onetto[edit]

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

Being a graduate and married doesn't make the person notable Yash t 101 10:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Two line statement Shrikanthv (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as one of Chile's most popular TV presenters. The Spanish Wikipedia has a much longer page[62] and here's some third-party sources[63][64][65][66][67][68][69] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and popular television presenter in Chile. Being the article short shouldn't be a reason to delete, Shrikanthv. Yasht, next time please take some time to check whether the person is notable or not. A simple Google search gives more than 400000 results. I recall she hosted the most important song festival in Latin America, the Viña del Mar International Song Festival, with deceased presenter Felipe Camiroaga. That's it. Diego talk 23:54, 3 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) 00:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of material available to expand. More than 1,000 GNews hits, including a substantial number with her name in the article title. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:27, 9 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. Sandstein 06:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South China animal consumption incidents[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This article is interesting, but it is stuff to be reported by magazines, and it has no long-term historical significance (or at least, cannot be gleaned from the article), even if it passes minimum WP:GNG requirements. Colipon+(Talk) 16:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as news. Or kick it over to Wikinews. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 3 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) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be possible to have an article on the general topic, but not one specifically on 2008 incidents, which as others have said is news not encyclopedia material. Borock (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient references. if someone wants to expand it, they certainly can, but that;s no reason for deletion. If there was a clister of these in 08, it would make sense to have this as a separate article--if they'vebeen continuous since then, it should be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article; optionally, merge some content to the targets below. Check the references again, DGG. Only three of the links actually work: the Nddaily, CBS, and AnimalAsia. Right off the bat, that means much of the article is uncited. Furthermore, the more important assertions in the article are erroneously cited, while only peripheral ones like the SARS are cited. The Chinese-language Nddaily source is used to cite a story that supposedly ran in the Southern Daily News, when in fact, the Southern Daily News is never mentioned in that source. The CBS article is biased, resting fully upon the testimony of protestors against the practice of eating cat and dog.

More importantly, the 'incidents' format is weaker than need be, whereas the practice is noteworthy, and covered already in Cat meat, Dog meat, Cantonese cuisine#Dog and cat consumption, and possibly others. Anyone who can read Chinese can use the Nddaily source to add very good information indeed to these articles, covering prices, shipping practices, and information about consumers. The AnimalAsia source has ample photographic evidence of the practice. The CBS article, however, covers only a single day's demonstration in response to a brief flurry of news articles, which we do not have access to. Anarchangel (talk) 18:57, 12 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Suzhou workers riot[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. There are too many of these incidents in China these days - probably about a hundred every month. There is nothing particularly special about this one. Colipon+(Talk) 16:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as news. Or kick it over to Wikinews. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question what makes it any different from anything else in Template:21st_century_unrest_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I do think that a few more of those articles deserve to be listed for AfD, but have only have so much time on my hands. Absent the free time I have to use some judgment as to which ones I believe as the least encyclopedic - so I came across this one. That template "21st century unrest" is also a very good example of recentism - it basically looks as though it is reporting the news from 2007 on, with very little content between 2001 - 2007. I realize it is mostly the good-faith work of one user, but he does need to realize that some basic adherence to Wikipedia policy is due when he goes and creates the next article that feeds off of the news cycle. He would be well advised to create an account at Wikinews. Colipon+(Talk) 03:57, 4 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) 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one is particularly important because of the connections with other Apple products plants in china, but I think it is important enough as a separate incident to be kept separate. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important enough. separate article is a good way of solving the problem.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 10 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Heart Tuesdays[edit]

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

Deprodded by author with a rationale of "When more information comes out, it will be added to Wikipedia." Author seems to think that the series is a done deal and deleting the article will mean re-creation within a few weeks. However, I searched and found nothing at all except a few re-iterations of the initial announcement in 2011. Not a word has been said of it since, so it's either WP:TOOSOON or just plain DOA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until and if it airs. Otherwise, delete. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While there has not been any new information added to the page as of recently, there are multiple sources on the internet that corroborate its existence. It would be better to simply wait on more promotional updates before hastily canning the page. Silver Buizel (talk) 17:42, 7 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) 00:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per Softlavender. Ducknish (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am fine with this being userfied. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 9 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malice Engineering[edit]

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

seems to be a neologism. see talk page. I can't find any references. The article has already been copied to the userspace; since it was PROD already, it has to go through AfD now. KarlB (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of this article certainly seems notable. In fact we have related articles such as security engineering and secure coding. The term malice engineering may be somewhat less notable until we can find more reliable sources for it. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
as you can see from the talk page, this quote especially: "What's needed is a term that specifically handles the practice/discipline/art/science of fighting those with evil intent in the technological, system, and now ever more cyber fields.". I don't doubt that the creator of this article works in this space, but so far the literature doesn't seem to have created a term, other than the typical 'security'-type terms for this situation. Also see this quote from the security article: "Security has to be compared to related concepts: safety, continuity, reliability. The key difference between security and reliability is that security must take into account the actions of people attempting to cause destruction.". So I'm actually not sure a *new* term is needed, and in any case it's not our job to help create new terms...--KarlB (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 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) 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete material already covered in Security engineering. WP is not the place to invent new terminology. --Kvng (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this term may take off, but it doesn't yet satisfy WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 08:38, 16 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. Despite being publicly listed, there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot National Bank[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable financial institution. All references provided are either editorialized routine financial anouncements or from non-notable news-sources. This bank does not appear to have been the subject of significant secondary sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 1 (unreliable) source. Not notable at all as well. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FI is notable rank in its market & by asset size. References are from notable sources, example Morningstar - provides research on the bank for public company trading activity. Secondary sources are sufficient. Source David H. Purcell User:DHPurcell is notable & reliable, and has been cited in other notable publications, such as Fortune, Nature, USA Today et al. DHPurcell (talk to me)(talk to others)12:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 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) 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sort of routine promotional article we ought to discourage. . I removed the worst of it, just in case we do keep it. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep are facts around a major U.S. community bank that almost failed in the Great Recession & did not, thereby saving U.S. taxpayers $.5-1billion a "promotional article"? If so, then we need more promotional articles about U.S. banking businesses. DHPurcell ( talk ) 16:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — DHPurcell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please feel free to comment and respond as often as appropriate, but please only vote once in each AfD debate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References in the article are directory entries, press releases, links to the company website. Ghits are the same, plus a couple of routine local items. Verifiability is satisfied, but not notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Public companies are almost always considered notable per WP:CORP. The article as it stands has no reliable sources and a Google News search doesn't reveal anything great. Suggest removing the following phrase as advert: "services to individuals, small and medium-sized businesses, and professionals" User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 08:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by your vote. Yes, WP:CORP, specifically WP:LISTED, makes the claim that "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies...", i.e., "corporations listed on major stock exchanges". Yet you and everyone else involved in this discussion, save the SPA article creator, says that they cannot find sufficient coverage for this subject. Yes, it is listed on Nasdaq, just like Apple and Microsoft, but unlike those firms, this company's $64 million market cap barely qualifies it even as a microcap stock. That and its 2,200-share average daily volume perhaps explain the severe lack of interest from the financial press. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hobbes--I think our experience has been that public companies listed on major stock exchanges are essentially always notable to the extent they can safely be presumed to be, but this is not necessarily the case with those listed on Nasdaq. The market capitalization noted by Hobbes makes this evident! DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 18 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.

Just participating in my first AfDs and I'm probably leaning more towards keeps. This seems reasonable though - just because a company that is public is usually notable, doesn't mean they are automatically so without sources. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usurper (video game)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, no sources show why this game is notable. Ducknish (talk) 23:36, 2 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) 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 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) 00:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to indicate any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 16 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.