Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 September	14 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. G4: It's been done before with the same result Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crolf[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. Also, no sources for notability. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. Possible G4 speedy. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of racial classifications[edit]

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

The article is a work of original research, with no quality sources (which indeed would be difficult to find). It also promotes as valid a system of classifications grounded in scientific racism and which social scientists regard as obsolete. This is not a list of "classifications", or classification systems, but an attempt to divide the world into "races" and ascribes to each "race" dubious statistics such as "annual growth rate", "religions and philosophies", and "ages". Where is the methodology? Where are the sources? Is it possible to create a good article out of this? I don't think so. 192.12.88.145 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not even properly named. I had imagined a "list of racial classifications" would include all the various racial classifications that have been proposed over time, not a single list of a particular set of racial classifications and their assumed related characteristics. --Lquilter (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is unsourced original research. The population numbers in the article are derived by adding population numbers from other Wikipedia articles, which is WP:SYNTH and is also likely to lead to unreliable estimates as the methodology is dubious. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and probably original research. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is entirely unsourced, but seems to be based chiefly upon the work of Carleton S. Coon (see below).

•••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cleanup is needed; if none is forthcoming in the next few months this could be renommed. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midas List[edit]

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

Useless list, full of unsolvable links to disambiguation pages. The fact that a well known magazine publishes the list, does not make the list itself noteworthy. The Banner _talk 12:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list might just be notable[1][2][3][4][5][6] The first ref includes a good critique, some of which I've added to the article. However even if it's notable we don't need to list every single person on every list: the Billboard Hot 100 is notable but we don't list every song that's on it. Depending on the length after pruning we could merge to Forbes's article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list may be notable as a topic, in which case it's appropriate to have an article about the list (methodology in putting it together, reactions to it), but I'm concerned reproducing the entire list is a copyright infringement. As inclusion and ordering is largely based on opinion, it is not uncopyrightable fact but instead copyrightable creative expression. So those should be pruned outside of perhaps the top few entries in each year's list or other entries for which there was specific commentary in secondary sources. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but get rid of the list sections. The links available are enough to meet notability in my view, and this article in particular provides good secondary analysis to justify a stand-alone article, even if it ends up being a tad short. The issue of notable lists being reproduced in articles has been brought up at AfD several times before, and my understanding is that the contents of the list can be easily be considered creative expression because they are compiled arbitrarily, and that even listing only the top entries is also problematic since that would the most relevant and interesting section for Forbes' readers — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An excerpt of, say, five names, would arguably be too short to be infringement even if it didn't qualify as fair use. And there is certainly no issue with simply stating who is number 1 for each year. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed on Top 1, and I see what you mean regarding the excerpt, but I'm not sure where we could draw that line. As you said, it's arguable. I missed part of your comment above regarding individual entries that have been selected by secondary sources, and that seems workable. For example, this source focuses solely on the women appearing in the list. Perhaps we could collapse all years into a single table, with a column for the top entry, and a Notes column to highlight whatever secondary sources have deemed noteworthy for that particular edition — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and prune (retaining the top few from each year) per the above comments.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix issues pertaining to the disambiguation pages. --Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. There is discussion of the Midas List (and its controversies) in other media. E.g., VentureBeat last month [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyHillbilly (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSP (band)[edit]

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

A music duo that doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NBAND. No references are present in the article, and I was unable to find any while doing the usual searches. Their only claim to notability is that they collaborated with a couple of notable musicians, but notability is not inherited, and this particular group does not seem to have any notability of their own. Rorshacma (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ if someone recognizable like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Bhatt_(musician) doesn't qualify then this person DEFINITELY does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE Wikijustice2013 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. They are just copy/pasting the same Delete "vote" and comment in every AfD. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[8][9]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no references, and no external links. The author should work on getting reliable sources prior to resubmitting.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a lack of reliable sources discussing the band tells us that the article fails WP:N. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No reliable sources of notability at this time.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Degrassi: The Next Generation books[edit]

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

It has no real content. In fact it's only a single link to another page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact that it has had exactly zero content since 2007 is telling. Reyk _YO! 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article has no references or sources. Also, no content.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content, nobody's seen fit to do anything with this since it was created in 2007. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Olympia, Washington. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Mah[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN ...William 18:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olympia, Washington. Ideally, I would like to see the History section of city articles touch upon their various mayors, and that would make this a plausible redirect. (Plus redirects are cheap.) Location (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olympia, Washington as stated above. This article may be a possibility in the future when more information is reliably sourced on the topic.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Olympia, Washington. The current references are both dead, but at least one is replaceable - and primary, and therefore no good for WP:GNG, though it would be good for verifiability as of a bare matter of fact. The subject got plenty of local news coverage during his terms as councilman and mayor, but apparently nothing more - which puts him just below what I would regard as notable for an executive mayor in a city of this importance. I am generally unhappy about a redirect to an article which doesn't mention the subject - so I've taken up a suggestion made above and added a table of recent mayors to the proposed target article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Location (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater boston chamber of commerce[edit]

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

Unsourced article created by the marketing communications manager. Disputed prod. Google searches not finding many hits. noq (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - yeah, a tough one. Plenty of news "hits" but most relate to other stuff where the GBCC is an "also" mention or is mentioned in reference to an award they gave out or someone who was a member. Strong case for an argument that the organisation fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It doesn't WP:INHERIT notability from its members, which is where I think most of the sources fall down. Most the sources provided don't give the organisation "coverage", rather they cover someone who spoke at one of their meetings or someone associated with the organisation doing something not related to the organisation. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree with Stalwart on all of his points. Additionally, the person writing this is a huge COI. I believe this article could be remade in a more suitable tone, and by someone who wants to create an article on the subject, rather than the marketing communications manager.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per his request, the article has been userfied back to its author for continued work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duane A. Sikes[edit]

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

Appears to have been declined at AfC but moved to mainspace anyway by the author. No in-depth WP:IRS cited and I can't see any available online. Only mentioned briefly in the cites news articles. All his films seems to be non-notable too, while the ones that do have a Wiki page don't mention Sikes. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The article was resubmitted to AfC with significant updates, no response in days. I reviewed several other producer pages. Compared to those, this page was more sufficient to be created than most I reviewed. The notable films mention him on the IMDB, something that he could not fake. This article is a work in progress, like many on Wikipedia. I moved it to the project space for the sole purpose of opening it for others who may want to add to it as well. This article is not going to be created and abandoned. I will be expanding this article extensively for the reason that I am trying to start my first page after doing many edits on an unregistered account and learn the ropes. I have learned tons in this process, but see entirely too many pages in worse condition than this that have been active for years to honestly consider this article not fit for the project space. Please consider removing this from AfD as this page will be updated constantly, and the sources provided prove that he is notable enough to be written about. --EngelsBlut (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Have listed your comment as an argument for "Keep". If that is not accurate, please feel free to amend. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Author (EngelsBlut) has requested below to ignore their 'Keep' vote and requests an opportunity to 'Userfy'. 'Keep' vote struck out accordingly. They're welcome to amend this if not correct. Sionk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The sources provided in the article could not really be considered "significant coverage" of the subject. The first is a promo page for one of the works for which he was Executive Producer. There's no real way it could be considered independent of the subject. The second only mentions him once in passing. There's not real way it could be considered "coverage" of the subject. The third isn't really focussed on the subject but does give some explanation for his involvement. It could possibly be considered "marginal" coverage of the subject; certainly not "significant". I understand the author is working on the article and there is an element of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built involved. Perhaps the author could start by listing the reliable, independent sources on which he/she plans to build a future article. If none exist, then I struggle to see how an article on this subject will ever meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, I appreciate your constructive criticism. I respect your veteran status on Wikipedia, and value your opinion. While, I agree that this article would be much better with more sources, I still do not see how the material given cannot be trusted given the sources. If the bio is in question, I can remove it until I find a source that you consider more reliable, though the source given is not a personal site, and appears to be something done by the production company. If notability is a concern, I can provide proof many of the movies that are listed via the actual movie websites. I did not list every website as I felt that notability was not an issue per AfC. I am a bit disappointed in the way this article was tagged so quickly with many accusatory statements. Like I said above, I am interested in this community and felt that this person was notable enough to write about, while being a challenge to do so. I compared my article to at least 10 others of its same genre and found my article to be sourced better than 95% of them, yet those seemed to have had no tags despite being sourced solely with IMDB references. I have a feeling that this article was originally tagged for deletion hastily. Sionk makes the case that few of his movies are notable, and those that are, do not have him listed on their respective Wikipedia page. I have two problems with that, one is the notability portion. They make an assumption that only a few of his movies are notable based on if they have a Wikipedia page or not. Per policy, Wikipedia pages are not to be used as sources for an article, likewise, I believe they should not be able to be used as a source to establish notability of another article. The second problem I have is the portion about how the movies that are notable do not have him listed on their Wikipedia page. That is not a valid argument because Sikes has no control over who made the Wikipedia page for his movies and erroneously did not add his name to the credits. To me, as a first time article creator with no COI, I am taken aback at the scrutiny this article is taking despite my innocence. I honestly believe that Mr. Sikes is notable enough to be on Wikipedia given his ever growing list of movies, many of which being in film festivals. What is notable to one person, may not be notable to another, I understand this. I just have a strong belief in this article with the best intentions. Remove this page if that is what has to happen, but having dove in head first into the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, I still hold fast that this article meets at least the very minimum criteria and deserves a chance in the project space to be expanded by myself, and others. The preceding paragraph was written with a civil mindset and is not to be taken offensively by anyone. Thank you for your time and consideration.--EngelsBlut (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I said all of his films seem to be non-notable. To be honest, if Sikes had been given glowing credit for his contribution to several non-notable films, that may still make him notable, in my opinion. The facts seem to be he has been given little credit for any of his contributions. Considering his entire oeuvre has been in the last five years, it is likely any coverage would be available online if it existed. By all means add some reliable in-depth coverage about Sikes and the problem will be solved. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tough one. I can see Stalwart's point, but based on a review of the article and the links I have to say that this article does indeed meet WP:GNG. A history of the page shows that a member of AfC upon declining the article for a source violation stated that this person is notable, but needed more sources. I come to this conclusion because of the nature of the article and the author's statement that they will be improving it in the near future. There are many articles that bring this same argument to the table, but I believe this one meets Wikipedia's requirements.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I should say - my position is "Weak" for a reason - if the original author can provide more "building block" references then I'll be in the "Keep" camp. If not, then I remain in favour of deletion. My concern is that while the editor might still be working on the article, the standard burden of proof still applies and I would have thought more references to support the material in the article would have been provided already, had they existed. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well obviously the same would apply with me, if anyone can find reliable sources about Sikes I'd withdraw my nomination. But I can't see any additional online sources. I'd be interested to know from Riverrunner which sources they've found.

Of the two local news sources in the article, one doesn't mention Sikes at all, while the other only has one brief mention. Sionk (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both mention Sikes. Take another look, his name is on the second page. I know you don't believe in the sources that I have, but I truly do. How is Design specification able to be in a state of needing improvement with no sources, yet, this page is not going to have the opportunity to be expanded by the community? Sionk, please work with me here. This is not an ego issue for me, I promise. I really would like to see this article grow with the input of others besides myself, hence I made this page on Wikipedia and not a website. I can provide many more sources, but none that you would find reliable, so I did not provide them out of courtesy to the policies of Wikipedia. There are many pages similar to John Mazzello which are un-sourced and comprise of one IMDB link, and yet I am struggling to keep this article alive with actual sources and full intentions of expanding it as Sikes career progresses. Please reconsider and give this article a chance. Thank you for your time and consideration.--EngelsBlut (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit silly - if you say yourself there are no other reliable sources about Sikes, then he clearly doesn't pass Wikipedia's basic notability requirements. According to the IMDb he has only been the actual producer on two short films. Sionk (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you. I believe the work that he has done meets Wikipedia's basic notability requirements. I believe the sources that I have at the very least qualify the article to be in a state of needing improvement. You just used an unreliable source in attempt to debate me. I digress. This is silly. Never will I understand how the articles I listed above are somehow more believable than mine when they have no sources. I do appreciate your concern to watch out for Wikipedia's interests, but I truly believe this page is being over-scrutinized and there are many pages in a horrid condition that could benefit from our attention than this one.--EngelsBlut (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem might be that none of the sources cited so far could be considered adequate, either individually or together. Passing mentions in two news articles focussed on other things really can't be considered "significant coverage" which is what is required by WP:GNG. The other "source" really can't be considered independent. Even if the site is run by the production company (rather than by him personally), he is still one of the producers. The site is designed to promote the film he produced and would be financed by the producers (him). That's way too close to be considered independent. So if you removed the sources which are either not significant coverage or are not independent, we're left with no sources at all. That's basically what Sionk and I are saying - more sources are needed before the article could be considered to meet WP:GNG. You might think he meets WP:GNG but this has to be verified, just like everything else. As an aside, it's worth having a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF. If other articles don't meet guidelines then you should feel free to nominate them too - that's what this process is designed for. Everyone is happy to allow articles to be worked on but a good understanding of the burden of proof is important. There's no point keeping an article if it is never going to make the grade. If you think it might one day but doesn't yet, it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and that's fine. Maybe ask for the article to be userfied (put on a sub-page of your user-page) so you can continue to work on it. But unless you can provide further reliable and independent sources that give the subject himself "significant coverage", then you perhaps need to look at other options for developing the article. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Stalwart, thank you for the well-written and constructive response; we could all learn something from how you are handling this situation. I have read all linked policies and am in full agreement with you. I would like to claim WP:TOOSOON and request that this article be userfied while Sikes career progresses and I diligently work on its sourcing. Thank you for your time and explanation of the matters at hand. You are why I don't give up on Wikipedia.--EngelsBlut (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Please disregard my keep. Per discussion with Stalwart, I would like to request that this page be userfied so that I can continue working on it in the future. Thank you.--EngelsBlut (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once the article is deleted proper, you can use up to 3 months or so to develop a userfied version into a Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - article has been userfied and is now available for development at User:EngelsBlut/Duane A. Sikes. I will post a note on your talkpage for easier reference. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only references I found, Times-News. August 1, 2012 and The Citizen-Times July 23, 2012, are in the article and do not provide enought reliable source material from which to write a Wikipedia biography on the Duane A. Sikes topic as required by WP:GNG. Now, if you are desiring to write an article on chimney sweep Duane Sikes[10] or robber Duane Sikes,[11] there's plenty of write up for a Wikipedia article on those different guys. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close - original author has requested userfication as per above discussion and this has been done. Can we now close this AfD to allow the article to be deleted? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a duplicate of List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of busiest airports in Gulf Countries[edit]

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

recently created orphan article duplicating List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf; table claiming 2011 Statistics (Full Year preliminary) is mostly a duplicate of the 2010 table in List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf and seems to contain 2010 data (sources are the same in both articles, and are in many cases unusable); cut'n'paste of the article introductions of the listed airports does not improve a list article, only creates problems later when the texts get out of sync Lumialover2 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is too similar to List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Riverrunner123. Too many similar lists, creating more maintenance headaches and inconsistencies.BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of the busiest airports in the Arab states of Persian Gulf, which currently consists only of the 2010 table. I have not checked if this ios the result of text being moved to the current article. It would do no harm to have both tables in the same article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you would read my AfD justification you would understand why your suggestion does not make sense. Lumialover2 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - has been rejected at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nescafé Café de Olla so no need for this copy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NESCAFÉ Café de Olla[edit]

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

Article was intended to be created in AFC but has been created in mainspace ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no evidence this is a Nescafe brand, the cited webpages are recipe's! Therefore I wouldn't even suggest redirecting to Nescafe. However, it seems to be a general concoction of spiced coffee consumed in Mexico, but that would be a different subject. Sionk (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Underdeveloped article about an obscure brand.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Radtke[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, as somebody not notable for anything aside from running for political office. All coverage surrounds her political candidacy and fails to meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012 per WP:POLITICIAN. Fails criteria for stand alone article. Location (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012. Fails to meet WP:GNG.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early because it is evident that this discussion will not result in a consensus for deletion. This is without prejudice to continuing to discuss a possible merger on the article talk page. Sandstein 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula[edit]

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

not notable, WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect The controversy surrounding Innocence of Muslims is notable, and this individual appears to be centrally involved in it. However, that's all he's notable for, making this a textbook WP:BLP1E. Since the controversy of the movie involves who was behind it, any details on Nakoula that are relevant should be merged there, with a redirect left in place. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article subject fails criteria 2 and 3 for deleting under WP:BLP1E: He's unlikely to remain "a low-profile individual" and "the individual's role within (the event) is substantial and well-documented." Jokestress (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: profile, it's WP:CRYSTAL to say he will become high-profile. The film is high profile, but he's doing what he can to remain low profile. Re: substantial and documented role, my understanding is that it remains unconfirmed, and we know nothing about this man not directly relating to the film with the exception of a fraud conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not WP:CRYSTAL. Nakoula is the only person to come forward so far as being involved at a managerial level in the production of the film. See citations in article. He may be trying to keep a low profile, but that's not what's meant here. Osama bin Laden was trying to keep a low profile in the sense you mean. His actions made him very high profile. Jokestress (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comparing this guy to OBL is beyond laughable, so I'm not going to touch that. My reading of Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual suggests that he is much more low profile than high profile. If that changes in time, a redirect can be turned into an article, but at this time I see nothing compelling to suggest this is anything beyond BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This person made a film that caused world wide destruction. He used an alias that stated he was an "Israeli Jew" instead of disclosing he was an Egyptian Arab Christian. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We know what he supposedly did; that's one event. "World wide destruction"? Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In at least 3 countries in 2 regions, causing significant destruction and multiple fatalities. --Niemti (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The film is notable for those reasons. The man who may have directed it but has denied doing so? Not so much. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (see my updated comments below) Redirect to the film Clearly BLP1E doesn't apply at all. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula played an important part in a film that sparked important riots and led to the death of an American ambassador. There goes condition 3 of BLP1E. It's also highly unlikely that this person will remain a low-profile individual since dozens of serious news organization have spent considerable time to gather info about him (and since he will almost certainly face at the very least a lawsuit from the actors in the film, see Innocence of Muslims for details) There goes condition 2 of BLP1E. That being said, the present article could be redirected for now to the one about the film since the information is still a little sketchy. But I expect that in the near future, it will make more sense to separate the two. Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except, there's no strong proof that the film (and therefore, Nakoula) was the motivation for the attack that killed the ambassador. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, it probably didn't motivate the attack as my sentence suggests. But it is very much an essential part of the context. That being said, my rationale above conveniently ignores the fact that although circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, there's still (last I checked) no definite proof of his involvement and no admission on his part. On second thought, I would prefer redirecting to the movie although I'm still convinced that in a week's time, this will be a stand-alone article that nobody would even think of nominating at AfD. Pichpich (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. There are all kinds of little warning bells here, like headlines that use the word "may", and direct links to prison release records. At the moment there's still a lot of uncertainty about this. Unfortunately, I fear he will soon be fully eligible as a 2EBLP because some misguided people seem so dead-set on tracking him down. As an aside, I have to say, I am particularly annoyed by claims that his film "caused" the attacks on U.S. embassies -- Al Qaida has never really needed an excuse to do that, and they planned it out for September 11th with RPGs and heavy weapons. I don't believe for one minute that if this film hadn't been made that they wouldn't have just gone on to the next item in their web search, or the next, or the next, looking for some smokescreen to rally people with who they could use for cover. When people go soft on Al Qaida and turn around and bash our rights and freedoms as being to blame for what murdering thugs did on the other side of the world, well ... let's just say, it might tend to violate BLP. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RPGs and armored pick up trucks with AA guns are now extremely commonplace in Libya. The militias can do such stunts as occupy the airport in Tripoli because another militia has kidnapped one of their commanders, only to be kicked out by still another militia.[12] Or even attack each other towns. So it's really no need for planning in that case. --Niemti (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per WP:BLP1E. If in a few weeks, circumstances warrant, this article can be recreated. Safiel (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This guy is going to be in the news for awhile. In addition to his role in provoking protests in numerous countries, he is likely to become a minor figure in the current U.S. presidential election. It may ultimately become appropriate to merge this with the article about his movie, but I think we should wait a couple of weeks to see how this plays out before making that decision. As an aside: I think User:Wnt is mistaken to be "annoyed by claims that his film 'caused' the attacks on U.S. embassies." Based on present evidence, it appears there is a good chance that Al Qaeda carried out the attack that killed four people including the ambassador in Libya, but I don't think anyone has proferred evidence suggesting that Al Qaeda was the instigator of the protests that have occurred in other countries including Yemen and Egypt. I think both Nakoula and Al Qaeda separately and independently planned their provocations for the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they fed into each other. Nakoula's film fueled protests, and Al Qaeda was able to opportunistically use those protests as a smokescreen and pretext for its assault on the U.S. embassy in Libya. However, I think it is a bit far-fetched to imagine that Al Qaeda simultaneously planned and organized protests in several countries simultaneously, while only using deadly force in one of those countries. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the video trailer (all anyone has seen) was released in July. It was up to an Egyptian political party to object, and an Egyptian TV station to air the footage (including, oddly enough, someone playing Muhammad), both three days before 9/11. Their choice of time, not Nakoula's. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, you make a fair point that the choice of timing for publicizing the video on 9/11 may not have been Nakoula's. However, you're omitting the role played by right-wing anti-Islamist Christians both in the United States and Egypt in promoting this movie. According to Wikipedia's article on Innocence of Muslims, pastor Terry Jones (the same guy who previously engaged in the provocation of burning a Koran) "said on 11 September 2012 that he planned to show a 13-minute trailer that night at his church." Clearly, Jones deliberately timed this showing for 9/11. The Wikipedia article also states that the movie "was brought to the attention of the Arabic-speaking world by Coptic blogger Morris Sadek whose Egyptian citizenship had been revoked for promoting calls for an attack on Egypt." Nakoula is a Coptic Christian, like Sadek, and I think the facts that are emerging suggest that Nakoula lied when he claimed the movie was financed by Israelis. In fact, it was likely financed by his circle of Copts. I think you're right that there are Egyptian extremists who found the timing of 9/11 convenient for their own purposes, and they likely acted independently of Nakoula. It appears to me that this is a case where religious extremists -- both the Islamist and Christian -- are trying to use the occasion of 9/11 to stir up religious hatred. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add also that I think it is especially despicable for Nakoula to be claiming that the movie was financed by Israelis and to be also posing himself as an Israeli-American. It is bad enough that he is trying to provoke anger and hatred. It is even worse for him to be directing that anger and hatred against Jews, who are already targets of extreme anti-Semitism especially in the Middle East. If Nakoula is going to say things that provoke anger and hatred, he should at least have the courage of his convictions and identify himself and his religious beliefs as the source of those hateful statements. It is cowardly and despicable to try to channel those feeling against Jews. His provocation may well get some Israelis killed. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:RS for WP:BIO are global and overwhelming. BLP1E does not apply to a person with this level of notability--just as it does not apply to John Wilkes Booth. Qworty (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What level of notability? We still know almost nothing about this guy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What notability? Are you kidding? Buy a computer and then get yourself an Internet connection. Find a website called Google News and then type this guy's name into it. Then have a look at WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Then change your opinion to Keep. That's all there is to it. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Qworty (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - First off, keep civil. Second off, all of that coverage is part of this one event, meaning it's not GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which arguments? Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, saying keep or delete "per above" is not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable for much more it seems as the article itself points out.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable figure with reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable because of his creation, and also the coverage he gets in the news. Dream Focus 01:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage that fits under BLP1E? I'm really surprised by the number of keep votes, but most of them don't seem to address BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - He meets WP:Entertainer just fine. Dream Focus 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No he doesn't. (1) Only one film, not multiple; (2) no evidence of a fan base or cult following; (3) there is impact, but not "to a field of entertainment" – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excuse me. He meets WP:CREATIVE number 3 "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of .... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Dream Focus 08:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- not sure why this warrants a standalone at this point, though I could see it developing that way in the future. For now, all the personalities (or aliases) are being developed in the Innocence_of_Muslims article, so it'd be good to keep the critical mass there until a separate article needs to be broken off. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reluctantly. Creating a film that has resulted in the assassination of an American official as well as significant protests abroad. This person has satisfied the John Hinckley threshold at WP:BLP1E, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over 90,000 hits on Google as of this moment, a number that has been growing all day and will probably go even higher. I suggest a speedy keep per WP:SNOW at this point. Qworty (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It appears that while the figure is controversial, they are clearly notable enough for a wikipedia article. There seems to be more than adequate references and no true reason or consensus for deletion. Recommend speedy keep at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of buzz about this guy since the embassy attacks, and lots of news, like so [13]. Unflavoured (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The whole history of his criminal activity does not belong in the article about the attacks. The question of whether he made the movie belongs there, but the being charged with possession of an illegal substance, taking out money in false names etc etc. is not relevant. Amandajm (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Personal opinions about his ability as a filmmaker aside, we have a properly documented article on a purported filmmaker whose actions have given him well publicized noteriety. As with any comprehensive BLP on such individuals, sourced information on even a criminal background has bearing on his subsequent actions and motivations, and serves to increase a reader's understanding of the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The guy's first film and he's world famous already? Just wait to see the sequel! --Niemti (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Organic Lawn Management (band)[edit]

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

Articles on this band have been speedy deleted on several occasions and another was deleted after an AfD in early 2011. I can't determine whether this article simply duplicates earlier versions, and it's been nearly two years, so I decided to bring it here. The reviews in the article do not seem reliable in terms of establishing notability, and I found no significant coverage in GNews or elsewhere for this band; just an official website and social networking sites (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, last.fm, etc). Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 20:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it too lacks sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 20:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This article fails WP:GNG. With a few more reliable sources, I believe this article could stand a chance in the future if written by someone who has the desire to make it decent.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason to delete. I believe that there seems to be no reason to delete this page. There are numerous pages present on Wikipedia which have little to no valid referencing, and viewing the references from this page it seems that the important ones are not just referencing the band's own site. Reviews have been written by people who work for actual music review sites, which to me seems a valid reason for keeping the page. If they're working hard and whoever wrote it isn't trying to break any rules, then it should stay. The fact that they have an album too, which seems to have had work put into it from people other than just themselves, to me, seems to mean that it isn't a run-of-the-mill group who are just trying to conjure up publicity. (I don't quite know how to get IP on here as I don't have a username). 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.55.34 (talk)

Regarding other pages with little or no valid referencing, they have no bearing on this article (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). And, as User:Peridon wrote in the previous AfD, if good references are out there, I welcome their inclusion. Gongshow ^Talk 17:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, surely it does have a bearing. If there are pages present on Wiki with no valid referencing they should not be allowed. That's the whole point of the site, to have a free, accurate encyclopaedia. The fact that this page does have some valid references should count in its favour. Just because one group of people haven't heard of them doesn't make it a valid reason for deletion (see [[14]]). People who read the Live Music Scene website will clearly have been exposed to them. And, re: the AfD in 2011, the page seems to now be more accurately written with more references and notability. 12:09, 15th September 2012, (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.55.34 (talk)

Delete - This article simply does not appear to assert the subject's importance as outlined by WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how notability is met generally or specifically for bands. There is no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason to delete Just another example of wikipedia moderators trying to exercise their power for little to no reason. Moronic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.238.122 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Contrary to the assertion that there is "(n)o apparent reason to delete", the nomination statement articulates a clear reason. I get from the last AFD that this band has a loyal following. However, that isn't the issue. Reliable sources are needed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is just not enough coverage for this band to meet the notability criteria. All but one of the reviews being presented as sources are from user-submitted review sites, and thus are not reliable. There is one that is not, from "Live Music Scene", however, not only am I unsure of that site's reliability, it is still only a singular source, falling short of the multiple reliable sources needed. Rorshacma (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^TSU 08:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Processed World (magazine)[edit]

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

Magazine last published in 2005. Cannot find mention in independent sources. Did include work from notable artists. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A popular anarchist magazine widely read throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and other parts of the United States. It featured many notable authors and artists. Keraunos (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Though I see the merit in keeping this article, to meet Wikipedia's source requirements, this page will need to be completely re-sourced with independent sources.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG:

Laura Fraser (December 8, 1984). "Anti-computer rebels 'byte' back". Globe and Mail. p. M11. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
John Wallace (March 1, 1986). "The high cost of high tech; the dark side of the chip". The Nation. 242: 246. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
Frank Clancy (December 3, 1986). "The 'Far Out' Utne Reader Digests Alternative Press". Los Angeles Times. p. 1. Retrieved September 16, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Denise Caruso (July 14, 1991). "10 Years Of A Wonderfully Bad Attitude Computers & Technology". San Francisco Examiner. p. D14. Retrieved September 16, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Paolo Pontoniere (March 24, 1997). "Cyberculture. The Cd-Rom By The Bay". Los Angeles Times. p. 4. Retrieved September 16, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Jamie Beckett (January 20, 1998). "Activist Looks At S.F.'S Fabled Past "Shaping San Francisco" Is A Cd-Rom With A Purpose". San Francisco Chronicle. p. B3. Retrieved September 16, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Tom Hodgkinson (July 22, 2006). "Idle thoughts". The Guardian. Retrieved September 16, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Amanda Plumb (October 1, 2007). "Zines From The Shop Floor". New Labor Forum. 16 (3/4): 152. doi:10.1080/10957960701279272. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
Gregory J. Scott (March 1, 2012). "Utne Bids Adieu". Minnesota Monthly. 46 (3): 42. Retrieved September 16, 2012.

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per spread of references above. Also found on Highbeam (sub reqd): Washington Post 1989, Chicago Sun Times 1993, The Progressive 2003. AllyD (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Three-lobed Burning eye (magazine). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Lobed Burning Eye[edit]

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

A fictional element appearing in only a single short story, without the notability required for its own article. The creature described is merely a form of Nyarlathotep, who is extensively covered in his own article, and appeared only in the short story The Haunter of the Dark, whose plot is also covered in a seperate article. I would merely redirect this page to one of those, but I actually believe that this article is a misnomer and thus not a valid search term. Its been a number of years since I read this story, but if I recall correctly, the actual creature it is describing is called the titual Haunter of the Dark, and "three-lobed burning eye" is simply a discription of one of its prominent features, not a name for the creature itself. Thus I brought it to AFD instead, as I believe deletion to be the more logical choice. Rorshacma (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- to either The Haunter of the Dark or to Three-lobed Burning eye (magazine). This article is poorly sourced, entirely redundant to the article about the short story, and is more about the character Robert Blake than the titular monster. But I think the existence of the magazine called "Three-lobed Burning eye" proves that the title is a legit search term. Reyk _YO! 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect to the magazine's article is a plausible solution, and one that I had not thought of. I think that would make a lot of sense. Rorshacma (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Redirect or Delete. Does not seem to have independent notability. Eshlare (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambiguate per Reyk; excellent research to find that history of the term.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not have independent notability as per the sourcing requirements at the WP:GNG. No qualms about re-creating it as a redirect or disambiguation if a suitable target can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: I've gone ahead and redirected and histmerged ALL of everything to Three-Lobed Burning Eye, because it's silly to have a "... (magazine)" article without an undisambiguated version. I manually cleaned up the redirects, and histmerged the fictional element, so anyone can merge it from the history of the article, which is now about the magazine, if they want to provide a bit more commentary on the underpinning of the name. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 21 September 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VersaEmerge[edit]

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

Non-notable music project lacking references to support WP:MUSIC and lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. References are mostly blog entries, posts, or other non-independent items. reddogsix (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is coverage at Alternative Press, including an album review and "profiles" on the band inside the magazine. Similarly, Rock Sound has coverage both online and in print. There is also a staff review at Sputnikmusic. On the whole, there looks to be sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BAND. That said, I agree that the article in its current state relies quite heavily on unreliable sites, and most of the band's studio albums/EPs should not have individual articles. Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - VersaEmerge are fairly well known within their genre and, as Gongshow wrote, has had coverage in magazines such as Rock Sound and Alternative press. They have toured internationally and have quite a large fanbase - I do not see why this is up for deletion. I agree that the sources are weak, but there are many more credible sources out there that can be substituted for the current ones. I suggest this be cleaned up, but kept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.227.119 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chippenham Park F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football club. Not played at level 10 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. Perhaps merge info to Chippenham Town F.C. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet notability requirements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that they played at the requiered level. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Step 7 club that has not played in the FA Vase and is therefore not notable. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - haven't played at high enough level to pass the projects "notability-threshold" and hasn't received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The "merge" suggestion seems promising, however, and should be the subject of further discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gale (Loudspeaker)[edit]

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

lack of notability, virtually zero results from the find sources tool. daintalk 22:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well known and widely reviewed manufacturer of hi-fi speakers. What Hi=Fi etc. might not jump out of a Google search but the first page of GNews hits included The Age with "From the UK come the famed Gale loudpseakers, renowned for their classic sound qualities of smooth midrange and upper-end detail". There's a What Hi-Fi review here. Should probably be moved to Gale Limited.--Michig (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is also well beyond the purview of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not generally considered to be a convincing argument when stacked up against "couldn't find any significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources". --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of those annoying cases where old products that people remember from yesteryear get wiped via an AfD because nobody could go in a time machine to document them in reliable web sources. There's a product description here, but as Richer Sounds (apparently) own Gale, that's a primary source. Your google-fu may fare better with a search for "gale silver monitor" --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with parent company Audio Partnership. There's not much coverage of Gale that I can find:[15] and from Google Books "Hi-fi News & Record Review: Volume 24, Issues 1-6" (text not available), although most of the hifi magazines don't publish online so there's almost certainly more out there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Pretty well-known UK manufacturer of high-end hi-fi loudspeakers. If you can't find sources, then your search-fu is clearly weak.

Still, delete per WP:JUNK. If even their PR people couldn't be bothered doing a halfway-decent job, why should we bother? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 7 September 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is disagreement about whether the sources are enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and no real consensus for a merge. Please also note that we cannot usually choose "merge and delete", as doing so would violate Wikipedia's content licence. (See WP:MAD.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open smart grid protocol[edit]

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

Had nominated for G11, was declined and converted to a prod which was just removed as the first edit of a new account...who seems to speak in edit summaries like the other SPAs editing the article. Language is leaning promotional, and seems to me that this may be some SPA's pet project rather than an informative article on a notable topic. Syrthiss (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no legitimate reason to delete this page. It is a valid and informational page. While I did not create the page, I have investigated Open Smart Grid Protocol (OSGP). In addition, I am an expert in the utility industry having worked with a number of utilities and vendors. The references are all correct. They refer to official international standard bodies that have approved the various OSGP related specifications. This is not a promotional page but informative for utilities and other companies looking for information on smart grid protocols. The only reason that someone may want to delete this page is if their company does not support OSGP. If you feel you have a valid reason to justifty removing the page, please state them. Otherwise, let's remove the comment that this article is being considered for deletion, since this is misleading to the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User: Brenwyn is working for Echelon maker of LonWorks and this article is just adverticing for them, not objective and open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your statement about Brenwyn working for Echelon is correct or not; however more importantly is that the information on this page is correct and provides information about a protocol that many companies use and support, not just Echelon. For example,Duke Energy,E.ON, Vattenfall, Fortum, SEAS, and many other utilities are using this protocol for their equipment today. So unless you have any evidence that the information is not factual, I believe that we should remove the comment from the wikipedia page that this article is being considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Information inside this article is very narrow and single sided. The OSGP is NOT an open group nor is the standard designed by a open group but simply the Echelon LonWorks that has been donated. There are many links and sources were Echelon is stating they have donated lonworks as an open standard. Text regarding security flaws are removed even though the European security standard has been removed since it used RC4 @ 64 Bits. There are basically two standards at this moment: NIST GSIP and OSGP, more than 700 companies support NIST GSIP and its IPv6 based and your telling me that OSGP is the best. You must be joking or working for Echelon.

I think it would be best if ONE standard text is made with both standards making a list with pro's and con's and not a commercial text like it is now. Looking at the smart meter wiki: There is a growing trend toward the use of TCP/IP technology as a common communication platform for Smart Meter applications, so that utilities can deploy multiple communication systems, while using IP technology as a common management platform.[70][71] Other solutions suggest the use of a single, universal connector separating the function of the smart grid device and its communication module.[72] A universal metering interface would allow for development and mass production of smart meters and smart grid devices prior to the communication standards being set, and then for the relevant communication modules to be easily added or switched when they are. This would lower the risk of investing in the wrong standard as well as permit a single product to be used globally even if regional communication standards vary. OSGP is NOT based on TCP/IP but on the Lonworks static protocol. QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous sources establishing notability quickly found: [16] [17] [18]. Article can be edited to address problems. --Kvng (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone is incorrectly taking exception to the wording of the name that is used on this wikipedia page. Open Smart Grid Protocol is not being used generically but rather specifically to a specification that was approved by ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) that produces globally-applicable standards for Information and Communications Technologies (ICT).

Here is the link to the OSGP specification, http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/OSG/001_099/001/01.01.01_60/gs_osg001v010101p.pdf

So again, this page references OSGP, which is an actual approved specfication that is used by many utilities worldwide. Therefore, this wikipedia is justified and legitimate, and should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLCmentor (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — PLCmentor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am seeing variations on "it's useful", "it's notable", and "but it's true!". Just a reminder: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The article as it stands contains only primary sources on the nuts and bolts of the protocol. There is little context, and statements like "it is one of the most widely used smart meter and smart grid device networking standards" lack citations. What independent source said that? Braincricket (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion of statements in the article is verifiability. The threshold for inclusion of the article in the encyclopedia (what we're discussing here) is notability. The article can be improved by adding references or removing dubious statements but that's generally independent of the decision to keep or delete. --Kvng (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to smart grid. There are plenty of sources out there, but many of them are press releases like this one published by Reuters. Sources that I'm pretty sure are independent include an article by the EE Times, a mention in an article by Transmission & Distribution World, and an article on smartmeters.com which states that Echelon's OSGP technology "holds an 81 percent share of the smart electricity meters installed in Europe". I agree that the article needs editing, especially to add context and cut back the promotional tone. On a side note, I wonder if there are foreign language sources out there, since this seems to be a European thing. Braincricket (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to smart grid, per WP:GNG. A few further sources:[19][20][21][22] -- Trevj (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a merge produce an WP:UNDUE or {{too long}} problem in the destination article? --Kvng (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I suggested a merge earlier because I thought the article was {{overly detailed}}. If it were cut down to < 200 words, then it could fit in smart grid as its own subsection. But that might not be realistic. Braincricket (talk) 19:03, 15 September 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Comment I have relisted because both merge and keep reasons are about equal at the moment in my opinion. I would appreciate more input.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After two re listings, two weeks and significant discussion, it is probably appropriate to close without consensus. There are other AfD's to fry. ---—Kvng 19:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then merge smart grid, per WP:GNG. LonWorks == OSGP == ESNA == Echelon. There are three smart grid standards at this moment: [1] SGIP-NIST, USA started in 2009 by Obama. Is a truelly open standard activity backed by nearly 800 companies. [2] SG-SC formed by the SG-TF[23] by command of the European Union, is backed by severel hunderes of companies. [3] OSGP backed by ESNA an organisation started by Echelon and backed by 8 others including universities. Is a completely private initiative not backed by countries. The number of installed devices mentioned in many publications are all installed in Italy, Italy was the first country that between 1998 and 2005 switched to remote metering because of the fraud that took place. Since LonWorks was not accepted by the European commision as being the future network for Smart Grid a new organisation was started (ESNA) to support the marketing of LonWorks at that time already renamed into OSGP a name that is very similar to SGIP. Its better to start ONE smart grid article that will include all forms of smart grid that are in development. I am a participating member of the SGIP-NIST working group and a member of the SG-SC in Europe. My company tried to become a member of ESNA but this was refused since our business is closely related to Echelon's. For people that do not believe me simply do a WHOIS on www.esna.org and look who is the person who registrated the name in 2005, next check who is in the board of directors of ESNA the Echelon boss ?. Uhmm the same name !. QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No policy reason given for supporting delete. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean should be deleted. -—Kvng 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then merge to smart grid. - The source information available is mostly press releases (about 100, including republication of the press releases in different sources). Doesn't meet WP:GNG. A first mention of OSGP is on 8 Sept 2010,[24] so the topic hasn't been around that long and may not meet GNG for a while. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If deletion and merging are being jointly proposed, then doesn't that amount to redirecting after deletion? Once deleted, there is nothing to merge. -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to smart grid as noted above. Independently, the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Trusilver 16:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page provides information about a specific protocol (OSGP) that is used by utilities in the US and around the world for smart grid applications and services. This page is about the protocol not some generic information related to the smart grid. Therefore is so not be merged but should be kept as its own page. -—PLCmentor —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — PLCmentor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The issue isn't that it doesn't provide information, but that it doesn't provide notable content. It's based on press releases, not third-party reliable sources, which means the article cannot accurately adhere to WP:N, because the only thing in the article is PR spin; even ignoring the fact that the article fails the notability guidelines, that makes for a poor article at best. - Sudo Ghost 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Press releases and their kin don't do anything for satisfying WP:GNG. I'm not opposed to merging content, but I don't see anything really worth merging. - Sudo Ghost 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You either did not notice or are discounting the sources Braincricket listed above. If the latter, please let us know why. -—Kvng 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Comfort Stairlifts[edit]

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

Although the charitable works of this company may be laudable, neither their business, nor their charitable activities, rise to the level of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well spotted, I can't believe this article has survived so long! Unfortunately there seems to be no general news coverage of the company, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH notability requirements. Sionk (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been BBC News coverage on the BBC Iplayer from BBC Midlands today :- Mon 12th October 2009 and in the local press. No online links to original reports of these are available but there is a vimeo link http://vimeo.com/20949442. I suggest a visit to the British Library, where you can request back copies of the Sentinel newspaper, where numerous reports of this company and some of the work they do are available. Kitesurfer45 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.10.227 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: — Kitesurfer45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:ORG, the depth and breadth of coverage required extends beyond coverage in the company's own local press. Local newspapers often report on the goings on of the company's within their coverage area. Notability requires coverage beyond just this local area. Things that are locally notable are not necessarily globally notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, being the BBC, the news report doesn't name the "stairlift company from Newcastle-under-Lyne". Sionk (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. They are in the news every now and then when they step forward and do good, but the coverage usually is only a sentence or two, not enought from which to develop a Wikipedia article on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:RS. Article probably created in good faith by User talk:Hampk under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia is WP:NOTYELLOW. The Clarion is a free advertorial newsletter. The claims made for The Sentinel are not supported and are dubious this report places it at #20. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:RS. Private philanthropy on behalf of a business won't appear in every local or national newspaper, and why should it. Please proceed with deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitesurfer45 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Springs Golf Course, Srinagar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per No inherited notability. And also Something doesn't become notable automatically, because it exists. The Golf-course has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources. Notability is not inherited, the designer might be notable but the subject itself is not so notable and it's more than likely to fail WP:GNG. Nothing is notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. The Golf Course itself did not receive notice, it doesn't deserve an article, this is what I think. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, a simple Google search helps before making a contradictory !vote at an AfD, as proven below. Mar4d (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE would have worked here. It passes WP:GNG per these sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (page 490), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. (page 18), 11. (page 158), 12, 13. It is ranked as India's #1 course by Golf Digest. --SMS ^Talk 12:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notability proven per sources by SMS. God, this AfD is a joke. Mar4d (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I‘ve not created this page on my village‘s golf cource, see a flickr image. It is still India‘s #1 Golf Cource as per above. It was featured among the Asia‘s top ten golf cources. MehrajMir '^(Talk) 09:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and has encyclopedic information. Rayabhari (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley of Kashmir[edit]

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes WP:BKCRIT, given these and some other source: 1. (Page 46), 2. (Page 2), 3, 4, 5. (Page 38), 6, 7. (Page 20), 8. (Page 275). --SMS ^Talk 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your kidding right? I just looked at the first four sources, all they do is mention the name of the book. There is no indepth coverage in any of them, and this one is not RS[25] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 160+ hits on GScholar[26] confirm that this 100+ year old book was deemed to be a significant book about its topic. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to remove verifiable information like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That search will give hits for "walter" & "lawrence" Sir Walter Lawrence is notable, this book however is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Something doesn't become notable automatically, because it exists. The book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Notability is not inherited, the author is notable but the book itself is not so notable and it's more than likely to fail WP:BKCRIT. No book is notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. If the Book or its content itself did not receive notice, then the BOOK is not notable. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment'- This source [27] says it‘s the best book on Kashmir, this one says it is the famous book. It‘s provided as a reference see. User:Darkness Shines and User:Mrt3366 think that with their actions (reverting my edits, tagging my articles for deletion and harassing me at my talk page) I‘m going to quit. No I‘m not going anywhere and I‘ll continue help wikipedia with my contributions. Thank you. MehrajMir '^(Talk) 14:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may have escaped your notice but your first source is junk, it is one persons opinion and is a story of "what I did on my summer holidays". Your second source does not look much better at all. But more importantly it only gives a single mention. Where are the sources with indepth reviews or discussions on the book? There are none, which is why it fails. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments of Arxiloxos, Mehrajmir13 and SMS - the sources listed are enough to verify that this book passes WP:GNG in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. So far as I can judge, a large proportion of references to Sir Walter Lawrence in subsequent literature are actually quotations from or references to this book - so I'm finding it very difficult to see how the book isn't notable while the author is. Having said that, I can see some reason for having the book covered in a section of the author's article rather than separately. PWilkinson (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mar4d.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - famous books are notable, and once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Konstantin Habsburg-Lothringen[edit]

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

This person lacks any notablity. I understand the inclusion of Otto von Habsburg's children and Ferdinand Zvonimir von Habsburg, the son of the current pretender. But he is not notable even as a former royal. Former royal family don't even get articles passed the son and direct grandson of the pretender on wikipedia. This article should be deleted The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree he is not notable enough to have an article. - dwc lr (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is the third in line to the former throne of Austria-Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He would be significant if it wasn't a former throne, which was basically renounced by his grandfather. I wouldn't object if it was an adult heir to a former monarchy, but he is an eight year-old child, heir to a non-existent throne. For example Prince Vincent of Denmark, a one year-old, is notable because the Danish throne is in existent.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is also an article about Prince Nicholas of Romania who also third in line to a throne of former monarchy (Romania). Okay, Karl Konstantin is only 8 years old, but he is the only prince who had no article from the Austro-Hungarian line of succession TOP5. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only people ahead of Nicholas in the Romanian succession are his mother and his 63 year old aunt who is not going to have any children so he will be claimant to the throne. That is is not the case with Archduke Karl-Konstantin as his cousin Archduke Ferdinand will succeed. - dwc lr (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable pretender to a notable throne. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Galea[edit]

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

Notability seems to depend on the (non-transferable) notability of who he has worked with Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. Examples include: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article now includes enought reliable sources from which to write the Wikipedia article on Stefan Galea per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent updates by Northamerica1000. Sufficient sources now.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pravegeya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. No sources. Harsh (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Well the this new article sat for 32 hours before being sent to AFD.[32] Tagging for issues might have helped, as the film existed and was not unsourcable. Appears to have been completed and is simply awaiting release. Yes, the article author messed up its format and made lots of typos... inlcuding the film's name. It is NOT "Pravegeya" (with an e) but rather "Pravegaya" (with an A). I have just addressed some initial issues with the nominated stub being improperly formated and suffering from many typos.[33] More to do. Input and assistance from Sri Lankan editors would be most appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are some sources in the article (I didn't find any elsewhere). Given the Sri Lankan location of the topic, there probably are more sources for the topic that are not on-line. Meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devaraya (Telugu Film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE Harsh (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. --Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete this one-sentence stub. As with most Indian films, the audio music tracks are almost always released weeks or months before the film itself... and I did find THESE [34][35][36][37] which state that the audio will come out on September 28 2012, but that the project is currently filming. Fails WP:NFF. As this article is premature, we can bring back a far more comprehensive article when the film is released and actually gets some film coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violations should be cleaned up, but copyright violations in themselves are not an argument for deletion, unless the entire article is a blatant copyright violation per CSD G12. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Maria Vattalil[edit]

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

With greatest respect to Rani Maria Vattalil, she appears to have been a nun of local great significance, but without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As for the "Servant of God" assertion, I can find no mention of this in the archives of L'Osservatore Romano. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why reliable preferred for deletion,not unreliable

BEFORE NEGOTIATING DELETION OF this article

you should check UNRELIABLE ARTICLES LIKE Thoma of Villarvattom,which looks funny and which doesnot even exist.i would call it an article on people who never even exist.i would call Thoma of Villarvattom, a ghost article " you have to first negotiate deletion of ghost articles about people whose existence has never happened or imagined by certain people." Users of wikipedia should not show interest in deleting reliable articles --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i can point out thousands of article like this--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and moreover

L'Osservatore Romano online is not the place to search for list of servants of god.for that you have to contact vatican tribunals directly or syro malabar church. i can give you certain indian newspapers links for the same God’s own saints

i dont know whether this will satisfy you

it would be better if somebody remove that deletion tags and for your information i subscribe vatican newspapers. --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not shout. Wikipedia is not the place to get emotionally involved, as there is so much that one editor cannot control. If you want the article to stay, just take the time to remove the biased language from the article and find some reliable sources that assert her significance. We cannot violate the rules of Wikipedia just because the subject of an article is well-liked. For an article to stay, it must be neutral and verifiable. hajat vrc @ 08:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also relevant: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources seem to exist, including an English bio published in India, brief bios in other books, news coverage, and further coverage in Indian and Italian sources. Tidying was required, not deletion. Note on searching: "Sister Rani Maria" seems to be how she's generally referred to. -- 202.124.72.77 (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A great example of a deletion discussion acting as a catalyst for the improvement of the article. The bias is gone and sources have appeared. Nice job! hajat vrc @ 17:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per improvements to the article and comments above. Hopefully someone will be able to watch the article and keep it in good encyclopedic standing. heather walls (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears not to be sufficient reliable information about her to write without copyright violations of ll local articles. Editor above should feel to nominate all other non-reliable article for deletion and canvas the known universe for assistance. Eau (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to what you mean in your first sentence. Would you expand on how a small number of sources necessitates copyright violations? Is there something wrong with the article in its current state? hajat vrc @ 18:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessitate copy vios, it leads to easy copy vios when there is so little information all the editor does is repeat the little that is sitting in the small number of local sources. JohnnyJohnnyScreamAtEveryone's image uploads, all of them, and other articles should also be verified for correct copyright. If he owns the copyright to these web images he uploaded in jpeg pixelated form, they require permissions attaches to the pages and he could upload higher resolution images. If he doesn't they should be removed immediately. Eau (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about the image copyrights, but I am wondering what specifically in the article right now is a copyright violation. I think that the problem here is that most of the sources on Sr. Rani Maria are in other languages (that will not appear if you are using a search engine that is only giving you English results). But Wikipedia has people for that! We just need to give our translators a chance to learn about the article and find the sources. This is not an isolated incident, it has happened before. hajat vrc @ 19:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The contract killer sentence, the landless sentence. So, you didn't bother to read the sources, and you what, we should just ignore image copyright violations? Not much support for this article, is there? Further along in the sainthood process will be further sources, and Wikipedia has plenty of Indian editors to help with translations as necessary. The murder was in Indore? It's probably published in both English and Hindi, then. Eau (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should not ignore image copyright violations. This discussion is about Rani Maria Vattalil, where there is only one image. This image was not uploaded by Johny, but by an administrator who explains the copyright status. Other image copyrights violations should be dealt with elsewhere. I never criticized you for saying there were copyright violations in this article. I asked you where you saw them so I would know. All I ever requested was explanation.

You say there is not much support for the article, and then say that there must be support in Hindi and that we have translators who could access it. So what is the rationale for deleting the entire article? The "landless" clause should be removed immediately because it is copy-and-pasted (I will do that after I submit this). But as far as the rest of the information goes, the similarities between the sources and the article will be rectified when we have more sources (which will be accessible by these translators). hajat vrc @ 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "landless poor" clause was not a copyvio: it's a standard phrase which doesn't even occur in the source. It was not copy-pasted. The similarities between the sources and the article are not a copyvio, but reflect the telling of the same facts. And we don't delete article because actual copyvios might perhaps occur in future. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My interest inbeing wiki-lawyer cudgelled todeath is zero. Wikipedia wastes too much time with wikilawyering allowances to copy and pasters, and there is always more talk, never a jump to just delete the copyrighted information, and it just gets worse and worse. But here we are, not editing, not improving, but talking instead of removing. I feel the cudgel blows reigning down on me, but I have said my say, and leave you to discuss, discuss, cudgel, discuss, discuss, cudgel. Eau (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion has now allowed the information to stay and the copyright violation to be gone. Discussion is good. hajat vrc @ 23:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is good indeed. Hajatvrc's involvement has led to improved wording and an additional source. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Johnyjohny294 has been blocked, the copyvio problem is not likely to continue. -- 202.124.72.76 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Assuming we can get over any COPYVIO issue, this would seem an articel worth keeping because she was a martyr. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 20 September 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi_Dolidze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Giorgi Dolidze

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

Insufficient reliable, independent and secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In Georgia, he is known as Gogi Dolidze, "Gogi" being a hypocorism for "George". As a Georgia native, I can say he is definitely famous in Georgia, but it was really hard to find any reliable English-language sources beyond a government website, mentioning a festival in his honor attended by high-ranking guests, and a local label, which has released his posthumous album.--Kober^Talk 02:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Georgian or Russian are perfectly acceptable if you can find any. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the spelling in Cyrillic: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Beautiful though the Georgian script may be, I'm afraid I don't have the competence to work out what the spelling would be in that. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Baghdad#Education. There is a weak consensus that the sources aren't quite enough to support an stand-alone article. I am redirecting rather than deleting because of the precedent at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mama_ayser_center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mama ayser center

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

Insufficient reliable, independent and secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 13:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable primary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baghdad#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, with merging if and as apppropriate to provide a mention, which should have been done instead of AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - (Per the reliable sources, the name of the Wikipedia article should be Mama Ayser). Surprisingly, there's some information in English language sources: World Today June 29, 2004 and Reuters July 2, 2010. There probably is other source material in Iraq language reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aparajit Deb[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional TV character.Rayabhari (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom Harsh (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG no significant coverage in secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sources, making it impossible to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Aur Do Paanch[edit]

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

I came across this article literally at random and noticed that it was completely unsourced. A search for sources has not brought up anything to show that this film is yet notable or has even finished shooting. I think they've started filming but had to stop filming at one point in time, but there's been no coverage of this at all in reliable sources to show that it has been picked back up or even has a release date or time period for release. There doesn't even seem to be reliable sources to back up the actors that are starring in it, and many of them appear to be quite notable. I would PROD it, but there's a language barrier here. I did a search with Google translate, but I wanted to run this through AfD just in case someone else could find sources I was unable to find. There's just not anything here to show this passes WP:NFF, let alone WP:NFILM in general. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NYF. While numerous non-RS give cast and crew,[38] the article itself asserts "Latest bollywood rumors suggest that the producers are releasing the film very shortly." Let it be released and get some actual coverage before returning the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above Harsh (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and above comments. ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 06:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Lutterworth[edit]

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

Article asserts no notability: first line of the lead says: "Radio Lutterworth aspires to become a full time community radio station......" The radio station is basically just an online radio station with no notability. They have not been able to successfully get a radio license. The radio station does not have any connections with any notable people (neither personalities or owners). Also there are zero WP:RS in the article and simply just a link to the website. There are two links within the article to articles the Lutterworth Mail website (which does not have its own article on Wikipedia.) Originally attempted PROD, but another user believes otherwise, so I have brought this to AFD -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following was added by an unregistered user on the article's talk page: This page should not be deleted as that would undermine the work of the project. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.111.207 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I very much doubt that community radio stations (such as this) are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though there is some disagreement over whether the subject passes WP:GNG, the WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP arguments point to a delete result. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alf Stewart's Rape Dungeon[edit]

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

Five minutes of notoriety about to expire, fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:WEB and WP:NOTFILM, no lasting significance and failed notability. WWGB (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first article about it is dated 2010, and it was in today's paper, so I'm thinking that is more than 5 minutes, no? Deathlibrarian

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, nobody wants to opine on this one so I'll start. This is essentially a couple YouTube videos with a naughty parody theme, backed with a Facebook fan group. The series seems to have generated furor both with the righteously offended and with cultural opportunists looking to be offended. It had its 15 minutes in the sun and was the recipient of what might be called ordinary and expected news coverage. While there are sources showing, they seem to me to be dismissable on NOTNEWS grounds, even though the "news" was thoroughly manufactured on the proverbial slow news day. The bottom line isn't that this is offensive — I haven't checked the videos, but the concept is sort of funny in a sick way, which is neither here nor there — the bottom line is that this is not a subject of lasting cultural importance, nor is it encyclopedic in any but the most expansive sense. It's a borderline call. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Ray Meagher: the incident is briefly mentioned there in a very unclear fashion, so bearing in mind all the reputable sources given for this article it would make sense to merge it there and redirect so anyone who's really interested can find it. (Even though there are a few reliable sources on this article, it doesn't count as notable due to NOTNEWS/single-event status.) I might suggest a redirect, but you'd then get to Meagher and have no obvious idea what the rape dungeon was, so a full or selective merge is better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without merge): As per nom Harsh (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I believe, considering these works were first written about in 2010, and were last reported in 2012 they qualify for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:PERSISTENCE - as their existence is more persistent than something that is having simply "15 minutes in the sun".....WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Not sure why people keep trying to push this angle when the dates of the articles are clearly indicated in the article's references. I agree, if an article was being put up about them in 2010 it would have qualified for WP:NOTNEWS at that point, but not now. Also, there are now quite a lot of these videos, with many hundreds of thousands of views, and two of the videos have now been exhibited at the Sydney_Underground_Film_Festival as short films where the director spoke. So to just call these a "couple YouTube videos" seems.....a little bit minimalist!. User:deathlibrarian (talk) 128.250.5.247 (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can document mainstream media coverage of the director speaking at the festival, I'd be happy to get out of the way. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All these articles refer to the director speaking at the Sydney_Underground_Film_Festival about this work

“Home and Away actor’s gritty new role” The Morning Bulletin, 7th September 2012.
Taylor, Andrew. “Actor Verballed into a foul tirade” The Age, September 5, 2012
Murada, Laura “Risque films at Underground Film Festival” Inner-West Weekly, 6 September 2012
“Sydney Underground Film Festival” The Glebe, 5 September 2012
Thomas, Sarah “Festival” The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 September 2012

Cheers - User:deathlibrarian (talk)

Comment. After almost two weeks, the only keep !vote comes from the article's author. Over to you, closing Admin. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, raises WP:BLP issues. There's one news article from May 24, 2010[39] that was reprinted in a few places on May 24th and 25th and a BLP damage control reply news article in the Herald Sun on August 6, 2010 that notes, "Judy Nunn has leapt to the defence of her former on-screen husband Ray Meagher after he was linked to a Facebook page promoting rape. Gold Logie winner Meagher, who plays lovable TV stalwart Alf Stewart on Home and Away, also appears in character on YouTube clips with offensive words dubbed over his own. ... 'So I think he's bewildered by it, but the one thing that I know would anger him, does anger him as it angers me, and I think any intelligent person, is that anybody that puts this sort of stuff out without their name to it is just of course the ultimate coward.' " That's seems to be it for the reliable source information. Let's not continue to count Wikipedia in the list of those causing angst in Ray Meagher's personal life. Per WWGB above, over to you, closing Admin. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishikant dixit[edit]

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

Many external links are provided. All hoax. None of the links claim any single sentence in the article. Not a notable person. HARSH (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very clear that this article be deleted as soon as possible. All the links provided in the article have no information on the subject matter, many of which are empty. ~~The article creator is disgusted due to it being nominated for deletion for personal reasons. He has abused me here~~. HARSH (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person described in this article does not exist. If someone had appeared in that number of TV shows and films, they would have sufficient mention in the big national papers in English to easily reference an article. No mentions at all. I've tried the other transliterations of the name, same result. Some of the films don't appear to exist, as well. (I suspect some of the details, minus film and television appearances) may well describe a living person, but that's another matter.)--Shirt58 (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This appears to be a hoax. FurrySings (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. LlamaDude78 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An actor named 'Nishikant dixit' does seem to exist. A google search would reveal this. See [40]. A you tube search would give clippings and google would give images. He is obviously not a lead actor and not a celebrity, hence no in-depth media writeups. Does he meet the notability criteria? I dont know. May the other editors decide. It appears that Nishikant dixit is a professional actor and has acted in many films, and hence qualifies better than amateur short time celebrities like Santhosh Pandit who has survived many AfDs just because he was a media candy for over an year. But I do not yet know whether 'Nishikant dixit' satisfies the notability criteria independently other than by such comparisons. Austria156 (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Firstly, when this was relisted (somewhat prematurely), it seems that it was removed from the August 28 listing. secondly, most of the deletion arguments support deletion because the article is a hoax; Austria156 has demonstrated that the article is not a hoax, so none of these argument are relevant any more. A discussion on whether Dixit is notable would be helpful now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Last relist to invite more discussion. Reminder for next week's closing admin though: since Austria156 and ItsZippy has pointed out that this isn't a hoax, if no one else adds to the discussion, it should be closed as "no quorum, default to keep" rather than "delete".

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had nominated the article for the reason it being hoax and not notable. The article isn't hoax but the Notability criteria cannot be established here. Harsh (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete If you believe IMDb, there is definitely an actor by this name. However, there is no source that I can see for any of the biographical data. He is barely scraping at the edges of notability: I'm not that up on film notability but I have to wonder whether they would support having an article that consists of nothing more than a list of roles. Mangoe (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of reliable sources with which to write an encyclopedic entry and demonstrate that he meets the notability criteria for an article. The only thing I can find is some kind of a mention in the Hindi cinema year book: Volume 6 where his name seems to be listed with others. His list of roles suggest that he is a working actor but not one that performs leading roles and so it seems to me that he is unlikely to meet the criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a consensus that the subject of this article doesn't yet pass the general notability guideline, but the argument that sources may become available in the future has persuaded me to userfy rather than delete. The article can now be found at User:Bgillesp/Stuart Prince (French portrait). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Prince Charlie (Versailles portrait)[edit]

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

I nominate this somewhat reluctantly, since it is an interesting article. Unfortunately, it is based almost entirely on email communication with an anonymous expert. Without a reliable published source, the whole basis of the article disappears, along with the notability of the painting in question. I also note that the painting in question seems to be for sale. St Anselm (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is not for sale, and does have a current owner. The published source is an auction house catalogue concerning a sale made earlier this year. The article has been amended to give the name and website of the paris expert who gave the identity of the portrait. Other references to ongoing discussion with other experts has been removed until such time as they publish their opinions.Bgillesp (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~, relatively new article (July 14th, 2012), mark as unsourced, wait for new sources. Francl (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, the sole author has acknowledged that such published sources do not exist. St Anselm (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sorry, missed talk page arguments. Francl (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive rewrite: should hopefully meet all guidelines now.Bgillesp (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references that I can actually access mentions the painting, and the whole thing has a strong WP:OR quality which tends to lead me to believe that we are being used to help sell this painting. I would be more inclined toward good faith about the book references if there were page references, but since there aren't, I am more inclined to believe that they don't discuss this painting. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The painting has been out of circulation for generations; there are no references, neither in books, nor on the net. Please keep to facts stated in the article and not to unfounded opinions; the painting is not for sale. Your "feelings" about "good faith" are subjective. To my knowledge all of the Wiki guidelines we have worked on over the past month have been met. If your intention is to destroy at any cost, then just say you want to kill the article now.Bgillesp (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REtain but tag for improvement. A portrait of of Young Pretender is certainly notable (if that is what it is). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can determine, the article exists to advance the argument that this is such a portrait. It doesn't appear to be simply relating some outside consensus. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 8 September 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, Der yck C. 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this with some reluctance, as the ESSAY is of some interest, as is the portrait. However, Wikipedia is not to be used to argue a case or advance a cause in lieu of actual evidence, and the article certainly does not have multiple reliable sources to back it up. Perhaps userfy and await better sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All opinions deleted from article; only verifiable facts kept. Now, it does not advance any cause at all, but only informs. All sources are reliable; the word "multiple," used above is subjective. If an unknown painting comes to light, the request for excessive information is a logical impossibility; this does not impair Wikipedia's role to inform. Are you saying that Stonehenge should not exist in Wikipedia because there are not mutiple reliable sources to say what it is or where it came from?Bgillesp (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is just about all fixed now, except for the name of the article. The only problem is, there is no notability - all we have is the art catalogue. What makes this painting special? St Anselm (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, we can respect the work done, but it is now crystal clear that adequate sources simply do not yet exist. Very likely it is just WP:TOOSOON for an article - no doubt one will be possible one day. As for Stonehenge, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument against deletion; but as it happens, there are extensive reliable sources on many aspects of that monument. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that for Stonehenge, there are articles published, year after year, in popular and scientific journals discussing its origins (or lamenting that they are not known). That doesn't seem to be the case here: this is all just one person's thoughts. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am happy to change the name of the article to, for example: Stuart Prince; French portrait, if you can tell me how to. The work on this portrait is ongoing; factual discoveries will be written in as they become available; the notability is progressing.Bgillesp (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC) OK; the name of the article has been changed; please confirm if acceptable.Bgillesp (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this misses the point. The article is citing the (as far as I can tell) unpublished, personal opinion of one expert, and then proceeding to lay out that person's argument in the style of advocacy (it may not be actively advocating a position, but it is still running through this expert's unpublished arguments, one by one). That is not what Wikipedia is for, and changing the article name does little to resolve this problem. There needs to have been significant coverage of the debate, or at a minimum of the painting, for it to merit an article, and I see no evidence that it has been noticed at all. We have a painting of an unknown subject (theories aside) by an unknown artist (theories aside) in an unknown private collection, that nobody seems to care about enough for it anything to have appeared in print. This clearly falls short of the bar. Agricolae (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experts are entitled to opinion and to express them; that's what they do for a living: their credibility improves our understanding. The description this expert has given is indeed published in French in the given description and the link is in the article. As you say, there is no active advocacy in the article, so your remark about "running through unpublished arguments" seems illogical. The article name was changed because the previous auditor said that this is all that was necessary to bring it into line: in fact all of the changes, asked for since August, have been made. The portrait has only been recently brought to light: debate has been indeed significant, but you cannot have have seen it. Your comment, "nobody seems to care about," is gratuitous, and probably spoken in anger, although I don't see what there is to get angry about. Objectively, there has been no modern exposure of this portrait at all, but thanks to WP, we can inform with just the facts and help knowledge progress: the article in its original form explained a lot of this, but has been reduced by successive rewriting.Bgillesp (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experts are entitled to their opinion about something notable, and their credibility may improve our understanding, but it does not improve the notability of something otherwise obscure. You say they have published and that the link is given in the article. The only links provided in the article are: 1) the web page of the expert's firm, which as far as I can tell has no information about the portrait and which is self-published anyhow; 2) an auction catalog which includes 197 items, none highlighted more than the next; 3) a generic blog that does not discuss the portrait; and 4) a web page describing a different portrait. None of these establish notability. There is no anger involved in my assessment - it is simply based on the fact that the only cited sources are the web page of the expert's firm, an auction catalog, a generic blog and a web page describing a different portrait (and it is poor practice to take a sentence out of context and then characterize my mindset from this distortion - I said 'care enough for something to appear in print' and I stand by that as accurate, at least based on the citations that currently appear in the article, not angry). Even you yourself admit there has been no modern exposure. Wikipedia is intended to reflect the exposure that something gets/has gotten, not to promote public awareness of something obscure. It is not a soapbox. Agricolae (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bgillesp, this still misses the basic point that without "significant coverage in reliable sources", the article does not pass the threshold of Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. The guideline is quite short. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are working hard to improve notability.212.198.132.243 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do that, and then a Wikipedia page could reflect that notability - you don't establish notability by creating a Wikipedia page. Agricolae (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - total lack of notability and reliable sources. Agricolae (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that this is interesting, but, as the main editor, Bgillesp, says, "The work on this portrait is ongoing; factual discoveries will be written in as they become available; the notability is progressing". However, it still is a very long way from meeting Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. It is time to close this debate, and I thought of doing it myself, but I will leave this suggestion for further discussion. This article should be moved to Bgillesp's user space to allow him to continue to work on it as sources become available. It should not exist in article space until there are better sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On bloodlust: a quotation from The Old man and the Boy, by Robert Ruark: "A man who takes pleasure in death just for death's sake is rotten somewhere inside."Bgillesp (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what relevance this has to this painting. Please clarify. Agricolae (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My garden needs to be weeded, and so does Wikipedia. And I would also observe that a weed is a plant that is growing where it is unwanted. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Talking about you, not about the painting; you and the rest of this wolfpack.Bgillesp (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, Bgillesp. We recognise that you are not happy because your article is not receiving wide acceptance. However, wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and this article does not yet meet the notability guideline for acceptance. So accept my recommendation above and allow this to be moved into your name space, where you can work on it as more sources become available. Then, and only then, can it be moved back into article space. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then perhaps you are unfamiliar with WP:NPA, where it directs editors to: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough coverage in Wikipedia reliable sources for a stand alone article that meets WP:GNG. Starting from a point where the material should not be in article space, the article headed in the wrong direction by promoting the auction house that made the sale, promoting the name and website of the Paris expert who gave the identity of the portrait, etc. Terms such as reliable source and notable have specific meanings in Wikipedia and there doesn't seem to be any effort to adhere to those for this topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward A. Shadid[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG for politicians. SarahStierch (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... this seems like sort of a borderline case, doesn't it? I'm going to need to give this one some further examination.

OK, so for this article, the relevant notability guidelines would be the ones listed at WP:POLITICIAN. For this article to be retained, it must meet one of the following two criteria (a third one is listed, but it is basically a reiteration of the second one, so I will not add it here):

Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices: This is obviously not applicable to Shadid, who has only ever held local office in Oklahoma City.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage: This is the criterion that needs to be met in order for Shadid's article to be retained. So far, I'm not 100% sure either way, although I'm leaning towards the argument that this person probably isn't given enough significant coverage for inclusion. This Google search brings up several relevant results from reliable sources, but none of them appear to establish national or international notability (ie. outside of Oklahoma City), which means the bare minimum in his care would have to be subnational importance. The most eye-catching assertion of notability for Shadid is the fact that Ralph Nader allegedly spoke at one of his events; however, the source provided merely states that Nader spoke to a group of people there, and does not specify who was actually hosting the social gathering.

In the bitter end, after all's been said and done, I'm leaning towards delete. The dubious notability of the article's subject notwithstanding, I subscribe to the belief that the threshold should be higher for BLPs. Since this is such a borderline case (at least from my perspective), I'm a bit more comfortable with deleting it as opposed to keeping it. Kurtis (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier article promoting the appearance of Ralph Nader specified that Ed Shadid was hosting the event. http://capitolbeatok.com/reports/nader-will-visit-oklahoma-city-to-boost-ballot-access-reforms It might also be noteworthy that in addition to being a member of the city council in the capital city of Oklahoma he also ran for state office and received the endorsement of two political parties in the state. Both the Green Party and the Pirate Party endorsed him in his 2010 bid for House Seat 85. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/07/oklahoma-green-party-endorses-dr-edward-shadid-for-ok-state-house/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/38689737/Edward-Shadid-Response-to-the-Pirate-Party-of-Oklahoma-Endorsement-Survey German oklahoman (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader did travel to speak at an event for Dr. Ed Shadid. http://www.capitolbeatok.com/reports/analysis-nader-s-ballot-access-message-may-prove-persuasive Dr. Shadid is considered the most progressive politician in Oklahoma. He has held 3 town halls that average 400 people each time. https://vimeo.com/edshadid/videos. Shadid's cousin was NY Times journalist Anthony Shadid, multiple Pulitzer Prize winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedFlag46 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shadid spoke at the national convention of the Arab American Anti-discrimination Committees earlier this year, and was quoted in POLITICO. His remarks caused some consternation as it is thought he alleged that his cousin was murdered. See the story at http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/shadid-said-to-have-blamed-death-on-nyt-127119.html which also has a video of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeaceokc

A report in the NY Times Examiner about Dr. Ed Shadid's comments on his cousin's death. http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/06/dr-edward-shadids-remarks-on-anthony-shadid-at-adc-convention/ jpeaceokc

This is a much longer article from the TRUTHOUT website about Dr. Shadid's commments about the responsibility of the NY Times for the death of his brother in Syria. It gives a lot more significant details than the POLITICO story, quoting Dr. Ed Shadid as its source. http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10204-burying-the-story-along-with-the-body-anthony-shadid-and-the-new-york-times jpeaceokc

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a politician, the subject fails the criteria necessary for a stand alone article set forth at WP:POLITICIAN. Although I do not think it is necessary, I have no strong objections to a redirect to Anthony Shadid since his comments regarding Anthony Shadid's death did receive media coverage. The relevant guideline regarding redirect would be WP:BLP1E. Location (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A significant number of new citations have been added to the article. --Jmbranum (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a mistaken assumption that Politician is the only possibly applicable notability guideline. --No unique names 04:45, 12 September 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, Der yck C. 14:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New sources added, none particularly reliable. No significant coverage; much of this article is about the death of his cousin. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Some of the cited sources may not be deemed to be reliable, but other cited sources are, such as the citations to The Oklahoman, The Oklahoma Gazette, The Edmond Sun and the NY Times. The first 3 are significant media outlets in Oklahoma, while the last is a significant world-wide media source. --Jmbranum (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, raises Wikipedia:Coatrack and thus WP:BLP issues. Even his political efforts didn't generate much source coverage. There's some information on a Dr. Edward Shadid, but that may be about the dad: Wife's obit: Oklahoman May 1, 2003, son's obit: Oklahoman October 15, 2004, he sold his home: Oklahoman November 11, 2006, Edward Shadid (born February 6, 1926) obit in the January 22, 2007 Oklahoman. As for the subject of the Wikipedia article, the following may be relevant: a Hammam, Dina v. Shadid, Edward A. II divorce Oklahoman May 12, 2007, Doc plans house calls at condo project in OKC: Journal Record February 28, 2008,. Then there's the usual newspaper statistical information that is published when a person runs for office. After that was published, there a sentence about Shadid in Los Angeles Times December 17, 2010. That's about it. Seems the current Wikipedia article is more of a Wikipedia:Coatrack used to get negative information about or connected with Dr. Shadid into Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the Wikipedia:Coatrack allegation. The article has no negative information about Shadid. --Jmbranum (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Exact Change...[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. There just doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. No evidence of awards. No evidence of charting. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find coverage by third party sources to further substantiate the article. As soon as my finals are over. Thanks in advance. --Asamhiphop (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear notable per the general notability guideline. Googling for "exact change" "bambu" on Google News and News archives turned up nothing, while Google Books hits appeared to be false positives. CtP (t • c) 19:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – one source is a deleted Wikipedia article, and the other is a retailer. A search for reliable critical coverage of the song returned little to nothing. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. No other Delete votes, nothing to see here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rachana Shah[edit]

WP:WITHDRAWN Withdrawn after suffcient review

No, withdrawn after this horrific edit by the nominator. Could a non-involved editor have a look, please?Esowteric+Talk 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horrific ? be specific on what horrified you . Shrikanthv (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet Wiki GNG criteria and references qouted are possible work done by the person ( no proof of reference also) Shrikanthv (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was asked to help rescue the article by the creator, a relatively new editor, Hewagpc (from the first of two A7 speedy deletion requests which were both declined). By and large, book design is an unsung profession. The book designer rarely gets a mention whilst the author takes the accolades. Reliable, secondary sources have described or commented on the design (which is a key feature of Timbuctoo) and even if they do not name the designer, nevertheless that is credit to the designer for the work; just as comment about the prose adds credit to the author, whether or not the reviewer names the author. This description in the media is, or should be, considered the equivalent of an artist having works featured in a public art gallery. There should not be a systemic bias in Wikipedia against a whole class of visual artist. Members of Book publishing people -> Category:Book artists, just twenty six; Book designers, one. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 14:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Hi Esowteric yes i guess it is a unknown profession , often in the lime light may be , but the only thing i am concerend here is , she has resume linked as reference and the links seems to market her business , and the only thing the editor you have mentioned has edited the husband of rachana shah ( has considerable WikiGNG ) and one more person . it seems the editor may be is also strongly linked to Rachana shah or her husband , but it is going to be only adding reliable sources (sources from newspapers or any publication wp:rs as you know already ) can help as currently it seems pure promotion for me Shrikanthv (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Shrikanthv: I agree that in BLPs -- though not prohibited -- primary sources must be used "with extreme care". We appear to have two strands here: Rachana Shah the book designer and Rachana Shah the person. What, if anything, can be rescued? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 15:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intention in creating this page was NOT promotion, but to provide information, as this page is linked to from other pages and removing this page will then create red links. So, in the light of attempting to improve this page and prevent deletion, how would you recommend improving it? First it was marked for speedy deletion because she wasn't thought to be notable enough. So we added more info on her career. Now, that same info that was added on her career leads YOU to think that this article is promotion. It seems like everyone has a different criteria, and this is totally arbitrary. Would you be happier if I removed all reference to her earlier career? What can we do here? Hewagpc (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should assume good faith here. Esowteric+Talk 15:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikanthv has a habit of accusing established editors of having a WP:COI such as being a promoter or agent and not assuming good faith. I find this pattern disturbing especially since he's used this as an excuse in the past to revert contributions and label them 'vandalism'. See [41] as an example that happened only a few days ago. This should be considered a second warning -- and further trends along calling legitimate contributions as vandalism or making baseless accusations will mean taking this to WP:ANI. Mkdw ^talk 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My main intentions are nothing but WP:GNG i am going to rewrite to sound neutral , YA I and MKDW were fighting over different article ,may be find me thus soo Shrikanthv (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I am going to rework the article to get neutral POV". Is that a good idea at this stage, ast the start of an Afd brought by you? And I see no banners or tags in the article about NPOV. Maybe wait and see what uninvolved editors recommend? This edit beggars belief! Esowteric+Talk 07:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beggar ? belief ? can you be more specific , please have detailed look of the things been deleted , it was written like a story and that too of a living person. i just deleted the fluffery and story telling tone out to make it look like a encyclopedia and not a novel Shrikanthv (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Completely baseless accusation against other editors and with out substantiation. This is not an acceptable grounds for an AfD and make this an illegitimate nomination in bad faith. In regards to the GNG comment, the article is about a published article and perhaps you missed The New York Times and The Independent references. Mkdw ^talk 23:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahil abbas[edit]

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

Prod removed by page creator, who also seems to be the subject of the article. Article appears to be solely created to promote the subject. There is no coverage in reliable sources and the "References" given are Youtube videos, Facebook, google groups and the subject's own website all of which fail WP:RS. Overall the subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- Fails WP:GNG and search engine test. No reliable references have been cited. Not a notable subject. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- provided references like Google group is acceptable because it is an active group with good amount of users, the link from google group is not new it was posted on 12/10/2010 and 2/3/2011 for public information and announcement not specifically for wikipedia references, secondly don't miss CrunchBase source, crunchbase reference is authentic and acceptable because they are moderating profiles like wikipedia. youtube links are evidence of his participation for noha, manqabat, naat, surood reciting from childhood to till date. and now he is public figure, when you search for "rahil abbas" on google, google will show you related search terms like "contact rahil abbas", "rahil abbas download" which is another evidence that people looking for information about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravish.rizvi (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As explained to you already, google groups is not a reliable source since anyone can post on there. Neither is crunchbase, which seems to be a site very much like linkedin where anyone can post a profile. That you have also posted videos about yourself to youtube is also very far from our notability requirements, which require reliable third party sources to have taken note of you. I suggest again that you have a read of WP:GNG and WP:RS. Valenciano (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Dear Valenciano i found one source of khadim e aza award, i found some stuff on google groups and other fb pages which is not acceptable by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.222.8 (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP whose only other contribution to Wikipedia has been this bit of vandalism suddenly pops up to defend this article. Please read WP:SOCK. Also, this is not a vote, in the end the decision whether to keep this article will depend on you producing third party reliable sources which prove that you are notable. Valenciano (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Valenciano replace all unwanted youtube / facebook / google group links, also checked history of this IP vandalism, this ip used by more than 50 people and no idea about previous worst contribution, yesterday i was looking for this person and found wikipedia link with deleted nomination there for added stuff according to my knowledge and what ever information available about him on different different sites, not much friendly with wiki editing but tried my best to keep this article on wiki by providing resources, that will be helpful for other people looking for information about him as well as maybe in future more people will contribute if they will notice availability of this article on wikipedia. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.222.8 (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:My suggestion is also same, if you keep this article sure lots of other people will contribute in future, now days people looking for him on web, so keeping this article is good for readers as well as other contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.4.209.5 (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another account with absolutely no contributions outside this topic. The article currently has absolutely no reliable sources, it uses only 2 which are effectively a blog and a linkedin style profile. Thus notability is not established and you should also read WP:ITSUSEFUL for arguments to avoid. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if people like me will find this article, sure they will contribute and try to add more information about him with sources available online, there is no connection with new or old user for updating this article, because our community people wants more information about him, and sure people like me will contribute more if will find this article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.4.209.5 (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable subject; fails WP:RS. Delete.-Rayabhari (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found these articles relevant & can be useful to other people in future.So continuing the articles will get people relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshmehtaugc (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of sock (meat?) puppetry going on here is unreal. This is not a vote. Valenciano (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Valenciano, and Rayabhari, i created this article for the people looking for more information about him, well Eulogy Recitation is not a profession (its religious act), not like someone singing a song and become singer and get more and more attention by acceptable sources, there are some other people profiles available on wikipedia, those reciting noha (eulogy), like Nadeem Sarwar, Syed Ali Muhammad Rizvi (Sachay Bhai), Ali Haider, if you will check these article, you will not get any acceptable resources but people want information about them, and they are updating articles as per available information on the net. reciting noha is not professional act therefore media attention is very less, and wiki accept related sources due to lack of media coverage, for more you can check see also list of Rahil abbas like Mourning of Muharram, Karbala Ta Karbala, , Soaz etc, requesting you to close this discussion and let this article ON for other people, once they will notice, sure they will contribute as per guideline provided by wikipedia.--Ravish.rizvi (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as pointed out to you before, if you want this article kept you need to find reliable sources about yourself. Simply arguing over and over that it's useful will not see this kept. Valenciano (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC Harsh (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps If the text is to be believed, she would be definitely notable as an early Indian film actress. The problem is that the only apparent source is a blog. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person notable. She is the daughter of first female director of a motion picture in India and popular actor of British India; she acted both in silent movies as well as talkie movies; the article needs to be sourced and rewritten. Secondary sources required. Article being rewritten/improved.-Rayabhari (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Certainly notable. Article may need to be cleaned and some sources (secondary at least: considering the timeline) need to be added. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multi-decade film career. I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt and assume these are mostly starring or at least significant roles. Does need better sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - This doesn't have any chance it will be kept, only keep is probably the author of the article signed out. . GB fan 03:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

W3leaf.com[edit]

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

Non-notable, advert for a website. CSD tags removed 4x by creator, 1x by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a self promotional page. This page is created to provide people with accurate information of what the website is all about and what's its purpose. It might seem like an advert, but the intention is not self-promotion. It is only to create an informational page for the website. In due course of time, more details will become available for this website and the content can be verified. ([[User talk:|talk]]) 00:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 203.35.135.171 (talk • contribs)

speedily delete Utterly promotional text. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – qualifies for criteria A7 for speedy deletion, as the article doesn't claim importance at all. Also, my searches failed to find any indication of notability. Klilidiplomus+Talk 12:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with whoever put speedy tags on this five times; there is no notability here and none found upon a search. There are no reliable sources. Given the history, I understand why this is at AfD, as a necessary preliminary to WP:SALT. Ubelowme _U ^Me 12:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 and G11, as my original tags indicated (Ubelowme, that was me, not that it matters.) I don't think this really needs to be at AfD, but no worries. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I know from experience that it takes extra time and effort to keep returning and replacing the tags in the face of someone who's not playing by the rules, so well done on that. I also think I understand the train of thought that brings it to AfD and agree with it; kind of overkill, in some respects, but it makes sure there's an end to the process. Ubelowme _U ^Me 13:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. My thoughts on going to AfD are simple - based on my experience, if someone repeatedly removes CSD tags, they are likely to repeatedly reintroduce non-encyclopedic articles. By doing an AfD, it allows any reintroductions to be speedily deleted and starts the record to salt the article name, if necessary. GregJackP Boomer! 13:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non notable website, and entirely self promotional. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As others have said, the website is not notable at all (with an alexa rank of 7 million!). I think it also counts as Advertising. - Willrocks10 Speak to me 20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete seems like an Ad to me ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^Talk ^Email 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on delete. Promotional. To quote, "It's a good way...", which is not encyclopedic. --Mysterytrey 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been speedied. Non-notable and unsalvagable spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable and promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - surely qualifies as both A7 and G11. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Obvious reasons. Not notable Harsh (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I almost closed this as keep but in the end I think it more appropriately falls as no consensus to delete rather than consensus to keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetics & Toiletries[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine and I can't find sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The only relevant links I found were this YouTube video, one small mention here and three links focusing with the magazine's awards here, here and here. Additionally, this magazine is mentioned once at this press release. Considering that the article claims the magazine has been publishing since 1906, I thought I would also search with Google News archives but found nearly of all the links were "subscription required" from highbeam.com SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that sources are subscription only is not an argument for deletion--sources don't have to be online at all. The article mentions that this publication was called American Perfumer or some variation thereon from 1906 to 1972, and GNews does reveal at least a few sources that seem treat this as a significant trade publication[42]. If that's not enough, I'd think merging it to Allured Business Media would be a better result than deletion--there are lots of sources that talk about the publisher and its assorted publications, including this one. The article is written in a rather spammy style, as is the Allured article, and if kept it would be nice to clean that up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sources can be books or other non-Internet references, but I believe online sources may help if the viewer wants to verify the content themselves. Although your Google News link shows results, it's possible that the company may not have received significant coverage at its young. Additionally, I searched Google News archives for "Essential Oil Review" and only found two results here (seventh from the top) and here (sixth from the top). SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 28. Snotbot t • c » 11:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now If the text is accurate, this is a 106 year old magazine and of significant scale, albeit 1/2 of a split of it. Needs references. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Last relist. If nobody brings any new argument to this discussion by this time next week, this should be closed as no quorum.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 11:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - An historic magazine first published in 1906. Sources may be available offline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per Amalthea's investigation. Also: clear consensus anyway. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Eden[edit]

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

This nomination is on behalf of User talk:124.181.127.71, as requested on my talk page after I offered on Talk:Eternal Eden. Note: I have no opinion on whether the page should be deleted. Their rationale:

It fails to meet the General Notability Guideline and does not have enough sufficient coverage in its sources. Of the sources, three are from the game creator's website, two are trivial mentions that do not really provide any coverage on the game, and two of the "reviews" (the Game Tunnel review and the Aussie Nintendo review) are no longer online and just redirect to a "page not found" error. The last two sources are from the same website (RPGFan) which I don't see listed in WP:VG/S.

David 1217 ^{What I've done} 17:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not the most popular game, but it reported in some 3rd party materials, and a 3DS remake is in development. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/24069 ScienceApe (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The link you cite isn't significant coverage, and whether it's being remade is irrelevant to the game's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.203.74 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say the link is significant coverage, but it is some coverage. The fact that it's being remade is in fact reported by 3rd party sources and contributes to notability. ScienceApe (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per nom. There does seem to be some coverage of the game, but I personally think that more than the sources quoted in the article are needed, given that two no longer exist, and the rest are trivial mentions. The game being remade on Nintendo 3DS is interesting and it may lend some credibility but we must remember that notability is not inherited - I could make a game myself and then have it "remade" in Nintendo 3DS, and the existence of either one does not lend notability to the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.132.38 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ignoring most of the sources in the article as far as this discussion is concerned, there's this Gamertell review and here is the Game Tunnel review (don't forget the Wayback Machine folks, easily done, I do it myself regularly). There are also review on Jay is Games and another at Gamezebo - please note that Jayisgames does not enjoy the video game project's stamp of approval as a reliable source, however it is one I use regularly due to their longevity and relevance within the indie gaming sector. Gamezebo should have no strong objections however. Regarding the 3DS port, according to the developer's blog he is working on another game called Faerie'O so the 3DS port is not something that will have any bearing or relevant coverage for some time, should it ever happen. Short version: There's enough non-trivial coverage in reliable though not top-drawer sources to pass GNG IMO OMGLOLWTFBBQ. Someone another 10:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Weak Keep I'm happy to keep the article since there seems to be enough additional coverage. The nominator's concern was that the sources present in the article are no longer valid, so if these can be updated, I think it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.5.179 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC) CU note: likely sock vote struck. Amalthea 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral from me, but I just wanted to point out that I've made the suggested changes to the sources and, given that there are multiple reliable sources, the article seems fine to pass the GNG. ArkRe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 September 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, Der yck C. 11:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems only JUST significant. It needs to be tidied up a bit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Someoneanother's rationale. 148.168.96.23 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CU note: OK, it seems all accounts that do not opine to keep this article, including the IP on whose behalf this AfD was started, are one and the same person (or close enough as makes no matter) -- and possibly affiliated with a competitor since they quite determinedly do everything to have Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords be kept.
Considering this, I would recommend closing this AfD as a bad faith nomination.
And to be clear, David1217 is of course merely the victim of his own helpfulness here. Happened to me once, too. :)
Amalthea 20:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. I didn't notice that something fishy was up... David 1217 ^{What I've done} 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are more than enough reliable sources to establish notability. Also, for what it's worth there is a blog post from the developer that says the game is being re-released in the Unity Pro engine. If this article is kept, changes will need to be made to reflect that it isn't just an RPG Maker game. Sentient Cat (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:GNG requires reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus here is that the local newspapers that are frequency cited are not sufficiently independent, and no other significant sources have been presented. -Scottywong | confess _ 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service[edit]

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

All of the sources used on this article are not even one step separated from Georgetown University. There is nothing notable about this group. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, as I've said about other articles recently nominated, I think there is a genuine misunderstanding about the nature of student and local journalism here. The nominator is lumping in both newspapers like The Hoya, which does receive support from the school, with local ones that don't, like The Georgetown Voice and The Georgetown Metropolitan. There's an NBC news featurette that's no longer available, thought its accompanying story was archived. Overall, this is notable much in the way other city EMT groups are, this is just the one that serves Georgetown University Hospital and NW DC.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if The Hoya does not get support from the school. The Hoya is still the local newspaper for the school which is affiliated with the school in all matters. This medical service is in no way notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just think that the idea of an affiliation between this EMT service and the newspapers is being overstated. And about the NBC reference you removed today, like I said above, the TV news story in which GERMS was prominently featured is no longer hosted on their site, so I'm not sure what do about it other than to link to the archived page where it had been available.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NBC link did not mention GERMS at all. That's why it was removed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several other sources beyond the student newspaper as stated by Patrickneil. --Patrick (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - without giving an opinion about the article itself (I have commented on others elsewhere and am waiting to see if some can be brought up to scratch) I would like to make a suggestion: a good start would be to remove all the references from The Hoya and other on-campus student sources so that you can argue your case against only reliable, independent sources. Link spamming reference from The Hoya is only going to make other editors think (rightly or wrongly) that the article fails WP:GNG and that involved (in some cases openly COI) editors are trying to create notability where it does not exist. Whether you agree or not, consensus seems to be that those sources are not independent. Given the article for The Hoya openly says the paper has financial links to the University, tried to cut them and failed, it is easy to see how that conclusion could be drawn. Get rid of them, build your case with the independent sources you say exist and these articles will all be saved. The reality is that if an article relies (entirely) on The Hoya to meet the "significant coverage" tag then it probably fails WP:GNG already, regardless of independence. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete To keep this, there needs to be an assertion of notability that lifts this above the dozens of other ambulance services in the area. If you could get a MSM source or something like that saying that a student-run service like this was remarkable, then I think there would be reason to keep it. Right now I don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. I would like to see more discussion about Stalwart111's comment, and also about how the sources in the article fare with regard to WP:CORPDEPTH. (Note: I was meaning to add this relisting comment before Mangoe's comment above, but got sidetracked.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111 posted that same comment on several of the deletion requests in this category, and I'm not sure I have much new to say. The user derides use of student and local newspapers as "link spamming", claiming some consensus against them that I am unaware of, and argues that the newspapers are somehow a product of this EMT group by shear proximity. There was a televised news report about this group, but User:Ryulong removed that reference, and I'm not sure how to reference it since the video is no longer hosted online. Other than that, the most mainstream source I've added is The Washington Times, but I don't think a user like Stalwart111 will be satisfied until everything below his standards, like The Hoya, is struck from Wikipedia.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't deny the fact that overusing the student newspaper as a source is not helpful when it's about something from the same campus. It seems like the notability of everything on the Georgetown campus is being supported by Georgetown sources, giving us 2 page reports on all of the student organizations. There isn't this much coverage of my alma mater's Iron Arrow Honor Society, and they were the subject of a Supreme Court case.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Patrick but that's a pretty clear (and mischievous) misreading of my comments here and elsewhere. The only paper I mentioned above was The Hoya and I didn't make any comment about other local non-student papers which are clearly independent reliable sources. Where there is coverage from non-student papers, that should be sourced. Where the coverage is by students, of students, for students (of the same University) then it doesn't help to try and use only those to establish notability against WP:GNG. If you want to continue to argue that the subjects all meet WP:GNG even where they are basically only covered in one questionably-independent student paper, you are free to do so. My point about "link-spamming" was that it looked like those who created the pages knew theymight struggle to meet WP:GNG and so filled the reflist with articles from The Hoya to counter that perception. The consensus against considering The Hoya an independent source was fairly clear in a number of those discussions. You are free to argue against that consensus both there and here. But those arguing FOR The Hoya as an independent source didn't seem to be having much luck, so my suggestion was that proponents should try to establish notability (if they think it can be) without using The Hoya. If it can, great, end of discussion. If it can't be, then we should have a further discussion about the context in which The Hoya and other student papers should be considered. I certainly did not claim the newspapers were a "product" of the EMT group - only that it was a struggle to make the case that a paper with financial ties to the university could be considered independent of other organisations that are part of the same broad university organisation. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think it should be obvious that the student paper is not evidence towards general notability. As I said above, I would expect some outside-the-university reason as to why we would include this service when ordinarily an ambulance service wouldn't be considered notable simply for existing. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A reliable source is a reliable source. Per WP:NEWSORG - "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." Of course student news papers publish corrections. Regarding Stalwart111's comment, there's plenty of reliable source material in the article itself for the topic per WP:GNG. The sourced article has plenty of depth and that depth came from the sources, so I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH as an issue. If The Hoya doesn't write about the Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service the medical service won't respond to The Hoya staff's medical needs? No. The Hoya has editorial independence from Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service (e.g., the service doesn't dictate content of The Hoya) and no one has brought forth any conflicts of interest (potential for personal, financial, or political gain from The Hoya) regarding Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service. The Hoya is independent of the topic. Reliable sources publish information, Wikipedia summarizes that information. It's a fairly straight forward process. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While The Hoya can be used to source statements about Georgetown University organizations, it shouldn't be used as a notability metric because they are both entities within the same organization, even if there is some separation between them.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict of interest is fairly obvious, I thought, looking even at the article for The Hoya which says it is not financially independent of the University. In fact, some of the news articles used as sources by the WP article talk about lobbying of the University, by The Hoya, for funding for the subject (and by the board, in the interests of its student readers, not editorial lobbying). And that is perfectly fine - it should be perfectly fine. We should expect student papers to operate in their reader's best interests (as non-student papers do). But WP:GNG requires independent sources to verify notability. The fact that the newspaper engages in fact-checking (a fact not disputed by the way) does not does not automatically mitigate potential conflicts of interest, surely? Without references from The Hoya, some of the articles were without sources altogether so notability against WP:GNG simply could not be established. There is no question as to the reliability of the source in an editorial sense, but I don't think it could be considered independent. If there is an alternate view, even an alternate consensus, that's fine by me. But given (at other AfDs) there were a number of people who expressed the same view, I suggested (here and elsewhere) that other sources be found to verify notability (if they could be). In some cases that has happened, in other cases, not. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, it's worth having a read of WP:UNI/AG with particular reference to the "Reliable Sources" section. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have satisfactory coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Georgetown-related coverage is inapplicable because of the close connection through the GU community, especially since such coverage does not indicate "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as described in WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete local organisations can be notable , but if they engage in only local activities it is not likely. Local sources will cover them as a matter of course. This coverage is not selective, purely routine, and therefore indiscriminate. Thus it does not show notability. In a sense, that's a technical argument, because we ourselves define what we consider a reliable source according to what we want to consider notable enough for an article. I do not think it notable enough, so I use a restrictive definition. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Scottywong | babble _ 18:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two X[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. This group was announced August 11, made their first appearance just over a week ago, and first album released last Monday. Lots of info about five living people here (including birthdates and bloodtypes), and no sources to speak of. Article appears to have links to 16 articles in other languages, but only the Korean one exists. This is in my mind entirely promotional material, but since the group works for J.Tune Camp (Rain's music label), I didn't tag for speedy. A reasonable search for sources is hindered by the vast number of unrelated hits drawn by the common connection between "Two" and "X". BusterD (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The underscore in the deletion text above is a bug in the code for NewPagesFeed tool which I used to create this process. BusterD (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed quite a bit of BLP information such as height/weight, birth date, family members, and blood type (??) in accordance with WP:BLP and because it is unencyclopedic to the point of being ridiculous. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't understand of why Two X article should be deleted. I mean all the BLP information about the members of this group was previously revealed by J.Tune Camp (Rain's music label)through their official cafe which I've provide the source link on external links column. But of cause its in korean language and I myself translated those infos. If the arguments is because this group had just debuted over a week ago I really have to disagree on this. Other groups for such SKARF and AOA (band) also debuted at the same time but I can see there's no problem on their article released. —6to5mboys^Talk 13:29, 28 August 2012 (KST)

Both those articles are up for deletion under same basic criteria. Wikipedia is not a directory of new bands. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then how long should we wait so that we can actually create a wikipedia page for new bands/musicians? —6to5mboys^Talk 17:54 , 29 August 2012 (KST) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes point two of WP:BAND. "Double Up" charted and peaked at number 22 on the albums chart. [43]. — ξ ^xplicit 22:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google News turns up some potential sources such as this. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy per WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, notwithstanding the achievements of the group members. Note that WP:BAND states A musician or ensemble ... may be notable... (my emphasis). GNG is still needed. I found nothing in reliable sources, although I admit that the generic name and non-English aspect don't aid searches. -- Trevj (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Mathematics[edit]

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

tausif(talk) 09:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be more sensible if the person who made this nomination explained why s/he wished to have the article deleted? That question asked, having just looked at the article myself, I can understand why it (i.e. the nomination) is being made. All the article says is that "Combined mathematics is a combination of pure and applied mathematics in Sri Lanka". Firstly, I cannot believe the term is constrained to Sri Lanka - but then again, I am not a mathematician. I would have thought that this was a topic which could merit some attention, but would need a much more informed and informative article to make the article worth keeping. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close— nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion. Till 10:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can save ourselves the trouble of taking this around for another pass, because if this is speedily closed I'm just going to put it up again. Anyone can look at the article and see that it lacks any citations or even enough context to really quite figure out what it is about. As best I can determine, it might be saying that in Sri Lanka the two courses are taught as a single, combined unit. This does not strike me as a notable assertion, and I'm not clear that this is what it intends anyway. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find any real sources that talk about the term "combined mathematics" in the context that it is being used in this article. The only reference I can find to anything involving the term in Sri Lanka is a very brief mention that seems to indicate that it is, like Mangoe suggested, merely a math course that teaches two different subjects, and is hardly notable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the Zü[edit]

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

Non-notable physical comic turned webcomic. A search for sources brought up four sources, all by the Arizona Daily Star and all seem to be brief mentions of "we're going to run this as a test". [44] [45] [46] [47] I was unable to find any other sources or anything to show that this was really all that widely syndicated or received any widespread coverage. Not all comic strips are notable, not even syndicated ones. A search under the various names did not bring up any reliable sources. I'm aware that there's a time barrier here, as this was initially released back in the 90s, so I'm bringing it to AfD rather than just PRODing it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. The only sources available are just the brief mentions that the Arizona Daily Star had a test run of it, which was apparantly met with a poor reception as it was not picked up past the test. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plan B discography. All articles fail notability requirements. -Scottywong | squeal _ 18:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time 4 Plan B[edit]

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

This article does not meet the criteria for notability as it did not chart, this release received no coverage in any news sources, the article itself is little more than a track listing and is unlikely to ever progress past stub level. Also the articles Plan B discography and list of Plan B songs are being used to deal with the subject of Plan B's less notable releases. Ellm6 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same notability reasons as given above for Time 4 Plan B also apply to these articles too:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note from article creator: Hi. I noticed that you suggested that my Plan B articles be deleted. I created those articles as I felt the were notable enough and that many fans could benefit from knowing about those mixtapes/EPs (in particular Paint it Blacker as that is the most advanced & informed article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djjazzyb (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles. So far the only argument for keeping them is that it's useful, however the subject matter is not notable enough for Wikipedia and these articles will probably never progress further than a stub. - Ellm6 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I can agree that that It's Time 4 Plan B & Time 4 Plan B are just stubs, I also think that Paint it Blacker can be considered a full enough article. I also feel that the former two articles may progress further than stub. Kane (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost impossible for these articles to progress past a stub. For several of the recommended sections given in the Manual of Style for albums (e.g. Writing, recording, release details, critical reception, chart performance etc), the information simply does not exist so how can these articles be expanded? Paint It Blacker may be a slight exception but first I think we need to establish if it is notable enough for its own article? - Ellm6 (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the articles are still there and no one has commented here for nearly a week. I'm removing the deletion notices. K. (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the deletion notices - they should stay up until the discussion has been closed. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:02, 13 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to Plan B discography. The individual albums do not seem to possess the notability and references needed to exist as stand alone articles. However, redirecting them to the discography page seems appropriate, as that is the standard practice for non-notable albums by notable musicians. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me this then, what makes the Paint It Blacker bootleg in particular more notable than say, a Beatles bootleg, or a Rolling Stones bootleg? K. (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to Paint It Blacker the term "Bootleg album" is a bit ambiguous. It's not like a bootleg such as a concert recorded by a fan of the artist, but that these songs consisted of unauthorised samples making them bootleg recordings made by Plan B himself. I think that most readers are in agreement that these subjects are not really notable enough for their own articles, but a consensus has yet to be reached on the best course of action (e.g. deletion, re-direct, merge etc) - Ellm6 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but can you not agree that this information could be found useful by some people? KANE 16:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoCo Goodson[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; this player fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as she hasn't played in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 08:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no fully professional women soccer league in the World. She plays at the highest level for women's soccer. She earns a professional salary for playing. Her club qualifies for one of the most elite women's soccer club competition in the world i.e. UEFA Women's Champion League. She is extremely notable. She is notable as professional player and a collegiate athlete. She has garnered awards as professional athlete (player of the week in the Dutch league) and two time All American for UC-Irvine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer4015233 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 September 2012‎
Delete: You just said it... there is no fully professional league! That is what is needed via NFOOTY and thus she fails (and WP:GNG). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are no fully professional women's leagues means that WP:NFOOTBALL is not an appropriate test of notability for women footballers, not they are automatically unnotable. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, she fails WP:GNG, which does make her non-notable. – Kosm1 fent 13:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there have been fully-professional women's leagues before (WPS) but now there are none... simples. If you believe that one should be added then go on the talk page and discuss it. Add a note here for a closing admin so he/she wont do anything till the discussion on that league is done. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 13:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a soccer player that hasn't played in a fully pro league (obviously, since there are none for female soccer players) or represented her country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More important is that the article fails WP:GNG, as there is not enough coverage in reliable sources about her. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Optivion[edit]

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

A musician who has only self-released music. No independent and reliable sources. Has been speedily deleted multiple times. Article has refs that didn't back up what was being sourced or didn't mention Optivion. Prod was removed for unknown reasons. Sockpuppets appear to be involved. Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2012

Delete. After running simple searches on Google, subject fails criteria 1, 3 and 4 of WP:ARTIST. The prominent sources are only social networking sites. It's too soon for this. GuterTag (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, no reliable sources, easily seen to be a deletion candidate. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. The only mentions of this artist/musician to be found are through social media and personal sites. It could potentially even be speedy deleted, as there is no real claim of notability for this individual. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only found a press release.[48] No reliable sources - doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and social consequences of the Innocence of Muslims movie controversy[edit]

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

It's unclear at this point whether this film even exists (see 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks and refs there), on top of a lack of information specifically on economic and social issues (that isn't better covered elsewhere.) We shouldn't have an article on a controversy about something that may not exist. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The movie may... NOT exists??? If that's true it's really unbelievable what disinformation arrives at! Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks reddogsix (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete<b\> Nothing here that isn't already mentioned in the main article. Economic consequences? ... doubtful Alandeus (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Covered at Innocence of Muslims and 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks in greater depth, and not a useful search term. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Speedy delete: A10. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rob's argument. We already have established articles where this kind of coverage can be included. It is far too premature to have a spin-off article like this. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little is usable to Innocence of Muslims or 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks. The detail about the farmhouse I hadn't seen before. I should point out that the premise of this article, that the attacks are a "consequence" of the film, however widely repeated, is absurd - Al Qaida attacked U.S. embassies and they attacked on September 11, and they didn't need the film as excuse, it was just handy cover. You don't bring RPGs to a spontaneous demonstration. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all this info is in the article on the attack and doesn't add anything. It also attempts to draw a cause-and-effect, while in reality there are numerous RS sources saying that the movie was used as a pretext. Thus, the article as a whole would be taking a particular view and using that. --Activism1234 00:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film exists and the "consequences" are better covered elsewhere. Religious controversy aside, as a cinematic effort, it stinks. I have rarey seen such autrociously bad scripting, acting, green screen effects, and over-dubbing. Seriously, a poorly made film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my initial objection to the article being about a controversy over a possibly non-existent film was a bit specious, since there could have been a controversy even if it was entirely fake. (Which is also still unclear past the YouTube clip, but not that relevant here.) That said, still firmly Delete per other initial reasons given and ones brought up; material is minimal and better suited for existing articles, and cause-and-effect is inappropriately drawn per Activism1234's comment and lack of sources to back up even the article title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... even short films that never get past Youtube are considered films and, however bad this one is cinematically, it has been confirmed as an actual feature length project that did have at least one poorly received public screening before creating such a furor.[49]Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And the article contains...nothing. It seems as if a stub was thrown up in the anticipation that there will be economic and social consequences from the film at some point down the road. Articles should cover things that currently exist, not things that might exist in the future. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Fujimoto[edit]

Akira Fujimoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

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

Article does not demonstrate notability of person. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Yes the article clearly demonstrates the notability of the person in the area of computer graphics, based on reliable thrid party references: technical books and major industry (CG) journals, as well as personally: how many Poles you know who were granted Japanese citizenship? Not to mention media attention. - Altenmann >t 15:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article at present very clearly does not demonstrate the notability of the person in the area of computer graphics. It appears to be a vanity article and possibly an autobiography. There are references to just three papers, and a rather POV discussion of how some Japanese people were surprised by his software. So, it clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC criteria. If you believe this person has made a significant contribution to graphics which is not demonstrated in the article, perhaps you should edit the article to demonstrate what. Becoming a Japanese citizen is not notable by itself; there are many thousands of non-Japan-born people doing this every year, from a variety of countries. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two large interviews in major computer graphics journals is hardly vanity, but respectful notability. His contribution ot computer graphics is not grounddbreaking, but known to specialists, and his citation index is good. There was not "how some Japanese people..." it was police investigation with lots of noise in Japanese press. Your way of twisting facts is not commendable. Your phrase "not demonstrated" baffles me. It is demonstrated and refferred to a survey paper. Are we reading the same article? - Altenmann >t 01:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input Altenmann. As I said I judged this article against the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. While he has had some published papers, this is true for any number of people who work in academia, and it doesn't qualify as notability unless it can be demonstrated that he has had some influence, as discussed at the criteria. Can you please demonstrate how he meets the above criteria? Thanks. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was not an academic. And he was notable enough for major industry journals (did say this twice already?) to do large interviews. Bieng included in a survey of computer graphic approaches in a major computer graphics book means notability in industry. And this is enough notability to me. It is good that wikipedia has higher notability statndards for academics that for pornstars: you don's ask whether big bare tits had some influence. Surely they had, without question. - Altenmann >t 22:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guidelines does he meet then? enough notability for me, so maybe you could put this article on your personal blog. Can you argue from the Wikipedia policies? JoshuSasori (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have a personal blog. And you are free not to include him in your personal blog. If you don't know which guideline is applicable to such cases, may be you don't have to vote in such cases. I presented my arguments. You mocked them. Once again, your way to carry out a discussion strikes me as inappropriate. I am no longer talking to you. Let other people have their say. - Altenmann >t 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article's references consist of academic publications by the person concerned I suppose the academic criteria are the ones to apply. I don't see how he is notable, and you don't seem to have a cogent response. Why do you think I am mocking your arguments? your way to carry out a discussion strikes me as inappropriate hum JoshuSasori (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I ran a quick Google search for 藤本彰 to see what I could see, knowing zero Japanese, and observe that there is a NOTABILITY flag up on the article on this subject at Japanese Wikipedia. Bearing in mind that doesn't mean anything here, that might mean something here... Carrite (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - A search through IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications here [50] for his name brings up exactly five articles from the 1986-1992 time period in a trade publication. Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi have nothing on the 1987 "incident" referenced; even if there were, WP:NOT#NEWS applies to this individual in question. Naturalization in Japan is no grounds for WP:N since Lafcadio Hearn with very few exceptions such as Marutei Tsurunen. This article fails WP:N and WP:RS and there is no room for consideration of improvement in either. I would push for this to be Salted were it not for the chance an individual may qualify under WP:ENT with the same Romanized name in the near or distant future. Jun Kayama 16:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not have access to the sources cited, but as far as I can tell this person is no more notable than the average successful businessman. Consensus on the wiki is that we do not need articles on such people. At the very least, about half of the content should probably be cut as being poorly referenced trivia. -- LWG ^talk 03:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have to agree, the subject does not look like it meets WP:GNG. An interesting fellow, maybe, but not notable by Wikipedia standards. Would also not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC as an expert in his field, though the original author contends this criteria should not be applied. Given the company itself has not been considered notable enough for it's own article, this serves as the article covering both the company and its founder. As such, if the company itself was notable, we could propose an article covering it instead, with a section on its founder and redirect this article there. But I can't find anything that would suggest the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH to the extent where it would warrant its own article. Could perhaps userfy to allow User:Altenmann to work on it in his own space if he thinks it can be saved... Stalwart111 (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested to jump through the hoops to convince y'all that a person who was granted two major interviews in main industry journals is more notable and more important to mankind than a pornstar. - Altenmann >t 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but you should be aware that the standard burden of proof applied to begin with and the article should have been properly sourced from the start. So realistically, had you jumped through those hoops at the start (as required and as stated beneath every article editing window), we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Not doing so, and then refusing to engage here is not particularly helpful to the consensus-building process. A number of editors have since suggested sources for the article and these are being debated/considered. It's up to you whether you want to be involved in that process or not. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The Kyodo news reports quoted do not lead to live URLs, and as stated previously, Yomiuri et al lead to dead ends. The USAF publication no longer exists. No one should have to pay USD19 for an article out of IEEE or JPY3500 for a Kyodo subscription to get the facts on a minor criminal investigation. Those five articles in IEEE are the only basis for WP:RS and they date from 1987-1992 with no leads to follow-on sources. Whether the publication itself meets WP:N is questionable at best. There is nothing in Japanese language sources which establishes WP:N. Datamining to find "significant coverage" to defend this article is the equivalent of dumpster diving. The only credible outcome here is deletion. Jun Kayama 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - For what it's worth, the corresponding article on the Japanese Wikipedia is also tagged for questionable notability. Dekimasuよ! 06:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LWG. In fact this article could be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7, as the only claim of notability – "the first commercially feasible rendering software system called ARTS (Accelerated Ray Tracing System)" – (if true at all) should have been reported in Accelerated Ray Tracing System article (which currently doesn't exist), and claim of the subject's notability can be found in this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Send to the Recycle Bin. Neither him nor his company have been deemed notable by reliable sources. He may be an interesting person, but so are the 7 billion others on Earth. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty of source information on Akira Fujimoto, from as early 1995[51] and as late as November 2011.[52] While those two sources merely establish the range from which to draw source material, there is enought reliable source material between those dates to meet WP:GNG and write a Wikipedia article on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant to be a joke? It's obvious from reading those articles that they're about two different people with the same name. One is a T-shirt seller in Little Tokyo in the USA, and the other one is president of a supermarket (Maxvalu Nishinihon). There is no evidence at all that either one of them is the same person as the subject of this article, and there is no evidence of notability in either of the articles. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source coverage includes:

Significant coverage: "Two Poles Arrested For Collecting Computer Data". Japan Economic Newswire. March 10, 1987.

Significant coverage: "Computer Co. Head Denies Spy Charges". Japan Economic Newswire. March 11, 1987.

Significant coverage: "Two Alleged High-Tech Polish Spies Deported". Japan Economic Newswire. March 13, 1987.

"Current News: Espionage". Current News, Espionage. United States Department of the Air Force: 61. 1987. OCLC 271579722. Retrieved September 16, 2012.

Significant coverage: "An Interview with Akira Fujimoto". IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. 9 (3): 4–10. May/Jun, 1989. doi:10.1109/MCG.1989.10018. Retrieved September 16, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Arvo, James; Kirk, David (1989). "A Survey of Ray Tracing Acceleration Techniques". In Glassner, Andrew S (ed.). An Introduction to Ray Tracing. London: Academic Press. p. 223 of 329. ISBN 0-12-286160-4. OCLC 802651641. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)

Other coverage would include a good likelihood of source material in Polish language and that not on the Internet. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of thes sources don't demonstrate his notability – probably the notability of his product. BTW the first four are about the single event and thus are considered as one source per WP:N. FWIW it would be a natural choice to selectively merge this article into Accelerated Ray Tracing System, but it doesn't exist. As the sources are listed here, there is no need to preserve the article in subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW there is an article about him on Polish Wikipedia, and it has yet less sources. Though it doesn't mean that there are no good sources in Polish, it means that he is not of much interest to Polish sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure if any of the Kyodo News reports or the Air Force documents are significant coverage of him or not. It seems that they are actually about incidents that involved him, not actually about him. Even the Air Force documents are not significant coverage of him, it only mentions his name. The most promising of the sources given above would most likely be the interview, and even then I'm not sure if it will be enough for establishing notability (although it can be used in expanding the article should be kept). I also tried searching using his birth name (Polish name) but results were inconclusive. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not convinced that the sources provided actually establish sufficient notability to justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The near-illusory Kyodo reports in question point to notability for this individual solely in terms of a minor criminal investigation, so even if those sources are legitimate, whatever article that remained would not be congratulatory. Jun Kayama 17:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Who Needs Actions When You Got Words. Both No Good (Plan B song) and Charmaine (rap song) should be merged, and the redirects should stay as they are, as they may be useful search terms. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Good (Plan B song)[edit]

No Good (Plan B song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article does not show why the song is notable, as it did not appear on any charts. The two major points of this article seem to be the different release formats and the Kelly Charles/The Prodigy sample. The fact that it was released alone is not enough for it to be notable. I think a more suitable way of publishing this information would be a detailed mention in the "You're No Good for Me" article instead. Ellm6 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because "Charmaine" is also not notable and the article is factually inaccurate as it was never released as a single:

Charmaine (rap song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And the following re-directs because most of the singles from Plan B's first album Who Needs Actions When You Got Words did not chart and were not very notable, therefore there will never be any good articles about these subjects, so instead of being re-directs they should be deleted permanently

Dead and Buried (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dead and Buried (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kidz / Dead and Buried (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Missing Links (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No More Eatin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sick 2 Def (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sick 2 Def (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sick 2 Def / No Good (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge No Good (Plan B song), to Who Needs Actions When You Got Words, the album from which it comes (I don't think it's quite notable and the album article already discusses various songs). Keep the redirects: a redirect doesn't have to be notable, it just has to be a plausible search term, which some of these are. You don't seem to understand the purpose of redirects: they're not placeholders for future articles (read Wikipedia:Redirect), and anyway redirects proposed for deletion should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment - [we should delete] "No Good" as it is not notable OR Merge with "You're No Good for Me", the song which this covers. Delete "Charmaine" as this also is not notable. Delete re-directs because all of Plan B's singles from his first album (except for "Mama (Loves a Crackhead)") did not chart, which means they do not meet notablity criteria. They have been previously deleted however I don't see why there are so many pointless re-directs, especially as it is unlikely that any of these will ever develop into good articles. - Ellm6 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a consensus, not a vote, please only give your stated opinion once. Given you nominated the articles for deletion is it assumed you remain in favour of deletion unless you withdraw your nomination. There is no need for you to also vote "Delete". Please also note the comment from • Gene93k above - redirects are designed to allow visitors to be directed to relevant articles. They are not place-holders for future articles or an indication of articles that will one day be created. Whether or not they will one day be good articles has no bearing on whether they are useful redirects. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand that this is not a vote, I think that there has been enough time for a discussion about these articles and now we need to reach a consensus quickly over what to do. I think we should merge "No Good" with "You're No Good for Me"; delete "Charmaine" altogether; I'm not too bothered if the re-directs remain or not I just think they are a bit pointless. Especially as there are more than one re-directs for the same subject (e.g. "Dead and Buried (song)" and "Dead and Buried (single)") - Ellm6 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As a general rule they stay open for 7 days. But if they haven't had many comments then they are re-listed (as this one was, twice) for further comment. For the sake of getting it moving I will add a proper comment also. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as suggested above. Maybe add some more details to Who Needs Actions When You Got Words for clarity. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - the track was officially released as a single, on several different official formats (such as 7" and 12" plus DVD single). Just because it didn't chart doesn't make it unworthy - a singles discography is a singles discography. We don't just pick and choose the singles we keep, as it is a complete record. IWannaABillionaire111 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The lack of real agreement about whether the sources mentioned pass WP:GNG, plus the relative lack of participation, point to a no consensus close. Feel free to renominate in a few months. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Les Trophées du Libre[edit]

Les Trophées du Libre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

no assertion of notability, no refs, 2 other language articles also unreffed Widefox (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment last (unreffed) sentence on Enigform indicates this contest has gone owing money - I will tag that {cn}, but this indicates wider problems with these articles I'm looking at as similarly promotional. Widefox (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: there are several search results in Google News, which seemingly allow the subject to pass WP:GNG ([53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] and [59]; some of these have more articles on topic). The "weak" part is there because I rely on Google News' judgment of reliability, as I'm not familiar with French and German news ecosystem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment organisation must be dead 3 years - the referenced website/domain is dead www.trophees-du-libre.org last archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090609172259/http://www.trophees-du-libre.org/ (and www.tropheesdulibre.org is in Russian, no wayback). I know the German news (but not the French) [60] would be a RS. More like (old) news. Widefox (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that www.tropheesdulibre.org is a splog as of now. That said, it is believed that Notability is not temporary, so unless the subject failed to make considerable impact (it is an award after all), it should probably stay. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
impact wise, it failed - minor news items, sure but not notable. I was surprised I'd never heard of it, (like you) I've been in FOSS years, but can understand if you think there's a couple of RS we should keep it. Have you got another one? Widefox (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can also confirm thi contest was really popular during 5 years in FOSS world in france (2003 to 2009). The contest has cease now because, contest was organized by a very small local government agencie, and fund to organize it was locked after 2009. So this contest does not exists anymore, however, because it did exists and was popular (even if notability was in France only), I think we should keep this page.--Eldy (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Women's Kirin Challenge Cup. I chose redirection over deletion as this could be a plausible search term. Any needed content can be merged in from the page history. Editors should also feel free to redirect the 2012 article, although that isn't an official part of this close. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Women's Kirin Challenge Cup[edit]

2013 Women's Kirin Challenge Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No sources available at all. Looks like a hoax, as author has produced before (and got blocked for) The Banner _talk 02:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, and the tournament itself - Women's Kirin Challenge Cup - doesn't even have an article. The nom might want to also look at 2012 Women's Kirin Challenge Cup. Giant Snowman 11:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look earlier and the first source mentiones the full name of the tournament. So that one is def not a hoax. The Banner _talk 13:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not a hoax but again, like the men's tournament, these two seasons of the tournament should be combined. If you dont mind, I shall take the liberty of doing so. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is best for the innocent reader is the way to go... The Banner _talk 18:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and 2012 and create main page: This should be like the mens Kirin Cup in which every tournament is on the main page and honestly why is a tournament that is around 3-5 games long get its own page. Every tournament should be on the main Women's Kirin Cup page (when created). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this and 2012 Women's Kirin Challenge Cup to Women's Kirin Challenge Cup, as the content is already merge into the parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2013 teams are already added. I just hid them because I could not find any sources proving that those are the teams. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've got no problem with the article(s) having their own pages but i see no source(s) for those groups and teams at the 2013 edition. So long it should be redirected. Kante4 (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a fairly weak keep, but there seems to be consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. There is a strong consensus that the article needs cleaning up to avoid issues of promotionalism and COI. Editors should feel free to remove dubious material and to stub-ify the article if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Arshad Khan[edit]

Muhammad Arshad Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is not an article, this is an advertisement, either by the subject or by a totally biased fan. (Believe it or not, it's been worse.) Orange Mike | Talk 22:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Care to expand? Maybe here and/or on the article's Talk page? Or do you just have a vendetta against the article and its author? Sionk (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply to comment - read the article: it reads like something from a gushing fanpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good reason for clean-up. Do you have a rationale for deletion based on Wikipedia policy? Sionk (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a great deal of words on the page but they add up to very little that supports notability per WP:ARTIST. The sources provided are for the most part promotional in nature and are either press release copy, fluff pieces of little value (for our purposes) or passing mentions. If we were to edit out the POV wording and aggrandizing prose, we'd be left with very little. Simply does not pass WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 23:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very adverty, plus it fails WP: GNG with no reliable sources. Electric Catfish 17:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - poorly written and 'adverty' as others have said, but it cites a number of news/book sources so probably meets the minimum for WP:GNG. Annecdotally, there seems to be a tendency for 'flowery' language in parts of the Asian subcontinent, editors should be helping to increase coverage of this area and help improve articles, rather than delete on sight! Sionk (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~(I accepted this article in WP:AFC.)~~ Keep: the article lists several journals and radio transmissions as sources, and overall seems to pass WP:ARTIST. (Though I assume that these sources actually cover the subject, as I have neither access no language knowledge to verify it.) The promotional language seems more of author's poor language skills, and this can be addressed with editing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: it appears that I didn't accept it but I participated in reviewing this AfC submission anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Lot of promotional stuff now pruned/neutralised; self promoting photographs hid; he is an artist but artice highlights his social services with weak sources. Art work to be highlighted. There are number of sources, most of which can be checked by local language knowledge only. We may keep and watch. - Rayabhari (talk) 16:04, 4 September 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, Wily D 08:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not particularly notable, but probably meets WP:GNG - needs to be edited because as it is now it has issues with WP:COI or WP:AB--Itemirus (talk) 19:53, 9 September 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Probably meets WP:GNG but probably does not meet WP:RS. May be having other issues such as WP:COI and WP:Promotion. It is too promotional and needs completing editing. --Bharathiya (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails the criteria for creative. "He has painted several paintings," is the extent of the claims. Pure promotionalism. Uneditable, because there would be nothing left. If this is considered to meet the GNG, it would be an excellent argument for deleting the GNG. But the sources, though ordinarily reliable, are in this case entirely the product of public relations. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think so the article is neutralized and is meeting the criteria to be in the wikipedia...!¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizaz Ur Rahman (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed in the article are enough to ensure that this passes WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the article is in a poor state with COI, neutrality and advert issues but this are fixable; many were fixed since the start of the AFD. The sources present makes it pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST clearly. This article is in need of improvements, not deletion. Local editors from Pakistan can help regarding this. On the other hand, I see no rational based on any policy in the nomination and I doubt that User_talk:Orangemike#Excuse_Medoes this have to do something as the nominator of this article, speedily deleted it without tagging or discussing. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wipf and Stock[edit]

Wipf and Stock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Violates wp:notable — Jasonasosa 06:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate Wipf and Stock for deletion for the following reasons:

Article only uses a primary reference

WIPF & Stock Publishers is not accredited with the Better Business Bureau. The following remarks were made by the BBB about Wipf and Stock:

BBB does not have sufficient information to determine how long this business has been operating.

BBB does not have sufficient background information on this business. BBB made two or more requests for background information from the business. BBB has not received a response from this business and/or has not been able to verify information received from this business.

Please consider for deletion. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 06:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Eugene BBB doesn't get to decide who deserves a Wikipedia article, but we can ignore that part. Wipf and Stock doesn't appear notable: nothing on Google News or Google other than book announcements that contain no information on the company. I can't find anything in local papers the Register-Guard or Eugene Weekly and it doesn't seem to be a particularly important publisher in terms of its history or what it's published. This is all Publishers Weekly has to say. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article author hadn't been notified of this AfD, but I've rectified this. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Related projects

Wikidata

Wikimedia

Wikipedia Library

Library search A-Z

EUP This user has access to Edinburgh University Press resources through The Wikipedia Library

This user has access to JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library.

Account coordinator:
Berg Fashion Library

Drama Online

. — Jasonasosa 20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am very surprised this has come up for the deletion, as it is a very well-known and reputable publisher in its field. I will see if I can add some sources to the article. St Anselm (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are not many incoming links to this article, but it is mentioned more than 100 times on Wikipedia. Doing a search, I've just found a book I want to buy that they have recently published. :) St Anselm (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google Scholar yields more than 2000 results. St Anselm (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nomination is utterly unrelated to policy. There is enough news coverage to satisfy WP:N. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Johnfos (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem notable to me. They have published and reprinted a host of Christian pacifist, anarchist and radical texts.[61] Interestingly Eugene (Oregon), because of its links to green anarchism, has been described as the "anarchist capital of the United States." Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nirvana2013. BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- FAilure to register with BBB (whether that is) does not make it NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew - no harm done, no hard feelings (non-admin closure). St Anselm (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Feinberg[edit]

I withdraw this proposal for deletion per StAnselm (talk · contribs). Thanks, — Jasonasosa 07:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Feinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

~~The John Feinberg page does not have any references. It violates wp:reliable, wp:unsourced, and wp:verify — Jasonasosa 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

KEEP - Per WP:PROF, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Since Feinberg is often cited as an expert in theodicy and ethics, this article should stand on the merit of his work. Ἀλήθεια 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PROF, "Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Thanks, — Jasonasosa 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 8 is reasonable for theology to pass WP:Prof#C1. Sources seem there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak Keep. I don't see how this satisfies WP:PROF. H-index is 9, by my count, but that's still very low. On the other hand, he's written several books. I'd also point out that the deletion nomination is off-beam: it's WP:N (and specifically WP:PROF and WP:AUTH) that's important here. -- 202.124.73.47 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not off beam... without verification, you can't have WP:N, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTH. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation rates for theology tend to be very low so an h-index of 9 (thanks for your recount) is quite good. Many of the cites are to his books. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, please tell me how h-index even comes into play when there are no citations given to support the main article. And please tell me you are considering this point: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1" at WP:Prof#C1, when the only citations given are for his works. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 01:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jasonasosa, I think you're misunderstanding policy: whether good sources are in the article is an article quality issue; AfD is about whether enough sources exist at all. Precedent certainly says that a high enough h-index is an automatic pass of WP:PROF. I think this guy just scrapes in as a keeper, both under WP:PROF for his h-index, and under WP:AUTH for reviews of his books. -- 202.124.72.77 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sourced have been added, and are still being added. This seems like it may have been a hasty nomination. The h-index sounds low, but probably isn't for the subject area. WP:PROF#C6 may also apply here, if the Evangelical Philosophical Society can be considered a "major academic society". (There is a notability tag on that article, but it publishes a peer reviewed journal and is possibly the only society of its kind.) St Anselm (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is highly cited in his field and the article has several sources where his work is reviewed in academic journals. Hokie RNB 01:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is merely an extension of the nominator attempting to keep the subject from being cited as a reference at Genesis creation narrative, and as such is a bad-faith nomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:PROF. The nominator may wish to review WP:POINT and WP:BEFORE, particularly since contrary to their nomination the article has been referenced (albeit with primary sources) since its creation. VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. This article has not been properly referenced, nor at the creation of this article. You might want to look at that again. If you think that is a proper reference, then you need to read WP:RS again. The only supporting references that have been added are to support the books he's written. That isn't sufficient for WP:N. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 08:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write "properly referenced." Your nomination stated that the article did not have any references, which is unequivocally false. VQuakr (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is not a reference:
"John Feinberg's classic treatment of the problem of evil, The Many Faces of Evil, has been a standard treatment of this philosophical issue for some time now."

Come on man. I stand by my nomination. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 08:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now look at the two online bios immediately below that. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's snowing here. Can someone please close this? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NRVE. Topic notability is not based upon whether or not sources are in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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