Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 September	9 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 Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E-Ribbon[edit]

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

nn vanity piece, no citations for 5 years, marked for notability for three years, linked only to subject's own site Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to meet any notability criterion or policy. Notability cannot be inherited from being shown on Google site. No signs of real notability, nothing in the way of references evident from Google, GNews, et cetera. -- BenTels (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not receive the converage needed to establish notability. A google news search turns up [1] which has a snippet which matches word for word the content in this article in Highbeam. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. It lacks sufficient coverage to be notable; it may have been used at the Sept. 11 attacks, but as no coverage was made over the symbol itself, it is thus not notable by itself. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porno Valley[edit]

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

Non-notable; no independent & reliable refs. (Contested Prod) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of mention in reliable third-party sources, does not meet the general notability guideline. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the find sources link? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and found nothing. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on these sources satisfying the gng [2][3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both refs 1 and 3 are passing mentions of the TV series, and quite definitely do not count as significant coverage. Regarding ref 2, I can't read Italian but the name "Porno Valley" is used in other contexts, is this article specifically about the television series? JoshuSasori (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops copy and pasted the wrong link since I had multiple tabs open while looking at the sources. The documentary is discussed extensively in [5] but it's not available without academic access or pay. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but is that paper specifically about Porno Valley? The introduction mentions that there are 230 sex documentaries. I'm not sure they are doing more than using Porno Valley as an example, and it isn't clear why Porno Valley is notable. Also, is there any other coverage elsewhere? JoshuSasori (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porno Valley, Family Business, and The Girls Next Door are the documentaries she focuses on in her criticism and analysis. As for other coverage, [6][7][8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, great research by Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs), excellent work. — Cirt (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good research; i think it's enough to meet Wikipedia:GNG. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the links provided by Morbidthoughts can be used to put together a article passing WP:GNG. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:18, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities containing film studios[edit]

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

unsourced, no studio names provided. Either delete, or userfy until someone can produce a list which has some value. i cant believe its existed since 2005, without a single person bothering to fix this basic error. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut!. What a great example of overcategorization and an indiscriminate list of information. If there were any sources, this article could have had a chance, but there's none. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really apt example of indiscriminte listcruft. Maybe something about major film industries is appropriate, but that sounds more like a section under film industry or something. This as a list is a no go. Shadowjams (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! (sarcasm) - Awww! I was just about to create List of cities containing statues and List of cities containing parks along with List of cities containing fountains! What am I going to do now?

Seriously - the list doesn't even link to the movie studios in question so is not even a useful resource. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This info could be included in a general list of film studios, such as that in Film studio#Notable film studios, if only it included the studio names. Right now it's very pointless. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, this article has a really storied history, starting with how long it's lingered in such a sorry state, but also the original creator is a long blocked sock puppet. That sock apparently liked to create list articles. My personal favorite is "List of dances with dedicated songs". Shadowjams (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As just an indiscriminate list of cities with no encyclopedic value. This information can be covered in other relevant lists. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, probably original research, "film studio" seems to vague to be of any use. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:36, 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 Education in Jacksonville, Florida. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption Catholic School in Jacksonville, FL[edit]

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

Non-notable and unreferenced primary school. PROD was removed w/o rationale. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Education in Jacksonville, Florida per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES; possibly after moving to Assumption Catholic School (Jacksonville, FL) for standard formatting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Education in Jacksonville, Florida - I have found very few sources that would be significant enough for a Wikipedia article. Although this article never mentions the establishment date, this newspaper article suggests it may have been 27+ years ago but that would be insufficient for a Wikipedia article, this 1827 book may also suggest the school has been existing since the 1820s. Although two articles here and here mention two of their former principals, that would also be insufficient for the article. Google Books found a few mentions here and a useful mention here. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Cinematic Universe[edit]

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

Posting on behalf of ProtoDrake. He says "The information is unreferenced and when I tried to reference it, I found the info was not even accurate or even true in some places. It reads like something from a fan site." Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 23:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I earlier tagged this as of dubious notability and nothing appears to have improved. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You have my support throughout. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a raised eyebrow toward the title choice preventing any suggestion of a redirect. Any information about the "Lego Cinematic Universe" is already contained and nicely sourced at Lego#Films and television. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MichaelQSchmidt. "Lego Cinematic Universe" does not appear to be a legitimate term, unlike Marvel Cinematic Universe. Cliff Smith 19:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MichaelQSchmidt's reasoning. The name of the article does not appear to be a legitimate term. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per per MichaelQSchmidt. Also, this seems kind of a hoax for me. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:12, 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. Article author has redirected the page to another existing article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (film character)[edit]

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

Redundant to James Bond in film. (Contested A10 speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article which may already cover this topic is James Bond (literary character). I have not decided whether 2 articles should stand.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to James Bond in film. Obviously redundant, why is this even here? JoshuSasori (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Accidental fork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think this article is vital for explaining the film character and is devoid of any distracting information which one may read on an article where this subject is simply mentioned. The film character is very different to the literary version and certainly warrants an article of it's own. --Cassianto ^Talk 04:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Bond in film. If a user wants to write (using reliable secondary sources) about differences between the book character and the film character, James Bond (character) is the correct place; there is no need for the film Bond to have a separate article, which would contain many redundancies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion – The literary and film characters have very different lineages. If the books had remained at the Fleming novels, and the films had remained at adaptations of the Fleming novels (in much the same way as the Harry Potter adaptations) then I would agree that there would be no need for separate articles. However both the literary and film character have diverged: there is an extended literary canon that has never been adapted, and there is the film series that has started originating its own material now they have run out of Fleming novels. In short, James Bond (literary character) and James Bond (film character) is going to cover very different terrain. As for redirecting the article to James Bond in film, this makes as much sense as redirecting Darth Vader to Star Wars; the focus of the in film article is the production of the series, not the character itself. There is easily enough RS coverage of the portrayal of the character to sustain an article, which is surely the grounds that an article's notability should be assessed on? Betty Logan (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: such an article should probably have been started in user space and then moved to article space once it had enough material to justify its independent existence. The article as it stands at the moment is not much use to anybody. Opera hat (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, but many articles start out as stubs. I still maintain there is substantial material covering the depiction/interpretation of the character on film to justify its retention though. If its just the lack of development that is a problem, then the logical solution is to move it to the author's userspace so he can develop it. Advocating a redirect or deletion is effectively saying the article should not be developed at all because the topic itself is either redundant/not notable. Betty Logan (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. As was already pointed out when the "speedy deletion" proposal was, well, speedily deleted, there is nowhere on Wiki where the film character of Bond is examined—and it's a grievous hole in Wiki that the biggest, best-known and most important character in 20th and 21st century film does not have an article to examine him. This is, rather obviously, the start of this article's development and is obviously not the finished article, so to tag it for deletion seven minutes after it has been started seems premature to say the least and it was before the article had taken shape, so to judge it on the first stub isn't doing it justice.

Just as Batman in film has Batman; just as Superman in film has Superman and Clark Kent; just as Tarzan in film and other non-print media has Tarzan, Tarzan (comics) etc etc; then James Bond in film needs James Bond (film character). All other important characters in films series have their own articles, including Indiana Jones and Luke Skywalker. But not Bond. The question is where to put such an article. A couple of comments above (and elsewhere) have suggested pointing at other articles, but these are based on misconceptions of what the other articles contain, or seek to portray:

Suggested target	Problem
James Bond (character)	We've just moved away from such a title in favour of the GA-rated James Bond (literary character) for an examination of the literary character. The seven different film portrayals (and one television depiction) is hardly the right place in which to undertake such a character examination.
James Bond in film	The "X in film" article titles are not examinations of the characters: they are examination of the film series as a whole. In other words, they look at the bigger picture of cast, crew, motifs and provide an overview of a series as a whole. In other words it is inappropriate to try and shoe-horn a character examination into such an article.
James Bond	This is the GA-rated article that looks at the Bond "industry", how the series in general has spread from books to television to radio to comics to films and now to video games. Again, it's a rather inappropriate location into which one should try and crowbar in an examination of the film character and his multiple portrayals.

The aim for this article is to be a GA-rated article to be the sister to James Bond (literary character). Both of these sit easily within the overall aims of the Bond project and provide a balanced and structured examination of the Bond books and films:

Novels	Rating	Films	Rating
Bond novels and stories	Featured topic	Bond films	Featured topic
Inspirations for James Bond	GA	James Bond in film	B Grade
List of James Bond novels and stories	FL	List of James Bond films	FL
James Bond (literary character)	GA	James Bond (film character)	Start/Stub
16 separate novel & story articles	16 GA articles	25 separate film articles	1 FA 23 GA 1 in production
		1 television adaptation	GA

As you can see the Bond project does not just invent articles which may or may not have duplicates elsewhere, but ensures a structured, logically planned approach to the development of both the individual articles and the project's output as a whole. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the reasonings provided by Betty Logan and Schrodinger's cat is alive. This article is essential to explaining the film character. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(likely) Merge somewhere, but where I'm not sure. I don't see how this can grow and not duplicate information from James Bond in film. I see two possible routes: that the film tables in James Bond in film be moved to a separate article as most of it is appropriate data to include but are excessive details for the casual reader, such that the info in this article can be placed in there, or alteratively, keep this article, but bring in some of the James Bond in film article on the general style of the Bond character and the flair each actor had (as explained in the film timeline section), to expand this one. I agree that this would then contrast well with James Bond (literary character). Basically, its a matter of sorting out around the James Bond in film article to make that more useful. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The James Bond in film article is useful, and what it covers is completely in line with the many other in film articles we have, such as Superman in film, which is FA rated. The in film articles cover a franchise's film presence, and are specifically created to host the various statistical data we have. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the sense of merging it into an article where it would be out of place... you may as well suggest merging it into Mount Everest for all the logical leaps you need to go through. Maybe it needs repeating again: the James Bond in film article is about the series, not the character. There is currently nowhere that discusses the film character and there is no suitable location where the film character can be discussed. It's also worth repeating that this article, as it stands, was the result of seven minutes work and is not the finished article. The finished article will be a GA-rated article with the same balanced and well-sourced approach undertaken for James Bond (literary character). - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying James Bond in films is bad, but its a series with the unique factor that it is nearly universally grouped by the actor that plays Bond as that character is the only constant in the film; as such it is nearly impossible to talk about the character (in film) without talking about the film series. What I'm suggesting is to try to keep how the character is played throughout the series by its different actors all together in one place. My first inclination would be to put the character in the film page, but I do see value in taking info (not all of it, just characterization elements) from James Bond in film into this one to explain each of the actors and the unique factors they brought to the table as well as alternate actors, etc. As I think about it more, as long as the "fictional" side of the films are taken out of James Bond in films and put into this article, both will be better. My caution is that if some type of redistribution of information is not done, you're creating a situation that has too much duplication of information. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in place a redirect to another page, despite the fact that not one argument I've heard here actually holds any water whatsoever, as each and every one of them has been based on a misunderstanding of what this article is trying to be, and the purpose of other articles. A very strange and disheartening event, but congratulations to all concerned that ensures we still have no article about the most important film character of the 20th and 21st century, and still no location in which to put it! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:07, 10 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 Maryam Nawaz. (duplicate article; merge complete) (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Nawaz Sharif[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because the same article exist in Wikipedia as Maryam Nawaz. Zia Khan 20:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— As nominator. Zia Khan 20:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a copy with some info changed; I'll merge what needs to be merged and redirect the redundant title. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 9 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) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yulecon[edit]

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

No significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsouced and lacking in notability. Maybe next year, if the media takes notice. – MrX 02:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails per WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "quite small convention"? = Not notable enough. For more info, see Wikipedia:N. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:12, 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) 20:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff hudgins[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 19:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Cliff Hudgins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just recently speedily deleted for unambiguous advertising. I can't compare it with the original content, but this seems only slightly less advertisement-like. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 19:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The books are self-published, which attracts no notability, and there are no other sources of notability asserted or found on a brief search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publishing a book in any format does not give notability. It's not impossible for a self-published author to become notable, but it is unlikely because of the sheer amount of self-published books and the limited attention that the mainstream media gives to these books. A search did not bring up anything that shows notability for the author in the slightest and neither of the links on the article show notability. Hudgins fails WP:AUTHOR.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable (Wikipedia:GNG). — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:13, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom. Rs chen 7754 16:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handley-Ederville Road[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable arterial road. Dough 48 72 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as not significantly mentioned in even TXDOT sources. If creator can provide some, I might reconsider. --Rs chen 7754 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TC31, but recommend withdrawal of GAN also per TC31. --Rs chen 7754 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed on withdrawal of the GAN, for the record, since the article is missing everything I found. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a whole lot of thorough news coverage of the road, mostly involving various proposals to widen the road. This article calls it "the most talked-about issue among Richland Hills neighbors", plus there's this article, this article, this article calling it the "main corridor of economic development" in Richland Hills, this article from the 1980s (well before most of the others), and this article from when the project was first proposed in 1983. There's also this article on a different project involving the road, this article from when the project was finally completed, this article about state funding for the road, this article about construction delays, another article about the 1980s proposals... and there's even more stuff out there. This road easily passes the GNG, even if it wouldn't normally be a notable road. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how long did it take you to find those sources? –Fredddie ™ 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not long at all. All I had to do was check the "Archives" section of Google News, and most of those were on the first page of results. The nom seems to have forgotten WP:BEFORE. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 10:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. I'm not at all surprised by this nomination; it seems like a knee-jerk reaction. But I asked because I can't help but wonder why the main contributor didn't do the same and, you know, add them to the article. –Fredddie ™ 12:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TC31. –Fredddie ™ 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG per sources found by TC31; passing the GNG = notability, and, thus, suitability for an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Since numerous third-party sources about this road have been found regarding this notability, this AFD should be closed as a keep. Dough 48 72 15:56, 9 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 00:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Afyonkarahisar arsenal explosion[edit]

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

The explosion does not meet the notability guideline for events per WP:EVENT. The effects are not global in scope, and there is no reason to expect that this event will have lasting significance. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Changed !vote from delete (as nominator) to move, see below. VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant explosions like this are notable and should be kept. Has received coverage outside the local area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Afyonkarahisar arsenal as an article about a Turkish Army base, after which it can be expanded. Globalsecurity.org, although an unreliable source, says its part of the Turkish Army logistics command. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That could certainly work as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article is significant. Also there are many reliable sources such as these Turkish news. Also there are many reliable international news like BBC Turkish, BBC, Deutsche Welle, Voice of America etc.--Reality 15:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Buckshot06. This is a good idea, that addresses my WP:EVENT concerns while keeping the content with more opportunity for expansion. VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Afyonkarahisar Arsenal. Certainly notable enough to be recorded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Buckshot06. Intothat darkness 16:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move and tidy as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both Bushranger; and Buckshot06 recommendations too. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:19, 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kasaraneni[edit]

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

I previously placed a WP:PROD on the rationale "Being Chair of BMA GPC GP trainees subcommittee and no. 36 on a list of leading GPs is insufficient to meet notability guidelines for biographies." The Prod was removed by the article creator along with the maintenance tags. Some media coverage for the subject can be found: Hindustan Times and Pulse, both mentioning the subject in that top-50 list, plus quotation in a Pulse article, but I think these fall short of WP:ANYBIO criteria so I am bringing this article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has created a lot of ripples in the media in AP, India and hence I felt all the 4 members involved de meet the notability guidelines for biographies criteria.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/277106/4-indian-origin-doctors-among.html
http://www.andhrajyothy.com
http://www.eenadu.net/district/main.aspx?dsname=Guntur
http://www.sakshi.com/Main/districtlistings.aspx?dist=17&Catid=3&activeid=5
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/nri/nris-in-news/4-indian-origin-doctors-among-uks-top-50/articleshow/16297584.cms

Being Chair of BMA GPC GP trainees subcommittee - a committee for 10,000 doctors which is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakkineni (talk • contribs) 19:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure if he exactly meets the WP:BIO guidelines but he is not far off and anyway meets my guidelines. Here is a more detailed article from Pulse. Note: after I looked at the Pulse article two or three times I was blocked until I could log in there. Thincat (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC; I could find no publications at all at Google Scholar. Fails WP:ANYBIO because being named one of the top 50 physicians in a given field by a magazine does not amount to a "well known or significant or award or honor"; magazines publish such lists all the time. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage by reliable sources; he is mentioned in the Pulse Magazine top-50 list, which got a little bit of press (BTW the Economic Times article and the Deccan Herald article cited above are the same article), but nothing close to significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Basically he appears to be a successful, well-regarded physician in general practice; that's not enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some additional hits: [9][10]. However, even with the links provided above by Rakkineni and Thincat, there is not enough coverage in reliable sources for a stand-alone article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:54, 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 keep. The article also needs inline citations to bring it in line with WP:V and WP:BLP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Bourdon[edit]

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

Deletion requested by subject of BLP article per OTRS ticket #2010061410002129 Geoff ^{Who, me?} 18:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the subject wants this article deleting we should respect that. Although the subject has achieved a lot in her life, she is not so important that WP ought to have an article about her. Thincat (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the scope of the requested deletion: English-language Wikipedia or all versions? The [French biography] covers the same information as the English, but with more depth on her ongoing socio-political campaigning, with additional newspaper links (and also various citations required). AllyD (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her request is for deletion of all articles on all wikis, specifically to include the French version, but since I am not French-speaking, nor active on fr.wikpedia, I posted here while advising Ms. Bourdon to contact fr.wikipedia directly. "One small step..." Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she seems to be quite notable from those french news, books, and scholar hits. I'd just insist on carefully citing her biography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a stack of French-language references in the French language version of the article. If a French speaker can confirm the nature of the references, I'll reconsider. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Wikipedia article formerly focused on her porno acting without sourcing the information. I revised the article to focus on what is covered by the reliable sources,[11] which hopefully should address the reason behind the OTSR ticket and her request for the article to be deleted. One of the news articles mentions her recently pissing off her neighbors, calling a lot of different authorities, and then receiving a letter recommending to her to receive psychiatric consultation. The previously unsourced Wikipedia article focusing only on her porno acting may have added fuel to the fire, so it would be good if someone would put the article on their watch list to ensure no further BLP problems. The topic meets WP:GNG. Some references (there's others but I couldn't find URLs): [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite notable in France with abundant sources, especially about her porn, artistic and political activities in favor of the European Union. Clearly a person with many interests and many lives. Hektor (talk) 13:21, 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 Speedy close, Usharal is the proper spelling. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ucharal[edit]

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

Article exists already as Usharal. ShaneMc2010 17:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Usharal per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I thought at first but there is a problem as Ucharal is the actual name of the town, so the page has to be deleted in order to move it to the proper name. ShaneMc2010 17:45, 8 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) 01:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Gillego[edit]

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

I see nothing here, in the references, the links, or the very text, to prove notability by our standards. There's the usual puffery and links to non-notable awards and such--possibly not bad for a recent MFA grad, but not enough for WP notability. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the old AfD--things have certainly changed. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy has really done nothing in his life except be a student. Yes, there are a couple of sources proffered, but they do nothing to satisfy the requirements of our policies in WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or WP:BIO. This young person may have accomplishments in the future, but at present he is completely non-notable per WP guidelines. Qworty (talk) 19:59, 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:39, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devyn Rose[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, which require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A review of the sources reveals little to nothing to support notability. Some citations fail to mention the subject at all. Note that this musician has only recorded under the name "Tanya T6", the subject's common name, however, the article creator has reverted a redirect. Cindy(talk to me) 16:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated please review as this artist is linked to pages in wiki under her born name and aliases. PinkStaircase (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia articles are not considered as valid references. reddogsix (talk) 01:54, 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) 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant independent coverage about this musical artist under any of her names. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:40, 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 Speedy delete (CSD A7). I don't agree with the statement below "Many unsourced claims of notability ... so cannot be speedy deleted". The speedy deletion criterion A7 states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". The word credible is included precisely to exclude cases like this one. This is clearly a vanity page, with spurious and non-credible claims of significance because the first version of the article was deleted for lack of such claims. The idea that he could have been chosen for, amongst other things, the 2012 Olympic team, and yet appear nowhere on the internet except Facebook etc, is not remotely credible. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus hoveyda williams[edit]

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

Non-notable, most Google search results are to Facebook, Linkedin and other unreliable sources.
Unsourced biography of a living preson.
Possible conflict of interest.
Many unsourced claims of notability like "Cyrus is reknown for being one of the greatest show-jumpers of his time.", so cannot be speedy deleted. jfd34 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline; since "one of the greatest show-jumpers of his time" would easily satisfy WP:GNG, I conclude the article is likely a hoax. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable showjumper who has competed in a few competitions without managing to generate any newspaper coverage at all. Article is entirely unsourced. The article is a possible COI and a possible hoax (although at least some of the information appears to be correct). Fails WP:GNG. CodeTheorist (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, written in a peacock tone too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any sources for this person anywhere other than facebook/myspace/linkedin and other similar unreliable sources. His linkedin profile does confirm some of the educational information, but the only thing that indicates any sort of notability is the show-jumping career, which is clearly either fabricated or grossly exaggerated. Hut 8.5 10:38, 10 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Ruffin[edit]

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

While this article has now changed somewhat since it was first deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xavier ruffin, it still fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as the additional sources provided are neither reliable nor in-depth coverage, nor do they support many of the promotional assertions contained in the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The Wall Street Journal is a very reliable source, along with JSonline, the web counterpart to Milwaukee's largest news publication, and OnMilwaukee.com. Mentions in these publication show that this person is note worthy at the very least in the region. This person his had works published and been recognized on a regional, national, and internation level. I would argue that renders him note worthy. And there are at least two sources that have in-depth coverage of the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2541 (talk • contribs)
- "SUCCESS STORIES: XAVIER RUFFIN". Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design.
- Creative Fusion Remarks

You are correct that both the Wall Street Journal and JSOnline (being the outlet for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) are reliable sources. My apologies for being overly broad in my nomination statement. That said, the mentions of Ruffin in the two JSOnline blog entries I see appear to be only passing mentions of a sentence each. I didn't catch any mention of him in the WSJ video provided as a source. The fact that someone's work has been published on a wide scale does not inherently make them notable; there must be "significant coverage [about the subject] in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:BIO. As to the citations you provided immediately above; he is an alumni of the Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design so I'm not sure just how independent of the subject that article actually is, but it is the most promising source I've seen. The second link to "Creative Fusion Remarks" appears to be a speech or statement given by Ruffin himself and if so is definitively not independent of the subject. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete VW is absolutely correct that mentions do not establish notability -- and also that most of the sources are clearly not independent. . Though I disagree with him about whether publication on a a large scale might indicate notability--I think in some cases it might, still I do not see any indication here besides high school awards that the work is significant. Additionally, the style of the prose indicates an advertisement, with unsourced material about the artist's style motivations. On balance, I suggest waiting until there is some unambiguously reliable substantial independent source -- even one such might be enough to supplement the other material here. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - One more independent source with an in-depth coverage of the individual - an interview for a Polish radio station from 2011
- Kraszewski, Marcin (July 3, 2011). "Xavier Ruffin Interview". laugh.pl.

Another source of critical acclaim from an independent source to show some of his works significance.

- Blanks, Damon "Jank" (December 15, 2011). "Best of 2011: Top 5 Hip Hop Videos". jsonline.com.</ref>

And the High School awards mentioned,The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards, are from the Alliance for Young Artists & Writers "The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards have an impressive legacy dating back to 1923 and a noteworthy roster of past winners including Andy Warhol, Sylvia Plath, Truman Capote, Richard Avedon, Robert Redford and Joyce Carol Oates." Those awards have a high level of prestige associated with them and could arguably be considered the artistic equivalent of being named an All-American Athlete. There are many individuals on wikipedia such as Andrus_Peat who's greatest accolades to date are their high school accomplishments — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2541 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This article meets the basic basic criteria for Notability:People which states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" This article includes several references from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, OnMilwaukee.com, Milwaukee Magazine,The Wall Street Journal, Iridescent, Volume 1 Pg 36 by Icograda and XXL (magazine). All notable, reliable, and intellectually independent sources.

it also meets the Additional Criteria which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Ruffin's multiple awards from the Alliance for Young Artists & Writers would qualify for this. — added by X2541 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Xavier Ruffin of Marshall was elected chief justice of the state Supreme Court."[20] Oh, not THAT Xavier Ruffin. "Jarvis Xavier Ruffin, 17, of the 2000 block of Highland Avenue."[21] Not that one either. What about " Senior quarterback Shawn Crump is a three-year starter and Xavier Ruffin (5-10, 190) brings nice size to the RB position."[22] or "including director Stan Perry and producer Xavier Ruffin of Milwaukee,"[23] Can't be Xavier Darnell Ruffin.[24]. That's all I found on Xavier Ruffin. The Wikipedia article is written much better than most biographies that make their way to AfD. That, along with the smattering of references mentioned above by others, might make it worth keeing around a little longer. -Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: "the smattering of references mentioned above by others" (and accompanying keep !votes) were all provided by X2541 (talk · contribs) at multiple times, not multiple editors. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:46, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striking through the multiple "keep" votes by X2541.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article reads like a puff piece at the moment, and some of the sources fail WP:RS - but if X341 is correct, it seems the individual may meet the criteria of notability, notwithstanding that the article needs a lot of work. Walton^One

Just to clarify, have you actually looked at the sources X2541 provided and agree that Ruffin is notable, or are you merely commenting that if they're correct then he's notable? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:20, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. (..and yes, I looked at every reference) Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 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 Appalachian Voices. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Mountains[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:NOT - Notable? Appears to be self promotion and a link farm to other external sites. No valuable sources PeterWesco (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It would be more relevant on the group's main page. Although, Appalachian Voices does seem to be a mess as well. ALH (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge of the NPOV data to Appalachian Voices "Efforts" would be okay, although there is already a reference. With a hard decision made on the link farm and the POV section referred to as: "The site’s main educational features are:" PeterWesco (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section on "opposition" in the Mountaintop removal mining article. There does not appear to be a lot of reliable sources on the campaign and the MRM article needs a section on opposition. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountaintop removal mining has years of contentious notes and has constantly struggled to get to NPOV. Merging this website into an already (long) troubled article would only make things worse. Please refer to the two year old discussion: Talk:Mountaintop_removal_mining#Neutral_writing.2FNPOV_nomination. I have reconsidered my original AfD and think merge is the best way to go, but using the suggestion of ALH PeterWesco (talk) 01:09, 29 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, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 05:02, 1 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)} 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness after death (science)[edit]

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

Reason Lycurgus (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant violation of several policies as noted by others on talk page

In spite of the historical baggage of the subject, the very title makes the thing clear. First, there is at this time no philosophical or scientific consensus about what "consciousness" is. Second the article is not "Consciousness during the death process" or any such but fully goes to the place of death, i.e. after the cessation of the brain function supporting consciousness, whatever that is, and posits consciousness continuing. The fact that it has sources and that, say as in the case of climate change denying accredited "scientists" or whatever can be sourced as giving it credence doesn't relieve the wiki editors from applying the standards for something like this in a thoughtful and uniform way. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely why the article should be kept. If there is 'at this time no philosophical or scientific consensus about what "consciousness" is', then that itself is highly significant, and the problem with the concept of "consciousness" should be clearly set out in the article. I personally have no belief that consciousness survives death. But if there is a coherent scientific position here, then I would like to see it set out in balanced and definitive way. Or if the issue is merely a conceptual muddle, a philosophical rather than a scientific issue, then the article should establish that. And if the matter is just plain confused, and no one (apart from you, dear reader, and me) knows what they are talking about, then the article should establish that. But any way you slice it, it is a significant article on a matter many people wonder about at some stage in their life, and it warrants a place on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 1 September 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 September 1. Snotbot t • c » 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suppose this is the sort of article that attracts dramatic responses like Lycurgus's "flagrant violation". However, it is a significant topic, which should be addressed on Wikipedia in a balanced and sensible way. Contrary to the assertion above, the article in its current state is not at all a hotbed of flagrant violations, though like many articles it could be improved by expanding it and adopting a more dispassionate tone. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as it is about a belief common across many cultures, and so is worthy to be in the encyclopedia. If articles about historical myths etc do qualify to stay in the encyclopedia, I believe this common belief, though old now, must be kept.Ahmer Jamil Khan (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying keep Ahmer, but arguing delete or merge into the titles for that. Unlike the climate change analogy, this is a bold absurdity claiming to be science, clear on the face of it in namespace as it were, so I will be really curious to see how this goes but not going to comment further. I will confess I just examined the body of the article and see that I did not misjudge. There are things such as "Mechanisms to preserve Consciousness after death" that could have had some basis, but this ... Lycurgus (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inferior fork of Near-death experience. There might be something to merge here, which would be fine if anyone is up to it. Near-death experience is a correctly named, scientifically studied, much written upon topic. This is more of an essay. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come now Carrite, this article is about consciousness after death. That has little to do with "near-death experience", which is about consciousness before death. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have near death experience and we have afterlife... This is a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supposed to be about the scientific take on consciousness after death (notwithstanding Smartse removing "science" from the title). Calling an article which aims to look at the scientific evidence, if it exists, a "POV fork" suggests an attempt to suppress the scientific approach. That is POV. If science is unable to address the issue sensibly, that itself would be highly significant, enough to warrant the article. That starting point here should be completely neutral as to whether there is or isn't consciousness after death. The article has little to do with the article on Afterlife. That article opens with "In philosophy, religion, mythology, and fiction, the afterlife... is the concept of a realm...", and goes on to detail a set of beliefs certain traditions have which assume there is an afterlife. There is no science in Afterlife, merely a redirect to this article. This article aims to replace belief structures with an account of the extent to which the issue can be approached in a dispassionate, critical and scientific manner. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Notable philosophical discussion. I personally find the very concept wacky too, but that is not a good reason to delete. That a belief is unscientific is not a reason to cover it; after all we have homeopathy, for example. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into afterlife which is our main article on the various perspectives about this topic. Warden (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well sourced and is likely to be interesting to some Wikipedia readers. I would like to see the section on quantum consciousness removed as this is mere fringe speculation. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Anyone know why the article had the "science" tag at the end when "consciousness after death" wasn't already in use as a title? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was addressed by Smartse, we're now dealing with just the naked oxymoron, as an article separate from Afterlife and Near death experience. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Lycurgus (talk · contribs) is stacking the voted here by using a sock --Epipelagic (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the indent if that's what you're referring to, after seeing in the documentation for AFD that one could do so without asking. As far as logging in, there's no reason to do so as I've finished my remarks on the substance of the issue, just performing chores. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is acceptable to edit via your username and IP when editing articles, doing so at Afd without explicitly noting that connection is not a legitimate way to edit while logged out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per user above, stating the obvious, that 72.228.189.184 is my IP. Only structural change is I deleted my delete vote and moved the associated text to the opening of the AFD. I'm not especially a deletionist, so not gotten involved in this process, which btw, is somewhat top heavy. could use streamlining. I'm thru here, standing back to see what shakes out. Lycurgus (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not a huge deal, but please be careful in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be also be noted that Lycurgus/72.228.189.184 has not merely "adjusted the indent", but has restructured the page so it no longer displays what had been going on. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:45, 1 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)} 16:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes, there are definitely some point of view issues and not much of a counter-argument section, but to me the article is certainly salvageable and definitely meets WP:GNG, but I don't believe anyone is contesting that. Anyway, I would vote to probably keep. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then disambiguate between near-death experience and afterlife. It's a plausible search term so shouldn't be a redlink, but we can't possibly keep this content. I find it poorly-researched and unreliable. It omits important qualifiers and misleads by implication. For example, it says "measurable brain activity ends within 20 to 40 seconds"... and then links a study showing that measurable brain activity ends within 20-40 seconds in dogs. It says "Some scientists disagree that consciousness is permanently lost after brain death. James Forberg..." and fails to note that far from being a recognised scientist, Mr James L. Forberg is an engineer, self-described as a "scientist-theologian", whose one book was self-published via Xlibris. The article is untrustworthy and synthy and excising it would improve the encyclopaedia.
However, I would not object to someone starting a fresh article with this title later. It's this particular article, and its history, that I feel should be removed.—S Marshall T/C 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, an important philosophical question and hardly just about NDEs. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not well-sourced. It's about the basic question of what happens to consciousness after death. It then goes on to consider the question of quantum consciousness. A well-sourced article on this subject would begin with The Emperor's New Mind by Sir Roger Penrose, go on to Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett and thence to The Mystery of Consciousness by John Searle before proceeding to more recent literature with which I'm unfamiliar. It would consider the question of in what substrate the consciousness might endure—for example, in theory, could the conscious mind be uploaded to a computer just as the body expires?—rather than implying, as the present version does based on self-published sources, that the consciousness might continue after death without a substrate, i.e. in a void. That's a theological question rather than a scientific or philosophical one, and it's come about through trying to tackle a difficult subject using inferior and self-published sources. Oh, sure, there are also good sources cited, but they're only used to support basic facts; the intellectual heavy lifting isn't based on the right sources at all.—S Marshall T/C 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What ever the problems with the article in its current state, the topic itself is noteworthy. Sædon ^talk 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree one hundred per cent with the last comment. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:07, 11 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. There are many arguments among the "keep" advocates that are not based on Wikipedia's deletion policy. These included WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:BIG, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and arguments that showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. After excluding these arguments, there seems to be a general agreement that the article doesn't have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources necessary for it to pass the general notability guideline. I have basically ignored the discussion about conflicts of interest in my close, and focused solely on whether or not the article satisfies Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Further concerns about conflicts of interest can be taken to the conflicts of interest noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minetest[edit]

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

If you came here because http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2876, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

The article is about a non-notable game. The article provides a few sources but only one is reliable and one reliable source can not establish notability. The article has had a while to establish notability, but failed to do so and in my belief is now appropriate for a AfD discussion. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the sources provided, all are either unreliable or not independent; notability is not established. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Minecraft is notable, its competitors are as well. Notability goes beyond Wikipedia's overly-strict rules - it also matters whether the people who play, modify, or contribute to the game consider it to be. In addition, you can't expect a game with 1% of the user base that Minecraft has to be able to achieve the same amount of coverage in third-party media. That's like expecting someone to first gain nation- or worldwide recognition of some invention of theirs before it's allowed to be covered on Wikipedia - despite how vital it might be to, say, national security, public health, etc. Before you start deleting articles that at least have some citations from sources that are considered reliable within the community, try first deleting EVERY article from Wikipedia that has no sources at all, or where those sources are dubious. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vanessa, May I say, Just because Minecraft is notable does not mean Minetest is. Also, AfD is a place where editors nominate articles that they thing are not supposed to be on Wikipedia, Being here does not guarantee removal hence if you want to provide a reason of why Minetest should stay you need to use policies. Just saying 'Minecraft is notable' is not a valid reason. Minetest has one reliable source, which is just on the edge of being reliable. Wikipedia sometimes keeps articles with no sources (In extreme cases) because they are themselves notable and have no challenged (Or could be challenged) data. In addition some of the sources used do not include the information they are verifying, And there is the question of most Minetest images being deleted for copyright violations (As evidences by the Minetest history). John F. Lewis (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations? I see no such things. All images uploaded and linked to the article when I last looked were all freely available per the game's and its imagery's licenses as all of them are screenshots from different parts of the game or mods and texture packs available for it. At least one of those images is entirely my own work (such as the one depicting the pipes) save for the background behind the subject of the image.Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Minetest articles history regarding image deletions. This is a discussion mainly based around the articles deletion for not being notable, So if you would like to make a policy comment to support your keep comment, that would be welcomed. If not, The closing admin may not take your comment in as most AfD comments needs to be backed up by Policy. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The supposedly-offending images have been replaced with ones I can guarantee are free. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and another; why think the amount of magazines/web sites talking about it is important? I could perfectly fake the "notability" of something if I wanted. Calinou - talk × contribs » 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More sources can be found on the internet. For example, the Russian site Linux.org.ru has written about Minetest on at least two occasions, gaining a good bunch of interest: https://www.linux.org.ru/news/games/6984308 https://www.linux.org.ru/news/games/8027529 Also various official distro repositories could be noted, like http://packages.debian.org/unstable/main/minetest and https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/minetest Celeron55 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC) — celeron55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll mention that merely being listed in a distro respository does not confer notability, but the first link from linux.org could merit some consideration, but I haven't analyzed it enough. --MuZemike 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They all look unusable towards meeting the WP:GNG. The first two look like they link to forum posts, while the second two look more like database entries that do little more than show it exists... Sergecross73 msg me 05:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the post states: the first two are from a known Russian News-site and the later two prove that the two greatest Linux-distributions (Fedora and Ubuntu) support this game by including it in their packet-archives

Keep - Looks like the poor deletionists/Minecraft fanboys are getting angry. The article has enough sources (if you want, I can point to several [read: thousands] articles which have almost zero references/sources); the page has enough content and it has encyclopedic value, like the dozens of articles about FOSS games. Calinou1 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not decided in this AfD whether or not to keep or delete.
I have never played Minecraft before.
Knock it off with the attacks; I did not say one thing that was disparaging to anybody here.

--MuZemike 21:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Minetest appears to have a large community, and despite it not getting written about very often I find it suprising that they have 75 people on their main IRC channel alone. Considering that there are 2,904 registered minetest users in their forums at this point in time, I'd tend to think at the very least that they are large enough to update & maintain a wiki article, and if anything they are more notable due to the community they have built when compared to many other articles I have seen survive a speedy deletion. Danry25 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are many, many, many sites with 2,904+ registered users but this doesn't establish WP:N. The article has no coverage whatsoever in WP:RS and fails WP:GNG since created. The sources used are either primary sources, that is, the subpages from the website of Minetest or are from secondary sources, from which I won't consider two reliable. The article is majorly unsourced since long time and I've always failed to find any source for them. The bottom line is; the article fails WP:GNG as the article is dependent on associated sources and mostly, it it unsourced. On the other hand, there is nothing notable about the game nor has the game received any reviews or awards or any controversy that would make the subject notable. I cannot find a single fact which would make me feel that the article or the game is notable. And even the google search results and the sources used up or coming up in google search, don't give any hint of notability about the subject. Right now, it is clearly not WP:N, but in future it may get notable and can have an article. For now, it is a delete. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 22:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I'm little concerned regarding the keep votes. Vanessaezekowitz has an connection with the subject as the editor almost performed WP:EW at the article by removing maintenance tags from it. They also add up by comparing the article with Minecraft but there is no policy which states that if article A is notable then B will also be. It is just a POV. 2nd keep vote is by celeron who has no edits whatsoever but just this AFD and the username was created on the day AFD started which clearly gives me the thing that the account is intended merely to save the article rather then any other purpose. And the 3rd vote so far, I won't say much regarding it but they have been editing articles with similar topics and has a connection with the subject, plus, they doesn't seem to have understood the policy properly and are also making personal attacks. The 4th vote says that there are 2,904 users but the same implies for 1000s of other webistes and this doesn't constitute WP:N. They also state that "update & maintain a wiki article" but the subject isn't enough notable to do that as there would not be any sources available about the article other then it's own website till the game gets notable. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 22:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those tags based on what I perceived as a biased opinion. As you surely have noticed, I have left them in place after that particular argument was settled.

Comment: - In addition to TSU comments, Vanessaezekowitz is a moderator and a contributor to the site and development. Celeron55 is a clear SPA (Single Purpose Account) and in addition he is the games creator and main developer. Calinou1 (On Minetest its Calinou) is a moderator and contributor to the development and site. All three users have a possible (If not obvious) COI. I have also tagged Celeron55 as a SPA for other editors and administrators to view the SPA in an easy to see way. Note, I viewed the site to see all four contributors relation. I found three editors have connections and one does not. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I appreciate the suggestion that anyone commenting on this AfD entry is expressing a conflict of interest, but as I can only speak for myself, I am compelled to point out that every edit I have ever made to a Wikipedia article is done with the intent of being neutral and of improving the overall state of the site's content (though the current argument might seem to diverge from that). Any bias I might have stays squarely on my side of the keyboard. Second, you are in violation of both WP:AGF and the very WP:COI you cited (namely, by not even discussing the purported conflict with any of us before bringing it up here, and by stating your allegations in such a way as to make the three of us look like we're in the wrong). Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May you please point out how I am in violation of WP:AGF and WP:COI. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:COI in the "How to Handle" section, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."

From the first paragraph of WP:AGF, "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. [...] When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. " By claiming conflict of interest where there is none, you are from my point of view also failing to assume good faith.

Furthermore, as you know, WP:IAR (namely in the article linked there describing what it does and doesn't mean) makes it plain as day that Wikipedia's rules are meant to be ignored if they hinder the improvement of Wikipedia, plus WP:5P makes it abundantly clear that Wikipedia's "rules" aren't so much rules as guidelines, and that they can sometimes fail at their purpose; that their intent is more important than their literal meanings.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a concern to be addressed else where and not at a AfD discussion. To your response, I am not the only editor who says or express concern over COI. Sergecross73 also expresses the concern below. If you most honestly do believe I am in violation of the policies and I am 'harassing' you, Then go to either WP:AN or WP:Dispute and I will be more than happy to co-operate, As I do not believe I am in violation of the rules. Also please do not reply to this, rather address it to one of those two links or my talk page as this is not relative to the AfD discussion. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have definitely not acted out of line. You just did your homework on them, and now Vanessa's trying to turn it back on you because she seems to have no other defense. If she's a mod/contributor for something related to the article topic, then there's a conflict of interest, regardless of intentions. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every editor to the article has a connection to Minetest. So a COI is present apart from editors conduction Maintenance, Corrections and removal of deleted images. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only exception? Regardless, I just dropped 5 minutes & found a slew of articles. iloveubuntu, Linuxo Planet, LinuxGames, Linux Game News, and Free Gamer all have covered Minetest, there are probably a few more but this should suffice notability wise. Also, if your gonna forbid the dedicated developers, their supporters & passerbys like me from editing articles, you pretty much eliminate 99% of the people who would write & maintain articles. But hey, who wants articles on wikipedia?Danry25 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t think that anyone remotely suggest that developers were banned from editing but simply that if the only people asking to keep an article and there is agreement among unaffiliated editors that the sources that are being presented do not meet Wikipedia standards a direct connection to the subject of the article that should be taken into account. Can you please show anywhere in this discussion where anyone told any of the developers or people associated with them that they could not edit the article itself? Also do you have any evidence that 99 percent of editors edit an article that they have a direct conflict of interest in because to be frank that very hard to believe.--174.93.171.108 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do edit wikipedia at times; for example this was my edit two days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polynomial_code&diff=511191943&oldid=409018374 - just created this account to give you some handle to point at me, and to not falsely hide my identity, which'd been kind of not appropriate in this case for obvious reasons. I was actually surprised to find out I didn't have an existing account. Anyway, I will not start to build any kind of wikipedia fame for this account as long as wikipedia allows me to edit things without it. Celeron55 (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in third party, reliable sources. Fails the WP:GNG. So far all the keep votes are invalid. Number of users, or it's competitors, do not establish notability on Wikipedia, and the sources so far don't qualify as "reliable" as far as Wikipedia goes. I too see concerns of WP:COI and WP:SPA as well... Sergecross73 msg me 23:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How are the keep votes invalid? Please elaborate. Wei2912 (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Then, the Minecraft page should be deleted too; let's delete all the pages because they were all written by evil corporates. Calinou1 (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly elaborate. Rather than concentrating on showing coverage in reliable sources, many of the arguments are focusing on "There are X many users.", or "There are other worse articles out there, so this one should stay". Neither argument holds any weight on Wikipedia's standards for notability standards. It's pretty clear to see, virtually every "Keep" argument is someone related to the game, where as every "Delete" argument is from someone not connected to the game at all. That should be a pretty clear hint to the closing Admin... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure where others are searching, but I'm finding a large number of references to this application across the Internet. It seems that some are preferring deletion simply because it is similar to a more popular application. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you provide some links to these sources? I haven't seen any yet. Keep in mind, they have to comply with WP:RS, WP:IRS, and "significant coverage". Sergecross73 msg me 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Also, by the logic that 'just because Minecraft is notable...' then would that not mean that Minicraft is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 04:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft is notable because it has coverage in multiple, reliable sources, making it meet the WP:GNG. There are an endless supply of articles from websites like IGN or Eurogamer that easily make it notable. The same can't be said about "Minetest", as far as I've seen so far... Sergecross73 msg me 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the above comment did I mention Minecraft beyond quoting a comment? And 'as far as I've seen so far'? Does that mean something is less true because you have not seen it? Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I misread "Minicraft" for you writing "Minecraft" a second time. To answer your original question, look at the sourcing at Minicraft. Tons of references from major reliable sources like PC Gamer and BBC News. Someone nominated it for deletion too, but it was kept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minicraft - where I even gave a "keep" argument. I'm not some bad guy looking to delete all Minecraft type games or something. This game just doesn't have that sort of coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Qaddosh also has a conflict of interest, as he is a member of the game's forum and discussing there that he's "doing what (he) can" at this AFD. See http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2876 Sergecross73 msg me 05:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, His account is here and is used actively. John F. Lewis (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "Conflict of interest" is false already. It's like if you told total computer newbies to package some random software for a Linux distribution. If every article was created, edited and maintained by random out-of-the-community people, Wikipedia's quality would certainly be inferior -- I suggest reading the whole article; it is perfectly neutral, thus there is no COI. Calinou1 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 posts is hardly active to Minetest standards, most members produce 200 posts in a month because of all the requests etc.Rubenwardy (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Minetest, On Wikipedia some contribution within the past month can be classed as active in this case, it is. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no problem at all with the article. Sources are reliable (as of now), there is no copyright violation. What is more, you should know that just because something is not notable does not mean it should be deleted. Please, read this: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy - in where do you see that something which is not notable should be deleted? Some quotes:

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem

These are alternatives that should be used to solve this problem. Wei2912 (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this article conflicts with my statement about notability: Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines. Please take a look - you can see clearly that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Also, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them" - we have already found a few notable sources. If you regard these sources as of "unclear notability", deletion will remain as a last resort. Unless you can prove outright that those sources are not notable, the page shouldn't be deleted.Wei2912 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All those COI-s seem to be quite pointless to me, as you just declare everyone having anything to do with Minetest having a COI. As the Game is Open-source and extendable by mods its only natural that even the average player has extended/contirbuted to Minetest in some way. So if you want to delete the article about Minetest, delete every article about Open-source-products, too. and by the way: Of course i have a COI, too, i like the Game.

~~Keep~~ - I agree that this page should be kept, there are thousands of other pages without citations. I have not had enough time to develop this page recently, but this page is still much better than most wikipedia articles. --Rubenwardy (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I struck this !vote per your updated !vote below. VQuakr (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rubenwardy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. John F. Lewis (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - By the same logic that Sergecross73 applies to COI, then all of his edits regarding Sonic & Knuckles should be undone. He clearly has a conflict of interest regarding those edits as seen here and here. Minetest 0.2 was featured in LinuxFormat magazine as seen here and here. The top of this very page states to remember to assume good faith. Both Sergecross73 and John F. Lewis are cherry-picking which policies they think should be followed. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 12:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raised once, Raised again. Care to elaborate on your accusations? John F. Lewis (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between your example and what you've done. My comments are at a third party website (Gamefaqs) asking questions about Sonic games that weren't even Sonic and Knuckles. I'm not an admin or member of Sega's official website discussing a deletion of one of the games saying "Hey guys, don't worry, I'll defend us!". It's also irrelevent because no one is putting Sonic and Knuckles up for deletion, nor is there any good faith reason why it should be deleted.
Also, WP:AGF does not apply here. If we were throwing out groundless claims of COI's, then you could play that card. But we're not, there is very concrete proof with the links at the Minetest forums. That thread makes it very clear; (http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2876) that this article was created in efforts to promote the game (they were even discussing trying to add "gameguide" information and "How to play" videos to the article if they could. It's plain as day, the intent is promotion, not to better the Wikipedia project. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason i created this article is because, like most other editors, i have a thirst for knowledge, and the Minetest article did not previously exist. I did not want this to be an "advertisment". The people wanting to add a video have not contributed at all, and i doubt they even have accounts. They are just players, and as you can see in the post I corrected them. Rubenwardy (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question: Did you at all research the notability of Minetest? With what you said it sound like you went 'Minetest is not on Wikipedia. Ill make!' instead of actually searching for sources. When I came across the article it had about 3 sources (All three, Not reliable) now the article has a few more, but still un-reliable. Wikipedia is a place for reliable content, not instant 'Its not there, Ill make it' decisions. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did search for sources, and i have a document on my computer of them. Rubenwardy (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want this article to be kept, it'd be best if you start showing some proof of them. All these "Other articles are worse so this should be kept", "But there's X people who play" and "WP:IAR" arguments aren't going to cut it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see my post on Sergecross73's COI accusation of Qaddosh. This article is good compared to some of the articles on this wikipedia. We are in the process of trying to get game reviewers to review us. Rubenwardy (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there are worse articles out there is not a valid argument in favor of keeping this article. It only means the worse article should probably be deleted as well. As far as the article's current sourcing, it currently uses one reliable source about ten times, and the rest of the sources are all first party from the official website or forums. First party sources don't count towards meeting the notability guidelines, and one reliable source isn't going to cut it. If you get game reviewers to review the game, great, but then the article should be recreated if/when that happens. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game reviews are not necessarily neutral; most game testers don't work for free (talking about "paper" magazines), you know. Also, if this article is kept, why would it harm Wikipedia, since the purpose of deletion is to remove harm? Calinou - talk × contribs » 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of being neutral, they're undeniably third party, and there's consensus that they count as WP:reliable sources that go towards meeting the WP:GNG. As far as "harm" goes, if every single odd game that is ever created have it's own article, Wikipedia will turn into a junkyard that lists every little random game any random person created, and/or it would turn into an advertizing place where developers/publishers go to plug their latest product. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the references in the article present significant coverage in reliable sources as discussed at WP:GNG, and a brief search online did not yield anything better. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"brief search" -- mind elaborating? Also; Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia which aims at building knowledge -- why destroy other's people work about FOSS games? This AfD request really looks like griefing. Calinou - talk × contribs » 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: academic degree, job and user page completeness do not make the user's arguments right.

Wikipedia is a free encylopedia, but that doesn't mean anything and everything belongs on it. Wikipedia has policies, and we're supposed to enforce them. If you aim to change Wikipedia's standards for what warrants an article, go for it, but this is not the place to change policy. Also, not sure why you're making notes to the admin about jobs/education or userpages. Admin know that already, and no one has suggested that should have any bearing on what happens to this article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. After observing that the existing article did not contain any sources that met the notability guideline. I clicked the "find sources" link at the top of this page and looked for anything better. I then tinkered with a few other Google search permutations for about ten minutes. If you can provide examples of sources that meet the standards outlined in the guideline that I might have missed, I will happily reassess my position. BTW, I based my opinion that the article should be deleted on a notability guideline, not an appeal to my academic degree, job or user page completeness. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In just 5 minutes of searching I found a slew of articles that'd be fine things to cite. iloveubuntu, Linuxo Planet, LinuxGames, Linux Game News, and Free Gamer have all covered Minetest, there are a few more out ther probably but this should suffice notability wise. Note: please see my earlier comment about 1/3 of the way into the page. Danry25 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any of these websites being reliable sources for video games on Wikipedia, and the actual content of these sources are extremely light. I mean, "Free Games", for example, is a non-notable blog that contains five lines of bullet-point text, not a single one even a full sentence. Do you call this "significant coverage"? Linux Games is a singular paragraph, and the first 2 sources focus half the article on "How to install" the game. I imagine VQuakr probably skipped over most of these sources in his search, as I may have earlier... Sergecross73 msg me 10:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Established reliable sources search turns up no hits on the game. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - This article, while being satisfactory in content, I agree it does lack citations. A userfy or AfC would suit it. Rubenwardy (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. It doesn't matter who might or might not have a conflict of interest, or what the state of other articles on Wikipedia might be like; ultimately, this article must stand on its own and it simply does not have the sources that would justify inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If Minecraft was kept with one source initially (Gamasutra), surely Minetest can survive with a few (smaller) sources. Also, it has several reviews and mentions at Gameboom. 207.148.178.146 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That discussion isn't relevant to here as the discussion about Minecraft's sourcing doesn't have a bearing on Minetest's sourcing. But in any case, the version of the Minecraft article at the closure of the AFD does not contain one source (Gamasutra). -- Whpq (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'm guessing you didn't bother to really read the discussion you just linked to, considering there's more than just one source there. (Gamasutra, PC Gamer, PC Powerplay, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are all useable sources, and presented in the discussion.) Beyond that, as Whpg says, even if you were right in what you're trying to say, it has no relevancy regarding this game or it's sourcing. If it was wrongfully kept, then you're just showing a shortcoming of the past, not presenting a valid argument for this article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant reliable coverage. All keep arguments appear to boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, or show clear WP:COI issues along with potential meatpuppetry. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sure, let's make WP a battlefield where you critisize contributors. While we're at it, let's "hackccuse" people like poor UrT players. Calinou - talk × contribs » 11:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sufficient coverage and failing to establish notability. A lot of the opposing arguments have a clear Conflict of Interest and don't really provide any additional information to establish notability. Like Minecraft, this may get more coverage in the future, but at the moment it doesn't even pass the bare minimum. ArkRe (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've said it once somewhat vaguely, now I'm saying it again clearly - WP:COI is not appropriate to be used against someone who happens to know pertinent details about a subject. So far, and I state this for the record: every COI claim made in this discussion has been falsely applied. Such claims are only appropriate if the editors in question are astroturfing, distorting the truth, or otherwise trying to take the article past simply encyclopedic content and into the realm of advertising or so. An article doesn't just need references/citations - IT REQUIRES close attention by people knowledgeable in a given field or subject or it doesn't stand a chance of becoming an informative article. You don't ask an expert on Pokémon to contribute to an article on quantum physics if he or she doesn't also have some expertise in that field. The Minetest article discussed here is in that same situation now - every one of us who has contributed to it has done so with the express purpose of creating a neutral, content-filled encyclopedic article; if we wanted to advertise, there are far better avenues for that than Wikipedia. So I am asking politely here to stop making WP:COI claims. Furthermore, I am also asking (I'd call it demanding but I'm not an admin) that claims that the article's source websites are non-notable be stopped outright - it has been established that some of those websites (including ones linked in this discussion) have already been vetted by Wikipedia editors in the past as being reliable sources, and once that is established, it is supposed to be assumed by WP editors that the content on those sites is generally reliable as well, even if it is in a language you can't read. If you can't read the language used for even ONE of the sources linked in this discussion or in the article, any claims from those people that the unread sources are unreliable/not-notable are by definition invalid. Finally, if you are about to contribute to this discussion, I highly advise you read the entire discussion in detail before you comment. Some of the people adding their !votes to this discussion have clearly either not read the whole discussion, or have only just skimmed it, or really do show a conflict of interest. I'm asking that this behavior be stopped immediately - those people's comments are also, by definition, invalid. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Repeating yourself doesn't always make it true. A "Conflict of Interest" can arise when one has personal ties to a subject that could affect their neutrality. It doesn't necessarily imply that the supposedly conflicted person actually has acted inappropriately; rather, it's a warning that they might. Identifying potential COI is an important, if not essential part of the Wikipedia process. Calling out other Wiki editors on their presumed COI is a wikilawyering tactic that could be abused. I imagine that at least some of the "support" voices in this AfD don't really have a significant COI. However, persons who are moderators on external forums connected with the subject, do show evidence of personal ties (if slight). "Being knowledgeable" on the subject isn't a sin. But hiding your affiliation with that subject is considered harmful to the interests of building an encyclopedia. Identifying, vetting sources and discussing their reliability is another key Wikipedia process. Asking us not to do so is inconsiderate. The one source I can see that appears to meet Wikipedia RS criteria (linux.org) is considered reliable within a specific domain (Linux Operating System) and not broadly reliable on every subject. --Robert Keiden (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of the posts (or editors) in this discussion are invalid. I don't believe that the subject (Minetest) is invalid, or even the Minetest article on Wikipedia. The opinions expressed are valid, too. However, validity doesn't automatically confer notability. Wikipedia has criteria for that (which in the end, are judged subjectively by consensus of editors). The best way to "save" this article would be to convince the bulk of the editors in this AfD that preserving it would further the interests of the encyclopedia, but the arguments offered so far haven't been very persuasive.--Robert Keiden (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that people are saying that COI may be indicated. The problem is people saying there is a COI without backing it up. That is what I am complaining about. "May be" is not the same as "is". The information presented in those various references is accurate and unbiased as far as I am tell. They are reliable, notable sources, even if some editors don't see it that way. And I never said don't contribute/comment - I said read the the discussion in its entirety first before commenting. That's a reasonable expectation, and I have yet to participate in any venue where such practices were considered okay. And, as clearly indicated in WP:BCDD (paragraph 6) and WP:JUSTA, citing a rule (whether WP:COI or otherwise) without adequate explanation of why and how that rule applies is unacceptable. No one here has provided an unbiased, clear reasoning for their COI claims. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Regardless of any COI issues, there aren't the sources to meet the GNG. Sources presented do not meet wikipedias standard. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 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 Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical cosh[edit]

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

This is merely a dicdef for a rarely used slang term, with an example or two of use. It can never be expanded with meaningful content that does not more appropriately belong in the existing article on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. bd2412 T 15:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-redirect to Wiktionary. There are a ton a googlenews and googlescholar results, which I wasn't expecting. Phrase seem to cover: medicating children in schools, and medicating troublesome seniors with dementia, and medicating psychotic behavior in anyone. (I'd guessed when I saw the AfD title, that it was going to be related to sedating the crazy people on bath salts, but apparently not). Still not a notable term by itself though. Hence soft-redirect suggested. —Quiddity (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above It's a commonly-used term for a sedative used in certain circumstances, but it's still only a dictionary definition. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a POV term. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:46, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Noise (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film that has not had a release, all sources i've found are from forums, links provided in article are dead BOVINEBOY2008 15:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The latest update on this "forthcoming" film was "as of October 2011". bd2412 T 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete I found this forum post from Apirl 2011 saying it is "basically done". There's also something saying it was due to be screened at the indie cinema The Cornerhouse in Manchester (a really great cinema, BTW), but I can't find anything to say it was ever screened there. Looks like it simply never went ahead. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as this unreleased film runs afoul of WP:NFF. Not to be confused with the 2011 Steve Tatone film of the same name,[25] let this Eric Green film actually be released and recieve coverage before its return is considered. I know it's been 4 years since its creation, but if User:CrypticBacon is still around and wishes it userfied, I would not object. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:47, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Tse[edit]

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

This is a procedural relist per the outcome of this DRV discussion. The original concerns regarding the article were a lack of notability and reliable sources. The consensus in the DRV, however, was that Chinese language sources were not properly considered and so the article should be relisted. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:GNG. Of the three websites provided at the DRV - [26], [27],[28] - one is a short bio, one is a forum post, and the other does not seem to load. There is no evidence of anywhere near enough "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to merit an article. He also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as well. Giant Snowman 15:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL - article needs massive improvement. Giant Snowman 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes NFOOTBALL as he has recently played in the Hong Kong First Division ([29]), which moots the GNG question. The above !vote is proof that a lot of people do not actually bother reading the article before !voting in the AfD. Thanks are due to Fabregas0414 (talk · contribs) for updating the article. T. Canens (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. Canens - please AGF and drop the attitude. Unfortunately the claim the he has appeared in a fully-professional league is unverified in the article - oh, and FYI, NFOOTBALL is subservient to GNG, not the other way around. Giant Snowman 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you read the article and intentionally did not even bother to mention the claim that he played in a fully professional league in your original !vote? That seems to me to be even worse than not reading it at all.
And, no, NFOOTBALL and the GNG are independent, and neither is "subservient" to the other. Someone can be notable either by passing NFOOTBALL or by passing GNG, and the fact that he passes NFOOTBALL means that it is unnecessary to address the GNG question. T. Canens (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A claim is worthless if it is unverified - as this was. If you actually read NFOOTBALL, you'll find it only talks of "presumed notability" i.e. the community feels that if a player has made their professional debut, they will (but may not necessarily do so just yet) also meet GNG. There is plenty of consensus at AfDs for players who technically meet NFOOTBALL by making one appearance to have their articles deleted as they fail GNG. Giant Snowman 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you didn't even bother to do a basic check for sources at all when there's a highly plausible claim that is potentially dispositive of the notability question? Not even mention something like "there's a claim that he recently played in a fully professional league, but it's unsourced"? I don't edit football articles at all, and when I came here I intended to write an analysis of the Chinese sources, yet it took me but a quick look at the article to notice the potentially dispositive NFOOTBALL issue, and only a few minutes to find an authoritative source for that claim. The source is not hard to find: it's on the league's official website, and it's even in English!
Of course passing NFOOTBALL, or indeed any notability guideline, does not guarantee inclusion; note that GNG has the same "presumed" part in it. The reason why sometimes articles passing NFOOTBALL but not GNG are deleted is not because it is not notable, but because, in the absence of reliable sources, it is not verifiable. Similarly articles technically passing the GNG have nonetheless been deleted when they are otherwise unsuitable for the project. T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I checked - but found nothing from any reliable sources. After you confirmed the information, I had another look and have since added two references to the article. I don't understand why you're getting so aggressive over this. Giant Snowman 17:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Giant Snowman...the article needs improvement, but this is an editing issue not a deletion issue. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – seems to pass WP:NFOOTY, but also seems to fail WP:GNG. And despite what T. Canens says, GNG and NFOOTY are not independent from each other, as standalone articles are required to meet GNG (WP:NFOOTY#Applicable policies and guidelines). Participation in a fully professional league is a indication that maybe there is enough coverage on the player to satisfy GNG, but there could be none of value. In this case, there is no indication that the player's single participation in a fully pro league made him more notable than before. However, I'm willing to assume good faith on T. Canens' part that there is good-quality coverage on him in reliable Chinese sources, mostly because I can't speak or read or understand any Asian language and I'm not willing to start now. – Kosm1 fent 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the administrators of Wiki always want to delete article ??? They have too much leisure time ??? If you have leisure time and want to delete something, go to Wikimedia Commons, there are tons of rubbish file waiting you. User Talk:dltl2010 13:04, 10 September 2012

Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. (I don't read chinese, which is the language of one of the sources, I'll reconsider if a chinese speaker gives an appraisal of the coverage there.) Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Notability should not be limited to sources in English. Chinese Newspaper coverage as below: 曼城歐冠名單現華裔小將國字號新星曾受訓曼聯《鳳凰網》, 曼城小將願為港披甲《明報》, 曼城小將係港人後代《蘋果日報》. To Chinese and Chinese media, he is notable not only because he is a football player, but also he is one of a few Chinese who listed in European Cup. --Nivekin (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third of those links doesn't seem to contain the three characters of his name. Is there another rendering? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His name was known as zh:謝嘉強 before the media made the correction to zh:謝家強. 嘉 & 家 is both translated to Ka in English, and his full name is "Sean Tse Ka Keung"--Nivekin (talk) 11:27, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PhpFox[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Refs are not reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 15:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I see at least one independent review in the references from arvixereview. But the article is outrageously promotional, with an extensive listing of minor routine features, and a detailed list of changes. I am also very suspicious about articles with a history section explaining why the inventor decided to create the product, based on an interview with him--this has become a very common promotional technique. But promotionalism of this sort is fixable, and I have fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - As the arvixereview site's disclaimer shows, they are paid to review products, and as such, should not be considered independent, nor should such a review contribute to establishing notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The listed award is only listed at the company's website, not where it's claimed to be awarded. Google shows only one review, which is more of a how-to, and several thousand "how to" articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to establish notability. With respect to Arvixreview, we look to coverage in independent reliable sources to etablish notability because they are exercising editorial control in the selection of their topics for coverage. In this case, there is no editorial control on the selection of the topics as they are being selected by having payments made. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails both WP:NWEB and WP:NSOFT. The non-primary sources are only available to verify awards and alexa rank, with both of these saying nothing about notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly per Czarkoff's rationales. This software is not yet notable enough by itself to carry an article here. Maybe in some years if the software reaches the notability levels needed. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:21, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Bencun[edit]

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

Restoration of an article deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully professional league. This remains valid. PROD was restored on the grounds that he has played in the Bosnian Premier League, a league not confirmed as fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As he hasn't played yet in a fully proffessional league, then he fails Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:22, 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) 20:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Aškovski[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As he hasn't played yet in a fully proffessional league, then he fails Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:22, 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Marbles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, fails GNG, technically this is WP:BLP1E in that she has no coverage for anything besides the one Youtube video, and that for only one clip. GNews shows no coverage beyond the 1 event (and only shows a couple of hits for it), GHits is all social media. GregJackP Boomer! 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have you any reason why the arguments for keep in the previous AfD are not valid? (I myself have no opinion on the notability of this subject, and am just asking in order to clarify the nomination) DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the refs found by Fetchcomms, you'll find that most are from the same wire-service story, released by AFP/Relaxnews, and was picked up by their clientlist. It looks like AFP picked up the alternative paper LA Weekly's story and ran with it. One wire story is still just one ref, regardless of the number of locations it appears and how many outlets run it. See WP:BOMBARD. One ref (Boombox) is a blog. Whether it is reliable or not I would defer to the community, but as a general rule, blogs are not reliable sources. I did check RSN first (realizing that its absence does not mean it is not reliable, but just that there hasn't been a determination yet). I hope that answered your question. If not, please drop me a line here or on my talkpage. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as I said, i have no opinion, but I asked because of the 5:2 keep:delete count at AfD1 4 month ago. What you say is of course a valid point--except to the extent that if other papers reprint it, they think it's worth reprinting. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - I am always happy to explain, and if I am incorrect in my assessment, to learn from my error. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there appears to betwo (1, 2) article that gives the subject significant coverage, however the majority are only passing mentions of the subject, yet this should be sufficient to keep per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable YouTube celebrity represented by significant secondary sources. She's famous for what she does. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. The two articles give in-depth coverage of grinding, not the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should not have to ping you at all—you should have to follow WP:BEFORE. Jenna Marbles is a famous YouTube star whose notoriety has been covered in reliable sources around the world. A very small sample and snippet:
  - July 13, 2010, Boston Herald: (profile)[30]
  - July 16, 2010, New England Cable News: (profile)[31][32]
  - July 22, 2010, Inside Edition: (profile)[33]
  - December 29, 2010, Track Gals TV: (profile)[34]
  - August 25, 2011, Townsville Bulletin: "American YouTube funnygirl Jenna Marbles is a favourite in the Savvy office. Her tongue-in-cheek videos poke fun at everything Gen Y and pop culture..."
  - January 6, 2012, Democrat and Chronicle: "Mourey, 25, a Brighton High School graduate, is one of Youtube’s most popular personalities. Her most watched video, “How to trick people into thinking you’re good looking," described above, has been viewed more than 32 million times on YouTube. “It’s unfathomable to me," said Mourey, who now lives in Santa Monica, Calif. “Even a million people is unfathomable. That that many individual humans have clicked the subscribe button to my channel because they want to see my video every Wednesday, you can’t wrap your brain about it."[35]
  - January 12, 2012, The Sun: [36]
  - January 15, 2012, The Sunday Star-Times: "Jenna Marbles is a blogger YouTube users love to hate. Perky, blonde and American, she makes regular videos about her "magestical daily life" - and is a major hit in cyber space."
  - January 19, 2012, The Collegian: (profile and analysis)[37]
  - February 7, 2012, The Merciad: (profile) [38]
  - February 27, 2012, The Daily Dot: "Jenna Marbles made YouTube history this month when she became the first woman ever to break into the top 10 most popular channels on the video sharing site...Jenna Marbles, whose real name is Jenna Mourey, began her channel in the summer of 2010, and rose to the top of the YouTube charts with lightning speed due to her sassy, smart and sexy videos...Since YouTube was founded in 2005, men have dominated the top 10 list of most popular and most subscribed-to channels, despite YouTube’s audience being evenly divided between males and females. Perhaps Mourey’s rise to YouTube fame will clear the way for other women."[39]
  - April 20, 2012, The Washington Post: "Jenna Mourey's "JennaMarbles" is the second-most subscribed to channel in the comedian category this month. The 25-year-old blogger launched her YouTube channel in February 2010, and it already has 2.8 million subscribers and more than 474 million video views. Mourey is the top female YouTube star, according to The Post's Tsukayama."[40]
  - April 20, 2012, Daily Mail: "Jenna Mourey, an American YouTube personality who is known as Jenna Marbles, has uploaded a hilarious video of herself applying make-up and offering step-by-step advice while claiming to be drunk. It has received 1.5million hits."[41]
  - May 17, 2012, LA Weekly: (profile) "...she already probably makes six figures from YouTube ad revenue...despite her success, Marbles still films her videos with her laptop camera in her bedroom, which, one recent day, was littered with T-shirts and shampoo bottles."[42]
  - May 18, 2012, LA Weekly: (interview)[43]
  - May 21, 2012, India Today: "Surprisingly, the most popular woman on YouTube is not a singer or a vacuous reality tv star, but a comedian. Jenna Marbles, 25, has almost three million subscribers to her webcam-style videos ranging from sarcastic pieces of advice on looking good, dating and even discussing flatulence with her dogs."
  - May 24, 2012: Daily Mail: "The YouTube star, who has her masters in sports psychology from Boston University, was recently profiled in LA Weekly. Her page has nearly 3million subscribers, and her weekly videos hilariously portray the struggles and injustices of being a young woman in a modern age."[44]
  - July 1, 2012, New York Times Magazine: "Then there are the YouTube stars -- people like Ray William Johnson, Mystery Guitar Man, Smosh, Michelle Phan, the ShayTards, Jenna Marbles, Freddie Wong, What the Buck or Philip DeFranco. If these names mean nothing to you, trust me: these are famous, successful YouTubers. Their videos get millions of views, and because they get a share of the resulting ad revenue, they are almost certainly among the hundreds that the company says earn six figures or better from their videos."
- I think you get the idea. Tons of sources, tons of coverage. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and great job to Viriditas (talk · contribs) for going the extra mile to do the research to demonstrate the more than ample coverage and significant discussion from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, it had to be Viriditas :) Good work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:31, 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Purnima Kishwar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR, WP:NME. Does not have any citations or reliable sources. Further the article has been written like an advertisement/personal promotion. -- Bharathiya (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A review of her "Zealous Reformers, Deadly Laws: Battling Stereotypes" starts by saying "Madhu Purnima Kishwar or Madhu Kishwar, as she is popularly known defies convention in many ways and is always up in arms against system or law which tries to suppress the voice of women or suppressed class" (from Hindustan Times/Asian News International (via Highbeam). Another review of the same book describes her as "a pioneer and advocate in contemporary India" (of womens' rights) (from Reference & Research Book News via Highbeam). These are at least starting to indicate sufficient notability. AllyD (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But this is not enough to be in Wikipedia. - Bharathiya (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but the more I look, the more I'm seeing, for example this, discussing her book which was published by Oxford University Press in 2006 (ISBN 0195683528). AllyD (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another book, visible via Google Books through the link above. And here's Sir Mark Tully describing her as "one of India's leading feminists": [45] And Amartya Sen mentioning her "pioneering feminist journal": [46] AllyD (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Jason Burke in The Guardian, quoting her as "a respected academic and founder editor of Manushi". AllyD (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see on Google News, the subject has been in the news a lot recently: [47], [48], [49], [50], etc. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot that remains unsourced in this article (Manushi Sangathan, Forthcoming Books, Documentary Films and Media Work) and needs to either be referenced or deleted. However enough 3rd party discussion of Kishwar and her work in Indian society can be found (some of it now added as article references) to establish her notability. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep must keep as the subject is acadmetian too Shrikanthv (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable based on mainstream press references to her. Improving the article is a separate issue. --Lquilter (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs references, but books by OUP, running a journal praised by Sen, and the positions, honors, and publications definitely put it over the WP:PROF bar. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:53, 12 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kranti Kannada Daily[edit]

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

Not Notable. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NME, WP:SET. Note: I live in Bangalore and I have not even heard the name of this news paper. Anyway not a notable media house and completely fails to meet wiki standards. - Bharathiya (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable newspaper.Rayabhari (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Fails to meet WP:GNG Shrikanthv (talk) 14:05, 12 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eye poke[edit]

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. GregJackP Boomer! 14:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable enough to have its own article just like other fighting moves. As the section I added last week explains, its been used in many notable fighting events, by losing fighters who wanted to end the fight with a "no decision". Such a serious problem some are requiring webbed gloves to prevent this from happening. Other information about it is available and has also been referenced. Dream Focus 15:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On close inspection, there seems to be no OR or Synth in this quality article whatsover. Just as one would exspect - it was written by a team of our finest writers - Dream, NorthAmerica and the Colonel himself! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to have independent sources and I don't believe it's OR. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between martial arts and its use in slapstick comedy, it is sufficiently notable; indeed the former is notable in itself though less sure about the latter usage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. --131.123.124.42 (talk) 20:02, 10 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. No prejudice towards a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sales process[edit]

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

Appears to be original research, essayism around a subject - with an arbitrary title "sales process", Borderline case of WP:Complete Bollocks eg compare second sentence A growing body of published literature.. with description of CB articles in the link. No evidence that (first sentence) A sales process is a systematic approach to selling a product or service is true, accepted etc. - redefinition of standard english term as technical definition with no evidence of real use. Basically WP:OR . Do not wish to labor the point - so will let the wider community decide on the 'encyclopediness' of this article, currently and potentially. Oranjblud (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep for something that's supposedly "original research" there sure seems to be a good number of references. Perhaps a change in title might be warranted, but that's not a "deletion" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not just count references please - which of those references actually contain any direct reference to the concept of "sales process" as a 'engineering term'?Oranjblud (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some are offline sources, some of which I've read. Many of them refer to the "sales process" by that very term. Including the first one "Sales Process Engineering: A Personal Workshop" in its title. It's a good-faith article, I'm fine with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. The topic passes WP:GNG. Tip of the iceberg examples include:

Book sources: [51], [52], [53].
News sources: [54], [55], [56].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:55, 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, BusterD (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into sales, for which this discusses the process. There is nothing here that requires a separate article. bd2412 T 16:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Jeff Daniels. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Rose Theatre Company[edit]

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

Non-notable local theatre company. Completely unreferenced. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jeff Daniels, per WP:NCORP. Doesn't appear to have independent notability, although the company has been mentioned in at least 2 headlines.[57][58] Maybe someone spending a little more time than me will unearth further appropriate refs. The merged content would clearly be WP:UNDUE at Jeff Daniels in its entirety, but the (unsourced) production history could be excluded. -- Trevj (talk) 10:40, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 1 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, BusterD (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I'm ok with a merge. Pburka (talk) 14:07, 8 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairyland (game)[edit]

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

Unremarkable online game. No indications of notability, no reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I created the article; it's my first activity here, so please excuse me if I'm doing something wrong) I agree that Fairyland is not a well-known or big MMORPG, but that is true for many other games listed at "List of free massively multiplayer online games", too. Most information about Fairyland is written in Asian languages; the English Wikipedia isn't meant only for articles interesting to the Western world countries, is it? Lager (250 employees, created in 1999), the developer/publisher of Fairyland, is one of the leading game developers in Taiwan. Fairyland is more than 10 years old and still active, which can not be said for many other MMORPGs, especially not free-to-play ones. It is listed on many MMORPG sites: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. It has got enough votings at mmorpg.com to be listed in the top 200 of all MMORPGs. The official English (!) forum has more than 18000 posts (additional 61000 posts in the archived forum). Cherry Credits offers Fairyland Points. The Thai Wikipedia has an article about Fairyland, too. What else to prove "notability"? --Flenggg (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to show that it meets the General Notability Guidelines, which is done by coverage by reliable sources. I'm not entirely familiar with these websites you've given above, but I don't believe they qualify as "reliable" in the Wikpedia sense of the word. Try showing that websites like GameSpot, IGN, or Eurogamer have done articles or reviews on it, for example. They're pretty undeniably reliable. A list of commonly accepted sources for video game articles can be related at WP:VG/RS. This is your best bet at keeping the article. I'll wait and give my 2 cents once I know more about the game... Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Sergecross73. GameSpot lists Fairyland (they also write: "Fairyland is a hugely popular online game in many Asian countries including Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Thailand, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore", FWIW in a press release). IGN lists Fairyland, too (here also). GameFAQs lists Fairyland, too. Coulnd't find an entry at Eurogamer, though. --Flenggg (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's looks notable, but any reliable source is going to be in a foreign language publication. The Chinese Wikipedia article on the developers suggests that game has been around since 2003, and that a sequel, "Rainbow Bubbles"(?) debuted at the Tokyo Games Show 2009.[64] Here's an interview from 2003 - http://gnn.gamer.com.tw/8/9218.html, if you click through to the related news at the bottom, there's quite a bit of coverage. I don't know how reliable any Chinese language sources are, but it looks professional enough. - hahnch e n 19:22, 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) 13:58, 1 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, BusterD (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upgrading my comment above given that no one else has expressed any opinion. - hahnch e n 12:04, 11 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 Selective merge to Alliance Data. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Marketing Services[edit]

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

Non-notable company and there seems to be few sources aside from the two acquisitions. There are two duplicated links focusing with the acquisition, one also focusing with an acquisition and the Businessweek link only mentions this company once. I found this business profile that reads more like an advertisement and may not be suitable as an appropriate source. I also found one press release which provides little encyclopedia material and also wouldn't be an approa1priate reference. Aside from these two links, the other links I found were either primary or advert-like. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 18 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 13:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Alliance Data, per WP:NCORP. The acquisitions carried out before it was acquired itself constitute encyclopedic content which should be retained. The bulk of the unsourced content appears to be WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMO. -- Trevj (talk) 11:58, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:57, 1 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_Online 13:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Trev says, merge very selectively with the parent Alliance Data. A portion of the first paragraph & company history will be enough to merge; the remainder is just a promotional list of the clients. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 8 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 Media of Iran. Page history preserved for use in a possible Merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parsine[edit]

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

Can't seem to find any independent, reliable sources that cover the subject. The only sources are from the website itself. Only found this article from The Guardian which only mentions that the website published newspaper photographs and is a non-governmental website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB, more specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. -- Luke (Talk) 17:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's not much content in English about Persian News Sites. But isn't that enough for a site to be among first 20 popular news sites in Iran to be introduced in WikiPedia? --Hecatcher 18:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Media of Iran (or other suitable subtopic), per WP:NWEB. I found 2 further refs mentioning the site.[65][66]. -- Trevj (talk) 14:04, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:02, 1 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_Online 13:28, 8 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 SB Nation. Jenks24 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics Nation[edit]

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

I find nothing to suggest that this is a notable blog: no mention in reliable news sources, no indication of importance. The article reads like an ad. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SB Nation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The subject itself does not appear to have had significant coverage in any reliable services as required by WP:GNG. However, if it can be verified that the website is part of a notable company, a redirect can be left in the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be independently notable on its own, however as it is past of a larger notable organization perhaps it should be summarized, merged, and redirected there?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 19:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 19 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, Hue Sat Lum 20:54, 25 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The formative blog behind Sports Blog Nation, the largest network of sports blogs in the United States. SBN is bigger than the ESPN blog network, for what it's worth... Carrite (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a verifiable reference that states this?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, here's an interview with the CEO of SBN from Inc. magazine that indicates Tyler Bleszinski, who started Athletics Nation in 2003, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos fame, were the founders of Sports Blog Nation. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case then perhaps it should be Summarized, Merged & redirected to SB Nation as suggested by Muboshgu?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:04, 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:27, 8 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 deleted and salted by User:Bbb23, CSD A7 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King Jay[edit]

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

A self-published (so far as I can see) performer with not enough notability to pass WP:MUSICIAN. Repeatedly reposted article with no references WP:RS, including duplicate post as J P Dorce. Peridon (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 8 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 book Pakhtoonwalee doesn't seem to have significant coverage of Khan, and WP:GHITS is not a valid reason to keep an article. After excluding these arguments, there appears to be a consensus to delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

فیخان[edit]

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

Recommend deletion. Went to move the article to the English title "Fay Khan" but found it to be salted. It doesn't appear that deletion took place as a result of community discussion, but repeated promotional content, so I thought to bring it here. A7 wouldn't apply due to claims of significance/importance and I don't personally find it to be overly promotional and if it was, it could be rectified through editing. Quite simply, I am unable to find sources that support notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cindy(talk to me) 10:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we unsalt the english name and move it there, if not can you not simply make Fay Khan redirect to this page. Seasider91 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We could do that, but it isn't necessary. The issue here is the lack of notability. An AFD resulting in deletion would keep the article from being recreated under any other title, as well as the current one. Cindy(talk to me) 10:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. There is no notability for this performer. I was unable to find any sources under his name at all. He doesn't pass WP:GNG, let alone the notability guidelines for entertainers. I suggest a salting of this title, as the necessity of salting the previous article titles suggests that otherwise this would end up being re-uploaded to the mainspace.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.51.167 (talk) 02:19, 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) 09:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep under this title. Per WP:ENGLISH, either this page needs to be moved to a title in the English alphabet which would presumably be Fay Khan, or it needs to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A brief Google search comes up with enough results to convince me that this Pashto-language singer is notable [67]. I agree that they're not the best of sources, but I am still inclined to believe that they guarantee passing notability at least. Just because the article's title is not in English should not necessarily mean that it should be deleted at face value; keep in mind systematic bias. The guy also has a mention in page 219 of the book Pakhtoonwalee: code of love & peace, le code de l'amour et de la paix by Idrees Asar (2005) [68]. Quote:

....Performing arts are relatively doing better. Takkar, Gulzar, Bukhtiar Khattak, Fay Khan, Arbab Rauf and Tahir Khan are faring well while legends like Khial Muhammad still rule the hearts. With educated lot and bureaucrats, Pashto writers and performers are leaving less impacts...

Mar4d (talk) 16:10, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IS2062[edit]

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

Not by the fact the article is unreferenced, but i do not consider that the topic in hand may meet the general notability guideline to warrant an article here on Wikipedia Zedd Milestone (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very brief dictionary definition. Either delete or redirect to A36 steel. Chris857 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable topic. WP is not an engineering tech ref. Also, a seven word article is not worth keeping. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:32, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article, all 7 words of it, isn't even about the article title. In fact, IS2062 is an Indian national standard (not an international standard) for mild steel. Searching finds no evidence that it's notable. -- 203.171.196.15 (talk) 11:51, 10 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)} 10:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binarism[edit]

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

Edit/Update: I hereby withdraw this deletion nomination. Most of the problems with the article that I initially brought up have since been resolved, and as a result, while a couple or so still remain, I do not feel that deletion of the article is necessitated any longer. For those interested in resolving the last of the issues, please head on over to the talk page for the article with me. Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some of my problems with your reasons for deletion.

There is one sentence about discrimination in the gender binary article. That dosn't seem like "adequetely discussed" to me.
Second as said before all discrimination articles are somewhat opinionated however. I only stated that it was discrimination and did not make any implication over whether it was good or bad.
On "Binarism is a form of sexism and transphobia. Well what do you think it is. By its very definition its sexism and trasphobia.
I did not label the concept of the gender binary as inheritantly discriminatory anywhere in the article.
I'm more than willing to remove most of the sources and seek new sources.
Also I have no idea whether the attributes section of the article is a copvio. I didn't create that part. And it you shouldn't make accusations you can't justify anyway.
I would also like to a make an awareness at the top of the article that this article is about binarism not gender binarism which I feel is synoymous with gender binary.

-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only got a couple minutes. I put in the section that copyvio is being discussed on, Most of those ARE direct quotes, I put them in with quote marks, and cited each to its source. Somebody removed the quote marks. I haven't yet checked to see if they changed the wording. BTW I was just helping on the article, I'm no expert on the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would a rename end this discussion for deletion?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not. There are more issues with this article than just that. A rename to something like "non-binary discrimination" probably would help your case somewhat though. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 13:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes the article has weak sources, but the article could probably be improved the point where it'd meet the guidelines for inclusion. I don't have a whole lot of time (or knowledge or interest) in this topic, but I just think that this could be rectified through other means. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources available. The article is brand new is as still developing, including additions of those sources. There are links to them on the talk page. Insomesia (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of the topic matter at hand. — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Those links on the talk page have lots of wp:notability-suitable sources. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave them only a quick look. Someone else said that they cover "gender binarism" not "binarism" per this article.North8000 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge, the use of "Binarism" to describe discrimination against all persons included under the "transgender umbrella" except binary-identified transsexuals or intersex persons is a really peculiar neologism, and moreover conflicts with an established academic use of "Binarism" in post-structuralist analyses to refer to the tendency to categorize various social groups within binary groups (as I understand it, I'm not well-informed on its precise meaning in this context; only that there's a conflict here). The content on this subject is best included in the article Gender binary, where some mention of the fact that genderqueer persons experience more hostility than more socially-normative (but still variant) transgender identities is supported in the NCTE's "A Gender Not Listed Here" report. - bonze blayk (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of this still. However, the majority wish to keep the article, and I think the terminology issue can be resolved without deletion, so I've withdrawn my deletion nomination. In any case, we should continue discussion on the terminology problem in the talk page for the binarism article. I'll be starting a section there on the matter shortly. Stay tuned. Edit: Started the section. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 04:17, 11 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libano-Arisai Wildlife Management Area[edit]

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

Notability not established and cannot find any substantial coverage. It is not mentioned in (Shearman 2008), which includes a list of PNG's WMA's. The name is listed in a couple of documents, sometimes described as "proposed", but nothing more. Current stub doesn't clarify anything (location, size, whether it was gazetted) and does not meet Wiki standards being unreferenced, POV, uncategorised, etc. ELEKHH^T 06:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non notable mediocre and not sourced article --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See WP:NRVE: articles lacking sources does not equate to non-notability. Also, is your statement that the topic is non-notable based upon source searching and WP:N, or is it based upon your personal opinion? Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 1 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/new_guinea_forests/news_new_guinea_forests/?84160/New-protected-areas-for-Papua-New-Guinea clearly describes project which seems notable--Kieranian2001 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic passes WP:GNG:

News sources

Making a living out of conservation
Exploring Mount Bosavi’s secret wonderland of animal life (This article includes information about the three protected areas)

UNESCO sources

Kikori River Basin / Great Papuan Plateau

A UNESCO .doc paper only viewable after downloading it – www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nom%20du%20bien%20%3A%20kikori%20river%20basin%20%2F%20great%20papuan%20plateau&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwhc.unesco.org%2Fpg.cfm%3Fcid%3D326%26l%3Dfr%26%26state%3Dpg%26action%3Dbrief%26order%3Dregion&ei=IbpBUPDkJsisiALwkIH4BA&usg=AFQjCNG7PPaWONFmowek15Krs28Vaei5CA

Additional articles about plant and animal species, protected species and indigenous peoples within these areas: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what's the point of dropping here so many links, none of which does actually prove the existence of a WMA named "Libano-Arisai" ? Only two of your links actually mention something similar, namely a short listing of a "Libano WMA (8,250 ha)" according to UNESCO, and "Arisai (4,661ha)" by WWF 2006. Still completely unclear what we are dealing with, one or two WMAs, exact location, status, etc. --ELEKHH^T 08:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such place titled "Libano-Arisai Wildlife Management Area". Apparently the creator of this article devised this title. Look closer at the sources, and notice how the first source specifically use the names Libano and Sulamesi, both of which are in the Mount Bosavi region. The second source includes information about the general Mount Bosavi region, including Sulamesi. Both of the UNESCO sources use both names (Libano and Sulamesi). It's quite likely that more sources are available, which take time to locate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's some more sources:

PNG communities protect 80,000 hectares of rainforest
New protected areas for Papua New Guinea (2005)
New protected areas for Papua New Guinea (2006)
Protected Areas establishment in New Guinea – Protected Areas on Volcanoes (Scroll down)
Papua New Guinea adds 12 new protected areas (Press release from WWF)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article has been improved from the state it was in at the time of this nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You just stated above that "there's no such place titled "Libano-Arisai Wildlife Management Area"" so "keep" cannot be the right answer. Either merge to Mount Bosavi (if anything is worth merging), or rename, so that the scope of the article becomes clear.--ELEKHH^T 13:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding external links which do not support the text under the section "References" is not an improvement, rather confusing. --ELEKHH^T 00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mount Bosavi. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The merger of the two sentences would need to be careful though as none of the "references" added by Northamerica1000 into the article actually support the text. IMHO would be much better to delete the now spammed stub. Anybody willing to do some proper work in expanding Mount Bosavi, can find and use those sources. --ELEKHH^T 00:51, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fundamental problem we face is one of verifiability which I do not see as being met by any of the sources. At this point, we cannot even confirm this WMA exists, and none of the sources support this specific WMA as existing. As for a merge, I fail to see a need for merge. Northamerica1000 can add the material directly to Mount Bosavi without need of a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do no merge. I agree with Whpq above with verifiability, particularly with the issues raised above with regard to the name of the protected area. I too have doubt that the article name is the actual name of the protected area. It would be inappropriate to merge the protected area article with the mountain article; the protected areas should have their own article. Until more certainty is developed about the WMAs, particularly until we are sure they have been established, their proposal should only be mentioned in the mountain article. I think both these issues may be an issue related to this being a wildlife management area (as opposed to a national park or other more significant protect area) in a developing nation. I wrote stub articles on all the WMAs of Idaho and had difficulty doing so because of the lack of information about protected areas that are not of that great of national importance or recognition. Seeing this, you could understand why it is so difficult to find info on a WMA in Papua New Guinea. Also, what is the date of the most recent reference? Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:53, 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 speedy deletion under criterion G3. Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lambert-Whitford[edit]

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

Hmm, seems not notable (an extra) - but has starred next to a big actor in a film. This requires a good thinking! Yeknom Dnalsli (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is notable and Meets WP:BLP.--Calm As Midnight 07:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention of this person at all in the sources provided (is this even a real person?). On that grounds alone it should be deleted. Apart from that, there also seems to be notability problems. Nymf _hideliho! 09:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user running around doing this, this and this makes me question it even more. Nymf _hideliho! 09:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is posting the page I created on random articles, needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severingblades (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mr. Lambert-Whitford's "supporting role" in the cited made-for-Canadian-TV movie is unknown to IMDB or the DVD listings. There are no other viable sources of notability cited, and I found no reliable sources (or, indeed, much in the way of unreliable ones) in a search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 13:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This is CSD material all the way. IMDB, which goes so far as to name every person even tangentially connected to a film, has no mention of this person at all. Even if it is not a hoax, it very obviously meets A7 criteria for failing to even modestly meet GNG. Trusilver 19:04, 8 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)} 09:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Van Voorhees[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article lacks third party sources; I could not find any reliable ones. Tinton5 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - the only notability is that descendants of his had towns named after them, which means that his notable achievement is "having children". JoshuSasori (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added references. - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK so we can believe that this person existed and had children, but that is not the point. How does this person meet the guidelines for biographies? There is nothing notable on the page. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more things, magistrate, founder of the church, patentee, considered the American founder of the family line. I think it should be good now. - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, Theornamentalist, that you did a wonderful job sprucing up the article by adding in sources, expansion, and further fixes. I commend you. I would like to know if Mr. Voorhees has any connection to Voorhees, New Jersey, since that is included in the "see also" section. My vote now is a keep. Let's see what others say. Tinton5 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my "delete" per Tinton5. I'm not sure this person is notable though. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides so many sources that tell so much about Van Voorhees, though so little of it relates to notability. The pioneer ancestor of Bergen County is a reasonably credible claim of notability in a credible source. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough notability for the page. Vincelord (talk) 15:51, 10 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Lekha Sriram[edit]

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

Not only is the article an absolute mess, it also contains NPOV issues, as well as WP:N, WP:V and WP:GNG issues. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tidied all the punctuation (<), bare url, and c0nFu$3d editor issues. POV is minor, solvable by editing - not severe enough to justify deletion. Given the number of reviews of publications, seems notable as an academic. Her works have been cited by others. Reconsider this nom? --Lexein (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator. Request withdrawal. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 06:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the nominator. I guess we're requesting closure. --Lexein (talk) 12:25, 12 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)} 09:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce (video game)[edit]

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

A non notable game pre-loaded on some Nokia phones. Article lacks sources of any kind to establish notability, and I can't seem to find any reliable independent sources for it, either. ArkRe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced for over a year, a quick search turns up nothing substantial, no notability established. Salvidrim! 15:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references for over a year. No notability has been established. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like a reference has been added to the article, but it's a Youtube video (unreliable) so I !vote Delete as per nom. 124.180.9.143 (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Salvidrim and Sjones. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recommend early close per WP:SNOW Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 01:07, 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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanendra Malla[edit]

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

Simply put, fails WP:N...has but one source, which is not independent of the subject, my google search yields several cricket websites and a Facebook page, none of which would be considered reliable per WP:RS. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some sources: Malla Inspired By Indian Stars, Malla denied Kuwait visa for Elite Cup, Malla steers Kathmandu to victory, Malla Alam star for APF; Far West hammer KCC, Khadka, Malla snatch win from KIC India, and Malla helps Nepal win practice match. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable. Delete as per nomination - Bharathiya (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN. Player has played List A Twenty20 matches and has played at WCL 5 or above. Article needs a lot of work as its rather out of date, but that's no reason to delete. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CRIN. For the record, ESPNcricinfo is pretty clearly independent of the subject of this article. Hack (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew and Hack. The suggestion that CricketArchive is an unreliable site is total nonsense. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's unreliable, I'm saying it's not independent of the subject. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not independent? Hack (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion says "reliable sources independent of the subject"--a site devoted to cricket is hardly independent of the subject. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is Gyanendra Malla and general cricket sites are independent. The only kind of site that would not be independent is one exclusively about him. CricketArchive contains objective information about cricketers, teams, matches, etc. and is in no way subjective re any individual. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jack. CricketArchive is not affiliated with the subject in any way. CricketArchive is not affiliated with any cricket governing body in any way. I would agree that a Nepal Cricket Association site may have some problems with being seen to be independent but this is not the case here. Casting the net wider so that any general site relating to a subject's profession is not independent is a step too far. Both Cricinfo and CricketArchive are independent sites. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does having a profile on ESPN guarantee notability in your mind for a basketball or baseball player guarantee notability? Go Phightins! (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article meets the relevant subject-specific guideline, WP:CRIN. The information contained in the ESPN and CricketArchive profiles verifies that fact. The same requirement would be true of a basketball or baseball player. Hack (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the fact that he has a profile on ESPNCricinfo or CricketArchive that makes him notable - indeed there are potentially thousands of cricketers with profiles on those two sites that don't come anywhere near meeting our notability requirements. What makes him notable is him having played List A Twenty20 cricket matches - List A Twenty20 essentially being the Twenty20 cricket statisitical equivalent of Major League Baseball. Andrew nixon (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Jack. extra999 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played cricket at a notable level, with nine Twenty20 matches, as well as numerous World Cricket League appearances at Division 5 or above. Not too sure what the argument about ESPNcricinfo being referenced was all about! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:57, 12 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) 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STEALTHbits[edit]

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

Non-notable technology corporation, with very limited sources. Most are self published. Tinton5 (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Puff piece. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources and obviously intended to promote the subject. – MrX 02:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while individual products might be notable (I didn't check them), the company definitely fails WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:03, 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 Japan Foundation. Page history retained for use in possible merge Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wochi Kochi Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Declined speedy. No GNews hits. No GBooks hits. All GHits were to magazine-owned website. No refs from independent reliable sources, as www.jpf.go.jp is the parent company for the magazine. GregJackP Boomer! 01:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy, because I felt the rationales asserted -- no assertion of notability and blatant advertising -- were not an accurate reflection of the actual state of the article. I believe AfD is the place for this, but this cries out for someone with Japanese language skills, as Google Translate does not seem to be all that helpful (translating part of the magazine name as "the penis," believe it or not.) If not found to be independently notable, this should be merged and redirected to Japan Foundation, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this a bit (like adding the Japanese wikilink), but I'll have to spend more time looking for independent RS. One note: this is not a company. The Japan Foundation is an independent administrative agency associated with the Foreign Ministry of Japan. This is thus a non-profit publication dedicated to Japanese culture. That may not help in proving notability, but we should not think that the article is trying to serve a commercial purpose. Michitaro (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Foundation isn't terribly long, either. Unless Michitaro or someone can find something surprising, a merge and redirect is the best way to go imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I checked Japanese sources available online and determined this publication lacked clear notability based on WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK (which, in this case, essentially resulted in falling back to GNG). Notability aside, this is a company; non-profits are companies, and government agencies can set them up. That doesn't have any bearing on the notability of the publications they produce; they're either covered or they're not. JFHJr (㊟) 04:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Japanese law, JF is a dokuritsu gyosei hojin, or independent administrative agency. This is a special category under Japanese law and is distinct from non-profit corporations. Japanese national universities or museums are all dokuritsu gyosei hojin, and just like you would not call them companies, so you would not call JF a company.

In addition, there are eight Special Independent Administrative Agencies 独立行政法人 [75] whose functions are determined by Japanese law to be essential to the economic or social welfare of the Japanese people. These Independent Administrative Agencies were created under the reforms of then-Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto when he slashed the number of ministries in half in the 90s and devolved many of their functions into these satellite organizations. [76] Hence, the taxpayer funding. [77] Jun Kayama 17:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - Little (if any) WP:RS, and doesn't pass the WP:GNG, but this could be merged into to Japan Foundation or redirected there. Zappa O Mati 15:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I did more searching and while the publication itself seems to serve a public service, I cannot find sufficient independent RS to warrant a separate article. Since the Japan Foundation article is not that long, this article can easily be merged into that one. Michitaro (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked for evidence of significant third party coverage and cannot find it. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japan Foundation. Not enough independent reliable sources were found that would have established notability independent of the foundation. A mention or section should probably be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I've pasted the relevant paragraph into the Japan Foundation article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or coverage to indicate notability or justify a self-standing article like this. Article can be deleted now that relevant description has been added to Japan Foundation. --DAJF (talk) 00:52, 10 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) 01:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Advanced Research In Technology[edit]

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

This academic journal unfortunately does not appear notable at this time. Googling for "International Journal of Advanced Research In Technology" on Google Books, News, and News archives turned up nothing, while Google Scholar hits predictably come from the journal itself. CtP (t • c) 01:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing there as per nomination, only a single primary source. It's not clear that it has even ever actually published a single issue...Oranjblud (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another new journal trying to ride the open-access wave. Although several issues have been published since the journal was established (only last year), there is no evidence of notability: no independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as per nomination - Bharathiya (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin I have blocked the article creator for copyright violations, so he will be unable to respond to this AfD. However, I have agreed to transcribe any statement he wishes to to make to this page on his behalf. In case I miss something, please check User talk:Ramesh Ramaiah for any pertinent Keep rationale before closing. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 17:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have more articles without any independent sources at Computer science journals example see following articles: The Journal of Object Technology, Scientific Computing & Instrumentation smd Theoretical Computer Science (journal). Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (moved from User talk:Ramesh Ramaiah by Yunshui 雲‍水 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet Notability (academic journals) or WP:SIGCOV. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:56, 9 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 Hey look, someone actually bothered to improve the damn article instead of saying "but there are sources" and not showing where they are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barenaked Ladies demo tapes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I love how we still can't get a consensus on this after two tries. I'll just restate my piece from last time with a bit of elaboration: Bunching all their demo tapes into one article does not fix the fact that no secondary sources exist. The only sources here are all primary sources and a dodgy looking discography site. A search for these titles + Barenaked Ladies found only those infernal books that copy Wikipedia articles. Despite what one user said in the last AFD, the documentary and Behind the Music are primary sources, since the band members themselves were interviewed in it.

The last AFD had one "keep" and one "delete", and gathered no further !votes after being relisted twice. How many more times do we need to go around before anyone reaches a conclusion? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close as tendentious disruption. "I'll just restate my piece from last time" What's up Hammer? Did consensus give the wrong answer again last month? Are you going to keep re-nominating this until eventually we get it right? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus didn't "give the wrong answer again" because there was no consensus in the first place. And show me where it says re-nominating after a "no consensus" is disruptive. I see that all the time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Geez, Hammer. How many more times will you nominate this page? The past two AfD's had no consensus, and it's unlikely that this one will either. I'm actually ChineseLamps, the person who built this page, and I'm posting here because I can't seem to find my old password. The sources are already strong enough as it is, as how much stronger can you get than a documentary and a TV special? The site you're calling "dodgy" actually used to be a very reputable site in the early days of the internet, and contains lots of important information. This article as it is is very notable, as BNL have always been a crucial part of Canada's music scene. We even have a page for Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings, and up in my native Canada, few people even know any songs other than Stairway to Heaven. If you ask any Canadian about BNL, it is unlikely to find someone who won't start singing Enid. For someone who claims to be a fan of BNL, you sure do seem inclined on getting this page off Wikipedia. 65.190.66.32 (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several reliable sources to the article. It could still use some cleaning up, and admittedly I'm not finding much on Barenaked Recess and Variety Recordings, but the overall inclusion of the sources should demonstrate that there is enough verifiable information to justify at least an article on the topic. Merging into the main Barenaked Ladies article or discography page does not seem reasonable (WP:UNDUE); if anything, the Buck Naked and Barenaked Lunch entries are closer to warranting individual articles (like The Yellow Tape) than deletion. Maybe recreating those pages would be the best way to proceed, especially since the Yellow Tape section of this article is mostly just duplicated in its standalone article anyway. Another option would be to keep all the Yellow Tape info confined to this article, but since it satisfies WP:NALBUMS on its own merits (top-10 charting release, certified platinum), having its own article makes sense. Gongshow ^Talk 09:09, 8 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.