Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 10

Guide to deletion

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

List of monitored photovoltaic power stations

List of monitored photovoltaic power stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an indiscriminate list of any PV station that happens to have a Web page; these are tiny non-notable installations. This "article" serves mostly as a link farm to drive traffic to one or two Web sites. We have an article for listing large PV power plants, none of these plants qualify. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wtshymanski (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• What does it mean for the station to be "monitored"? Does that help it be less indiscriminate in any way? What's the scale of infrastructure that these represent? postdlf (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Monitored means there is online data available, such as for the Tepco systems in Japan (Ukishima Solar Power Plant, Ogishima Solar Power Plant, and Komekurayama Solar Power Plant). It does not matter if it is a 1 kW or a 100 MW system, the main thing is to see what the daily performance in that region is. You will note that even though there is an article for those three, I am not interested in that, but only in a link to the data for each. Every state in the US is covered and as many countries as possible. If I am wondering what a system I install will act like, I only need to consult this list and look at a system that is near me and see how it has been performing, making adjustments for any differences. It was complained that this is a "link list of un-notable systems". What is notable is the performance that the system generates in that region of the world. It is as you will a map of the entire world with a data point for each region, or several data points. I considered making the links refs, but all that does is double the length of the article, and mean you have to click on the link twice instead of once, so they were left as links instead of refs. Obviously I recommend keeping this vital article, which is currently listed as a high priority article for the energy project. You will also note that if a project has a "web page" I am not interested in that. I am only interested in linking to a web page that has data, or to the data page for the site. This is a representative list, not an inclusive list. There are tens of thousands of sites that are monitored, and representative sites were chosen from each region of the world. Over the last ninety days the page has been viewed about 1200 times, which is far, far more than many of our obscure but notable topics. Judging from the map I am going to be looking for sites in Iceland, Russia, Africa, and South America, plus a few more areas of Australia. That map is a great tool for checking to see if a region has adequate representation. Apteva (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Weak keep This looks interesting and useful. It would do well to have a better description (like the one Apteva has just given) in the article and/or talk page.Martin451 (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But in the article, not the talk page. Apteva (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This has sufficient potential to be worth developing, not deleting. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can see that this is interesting, but it's not encyclopedic content. A list of weather stations or of traffic cameras or indeed of pizza takeaways would also be interesting and useful to some people, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Many of these are incredibly small and insignificant, and the information has no lasting value. There also seems to be an element of original research in that the author has attempted to select a sample of sites, rather than having a comprehensive inclusion policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is interesting and potentially useful; room for further development. Note the stated parameters of the article: "This article ... is a representative, not an inclusive list, as there are tens of thousands of systems that could be used. The goal is to have at least one system for every region, and preferably three systems from each region, to allow comparison." This seems reasonable. Hopefully the comparative aspect can be further developed over time. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator. I see now this article is a vehicle for exciting new original research on solar power performance around the world. When did the encyclopedia turn into a venue for publishing new research? When did Wikipedia become a substitute for a phone book or directory? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Madeline Amy Sweeney

Madeline Amy Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I know this is late, but I just noticed this article and must AFD as non-notable. Quis separabit? 23:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. There is tons of coverage about her story, both contemporaneous with 9/11 and since[1][2]; and her notability is also recognized by the Madeline Amy Sweeney Award given each year by the state of Massachusetts[3]. It's conceivable that the article should be named after the award instead of the person, but it would end up with the same content either way: a section about her biography and death, and a section about the award. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people became famous as victims of 9/11. Slippery slope?? Quis separabit? 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - yes many became "famous as victims" as you say. But this "victim" is one of the very well known ones. she was one of those who gave reports into the hijacking etc. does not fail WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG. Heck, there is a State of MA award named after her. SarahStierch (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per BabbaQ. Passes GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. While in general I don't think victims are notable, the fact that this one no only has an award named after her but has a recorded phone conversation just before dying does put her an a category of recognition above other victims. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete not really notable outside of the one event, it may be that the award is acutally notable and that could be created as a new article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Think you are misreading WP:ONEEVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont need to read the guideline I was just expressing an opinion that the page mentions nothing outside of the one event. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as subject is notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per above. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2013 (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 redirect to Patois. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

French Patois

French Patois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable dialect, no evidence of official status in five countries listed, almost no sources except for one mention in an outdated publication Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest redirecting this to French-based creole languages. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to Patois, as was the case from June 2006 until April 2013. (Alternately, I would have no strong objection to redirecting to French-based creole languages, as suggested by Arxiloxos.) Cnilep (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Silver Giorgio Armani dress of Cate Blanchett

Silver Giorgio Armani dress of Cate Blanchett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines and will never grow beyond a stub. Better to merge into another article or perhaps omit entirely from our encyclopedia. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete My grief, there's articles on individual dresses being made now? *headdesk* Blatant WP:NOT violation, although what criteria it would fit (probably multiple ones), I'm not sure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Iconic white dress of Marilyn Monroe, yes; black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn, of course; Blanchett's, no. Call us back when the Armani is worth a few million dollars. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. This could go in Red carpet fashion in 2007, like Red carpet fashion in 2000, etc. So could the garment below (in 2005). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT and per nom. So much with this nomination including the listing of 'List of' articles dealing with red carpet fashion by year? And I thought the soap and Nick fans were known for their inane attention to detail. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep A dress or other object of clothing can be a work of art as much as any work of art, and such objects are collected by major museums and are analyzed by scholars. Their interest is both artistic, and--like any other applied art form--sociological. I would say that any item of costume which enters the collection of a major general museum and is discussed in the literature is notable; I am less sure about those whose significance is only as elements of popular culture, unless they have been extensively discussed, not necessarily by academics, but serious non-fan discussion. As our coverage of these is only beginning , we should be careful in our selection. Having settled the general issue, the question is whether dresses whose main significance is being won by major stars at the Oscars are sufficiently important in the absence of serious curatorial or cultural discussion. Most of the dresses in this group, including this one, do not seem to me to be of great intrinsic merit, except for the circumstances in which they are worn-at least I see no references to academic discussions and analyses that would say otherwise. But the circumstance is which the dress and the other Oscar dresses are worn are circumstances of the highest possible significance in US popular culture , and that is sufficient. (I think there might be a certain degree of prejudice being expressed in these deletions, perhaps of the sort that items characteristic of some professions are not particularly significant--I base that on some of the expressions used (I agree it's not as important as her Valentino, but it's still important enough) DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in fashion. However, merging some of these dresses into Red carpet fashion year articles might be a good idea. I'm sick of always having to do the expansion work of everything,♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete for this specific dress, but with comments - As I said on the above AFD for the yellow Valentino, I really need to get back to doing the articles I started doing on Red Carpet Fashion by year, which would absorb some of the other minimally notable dresses for which we have individual articles. This particular dress does not have a huge deal of significance in itself, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman. I actually have the 2007 article in my sandbox at User:Mabalu/Red carpet fashion in 2007 and do already mention this dress there... Mabalu (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it would be a merge then wouldn't it, not a delete.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The article to be merged into doesn't exist officially on mainspace yet, so not sure a merge vote is appropriate yet - I should finish it up and come back and change my vote once the article exists. Mabalu (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the yellow dress is definitely more notable than this one. I'd agree to a merge if a paragraph can be written about it there. We ought to have pages up for every year in Red Carpet fashion, that would cover most of them, I can give you a hand if you want. Coverage of these dresses is definitely notable but I'm not sure a lot of the more recent Oscar dresses are worthy of their own articles. You could probably compile a start class for a lot of them but a lot of them might start to look puffed up. I think a Red carpet fashion of... with a paragraph on the more notable dresses should suffice. And yes, these dresses are hardly on the level of the iconic dresses I started, but at the time of creation I thought it probably a good idea to try to improve coverage of a very poorly covered topic overall. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If the criterion is whether they are discussed in the popular non-fan press in their own right, then a great many worn there are probably notable, and, as Dr. B says, you could compile a start -class article on them. How far we want to go on this is an interesting question, and I agree that combination articles may be the best place to start with. I'm reluctant to make a judgment on what ought to be important. DGG ( talk ) 13:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep for the reasons given above by DGG.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting subject and notable in fashion. Second that with reasons of DGG.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, per DGG, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The content presented is backed by reliable sources and provides sufficient support such that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep again per DGG. Dresses are as much art as anything else can be. If reliable sources think it notable enough to cover, then we should as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject appears to pass WP:GNG, and is signifigant for being a work of article. I find Blofeld and DGG's arguments to be compelling. --LauraHale (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Since Red carpet fashion in 2007 now exists, I have merged a condensed version of the info (using the same sources) on this dress into that article. I think we could safely lose this article or redirect it without losing anything much, although it will clearly pass as a "keep" this time round. Mabalu (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Like -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• This article can be easily expanded to include more information than what is in the more general article you created (thanks for that though). Silverseren^C 23:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Per adequate coverage in RS. As with Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett A dress should be not inherently more or less notable. The dress has enough coverage to warrant its existence outside Red carpet fashion in 2007.Smallman12q (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My feeling, though I am a fashion specialist, is that at this point, while there may be enough RS on individual Oscar dresses, at the end of the day, the vast majority are the object equivalent of WP:SINGLEEVENT as they are notable for a single event, and do not tend to have a life/notability beyond that event. They are covered and described and documented, yes, but very few receive in depth coverage or attention. For every swan dress of Björk, black Versace dress of Elizabeth Hurley, and green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez, there are hundreds if not thousands of gorgeous frocks worn at these events, a couple of dozen which may be mentioned and reported on several times at the time, and afterwards, maybe one or two will be seriously remembered. This is one case where I think a few years' grace period is necessary before deciding what has remained notable and what was a flash in the pan, like, IMO, this particular dress. The general articles on red carpet fashion by year are a better place to start, as once the overviews are in place, then we can properly assess which ones have remained notable and may deserve their own article. I do see a very strong case for an article on Black Lanvin dress of Tilda Swinton from Red carpet fashion in 2008, but I will leave that for someone else to create, as I think we need general overviews more at this point. Mabalu (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett

Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This dress is not notable enough for a separate article, which will never grow beyond a stub. Can it not instead be included in the Cate Blanchett article, as a subsection or brief mention? Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete My grief, there's articles on individual dresses being made now? *headdesk* Blatant WP:NOT violation, although what criteria it would fit (probably multiple ones), I'm not sure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot of editors would feel the same about articles like BTC-T Alfa Romeo 147.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Has adequate coverage in reliable sources 67 newspaper and magazine sources picked up in HighBeam, cited by all of the top fashion people Cosmopolitan, Vogue as one of the year's highlights in fashion. Cosmopolitan considers it one of the greatest Oscar dresses of all time, that's why it is notable above all I think. Fashion is grossly under covered on wikipedia and we should have way more articles on fashion collections and garments.

@Luke. Yes, Jimbo at the time of the Kate and William wedding when Wedding dress of Kate Middleton was up for deletion said if we have can 1000 stubs on geeky computer software related subjects then we should not only have one but one hundred articles on individual notable dresses as systematic bias towards male geeky topics is a huge problem on here, or something that effect. As a result a large batch of dresses were created like Black Versace dress of Elizabeth Hurley and many others.

This is where Jimmy Wales said that we should have 100 articles on notable individual dresses.

You can easily argue the reverse: It's insulting to women to say that women can be attracted to Wikipedia by having more articles about stereotypically female subjects. It was even brought up in the Kate Middleton dress AFD:

In later responses on the same and other threads, several female editors made it quite clear without referencing my post directly that they resented the insinuation that they in particular, or women in general, would flock to editing Wikipedia in droves if we just let them write more articles about make-up tips and such.

A Linux distribution, if it's discussed at all, is as likely to be discussed tomorrow as it is today. A dress, not so much, except under very rare circumstances such as actually impacting fashion for a considerable time period (which is subject to WP:CRYSTAL). Having an article for a dress is like having an article for an individual episode of a TV show, and Wikipedia normally doesn't take those, even if they're on male geeky subjects. Yes, reliable sources have articles about dresses. Reliable sources also have articles about TV show episodes. The source only cares about them because it cares about the larger context (such as the Oscars for dresses or the entire TV show for episodes); they're not really notable on their own.

Or to give another example, do we want an article for "Romance between teen stars Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber"? That topic is disdained by male geeks at least as much as an article about someone's dress is, and like the dress, is stereotypically something that appeals to females. And it's high enough profile that I'm sure there are reliable sources that are not gossip magazines and which talk about it. Shall we have an article? Of course not. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's kinda funny to me why a straight male geek would show much disdain for articles like Black Versace dress of Elizabeth Hurley, I mean look at it!!!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who said what, dresses are not a priori exempt from WP:GNG and this particular dress is not notable. Contrast this dress and the publicity it (briefly) received with the wedding dress of Grace Kelly which continues to be notable even years after the day it was worn. Dusty|💬|You can help! 01:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Its funny how you are pointing out those dresses at these AFDs. I wrote all of the articles on the iconic dresses. And I agree that most of the Oscar dresses are not iconic or on their level. I also agree that most of the Oscar dresses would be better covered in a paragraph in a Red carpet fashion in ... year article. But I think this dress does meet GNG and has enough coverage to constitute its own article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. No lasting significance: it barely rates a few words in the long Voguepedia entry for Valentino. As Heidi Klum keeps saying (over and over), in fashion, "one day you're in, and the next day you're out." This one's out, Cosmo puffery aside. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep As much as I like the theme of famous dresses, I'm not convinced this is one that should stay, but I don't think this ought to be deleted outright. All the leading designers fight to fit out their famous mannequins come Oscar time, and some of the dresses do make the mark. There's a fair amount of coverage here, but most seem to be trivial; some do share the spotlight with the wearer in the commentators' eyes, but I don't see any commentary making out this dress as 'iconic'. Perhaps now might be a time to create an umbrella article of "Oscar dresses" ;-).  Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I noted in the sister Afd above, there are several Red carpet fashion in 20xx articles, though none yet for Red carpet fashion in 2005. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure how I ultimately come down on this one. While fashion generally is undercovered in Wikipedia, I'm not sure that lots of articles on individual Oscar dresses are the solution to that problem. (See Cathy Horyn's many rants about red-carpet "fashion".) I agree that there is a ton of coverage, but most is contemporaneous, so WP:NOTNEWS might be a problem here. On the other hand, eight years later, I still instantly recognized this dress and many or most American women could probably say the same. I think the best solution might be a broader article, as suggested by Clarityfiend, collecting various important awards ceremony dresses for the year. Perhaps dresses with lasting coverage could have their own articles (Versace safety-pin dress comes to mind), but ones that spark a flurry of coverage that dies down relatively quickly could be included in articles with a broader scope. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that most people who pay attention to the romance between Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber would remember it in 8 years as well.Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I already gave my reasons above. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep A dress or other object of clothing can be a work of art as much as any work of art, and such objects are collected by major museums and are analyzed by scholars. Their interest is both artistic, and--like any other applied art form--sociological. I would say that any item of costume which enters the collection of a major general museum and is discussed in the literature is notable; I am less sure about those whose significance is only as elements of popular culture, unless they have bee extensively discussed, not necessarily b academics, but serious non-fan discussion. As our coverage of these is only beginning ,we should be careful in our selection. Having settled the general issue, the question is whether dresses whose main significance is being won by major stars tat the Oscars are sufficiently important in the absence of serious curatorial or cultural discussion. Most of the dresses in this group, including this one, do not seem to me to be of great intrinsic merit, except for the circumstances in which they are worn-at least I see no references to academic discussions and analyses that would say otherwise. But the circumstance is which the dress and the other Oscar dresses are work are cicumstances of the highest possible significance in US popular culture , and that is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep for this specific dress, but with comments - I really need to get back to doing the articles I started doing on Red Carpet Fashion by year, which would absorb some of the other minimally notable dresses for which we have individual articles. This particular dress has demonstrable significance in itself, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman. Mabalu (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article on a topic deserving coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett has adequate coverage in reliable sources.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm highly offended by some of the sexism allegations aimed at me here (or aimed generally at Wikipedia users). These dresses get coverage briefly, and then after whatever show/festival is over, unless they're particularly "novel" (like, say, Lady GaGa's meat dress thing), they're forgotten about. Surely the lack of prolonged, serious coverage is a reason for deletion, just like it is for anything else? Most of the later stuff is just mentions of the dress in passing, or routine stuff. Also, most of the later coverage is in unreliable sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is accusing you or anybody of sexism. But I am accusing you of the typical natural male bias exhibited on here towards cars, trains and video games and way of thinking that briefly used highly modified cars are notable yet red carpet fashion isn't. The sources used in the article prove that this and Academy Award fashion as a subject is notable. Articles about beautiful women in exotic colourful dresses might not be your thing but the subject does meet requirements of coverage and wikipedia would be better off as a resource if this subject was fully expanded, but with articles on the dresses as a whole for each awards rather than individually. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Utter rubbish. I would actually consider the wedding dress of Kate Middleton to be notable, as THAT got a plethora of coverage in many reliable sources, outside of the fashion world, and probably still is doing, if I bothered to look. One dress used once at one awards ceremony, is not notable, as opposed to a dress used at a televised wedding ceremony, garnering coverage before and after that event. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"One dress used once at one awards ceremony, is not notable" - Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez? Mabalu (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to this, Blofield, you deliberately looking at what I've created, then commenting on it, is absolutely irrelevant to this deletion discussion. Also, Mabalu, that dress you link to also suffers from almost all of its later sources being unreliable... That said, there's an exception to every rule, and it's fairly evident from that picture WHY this dress has continued to garner any interest. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It was your outrage and head bang remark which prompted me. It is clearly relevant because you have a very biased way of looking at the encyclopedia. Do you think that anybody outside motor racing jargon knows what a DNF and DNS is? You expect others to understand the article when in reality it is written in a way that the average wikipedian would find difficult. If we can have an article on a car used for one racing season 12 years ago which obviously no longer continues to get press (as if that is an encyclopedia requirement anyway), then we can have this. The bottom line is that both sources have adequate coverage in encyclopedic sources and that is all that matters. But as for "continuing to get press", Highbeam search for the car turns up zilch, the yellow Valentino dress on the other hand picks up 54 sources. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ever heard of exaggeration? Thought not. Your comments in this AfD have been absurdly inappropriate. I do not have a biased way of looking at the encyclopedia, this is rubbish and a borderline personal attack - in fact, if you actually got off your high horse and bothered to read my comments properly, you would see that I mentioned one dress that I believe to be notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This article clearly meets the sourcing requirements which indicates notability. What harm exactly does this article do wikipedia? That's why I'm claiming your biased because you want to delete an article which has way more sources and coverage than something you think is notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:NOHARM. And yet more inappropriate/irrelevant comments, well done you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, per DGG, well known, well sourced, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons listed above. "Never grow beyond a stub"? Gracious, look again! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Useful note: If, in the 2nd second sentence of each article, there were some variables defined: "Let x be in the unified set of yellow fabrics..." then in the next paragraph, introduce the related eigenvector:

If we multiply any fabric's square matrix $A$ with $n$ rows and $n$ columns by such a vector $v$, the result will be another vector $w=Av$, also with $n$ rows and one column. That is, the fabric can be tailored as:

${\begin{bmatrix}v_{1}\\v_{2}\\\vdots \\v_{n}\end{bmatrix}}\quad \quad$ is mapped to ${\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\\\vdots \\w_{n}\end{bmatrix}}\;=\;{\begin{bmatrix}A_{1,1}&A_{1,2}&\ldots &A_{1,n}\\A_{2,1}&A_{2,2}&\ldots &A_{2,n}\\\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\A_{n,1}&A_{n,2}&\ldots &A_{n,n}\\\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}v_{1}\\v_{2}\\\vdots \\v_{n}\end{bmatrix}}$

where, for each index $i$,

$w_{i}=A_{i1}v_{1}+A_{i2}v_{2}+\cdots +A_{in}v_{n}=\sum _{j=1}^{n}A_{ij}v_{j}$

In tailoring the garments, if $v$ is not all zeros, the vectors $v$ and $Av$ will not be parallel, and therefore, one sleeve of the dress was $v_{1}^{k+3}$ longer than the other sleeve. Attribution: Wikid77

☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant! Mabalu (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Useless drivel. Praemonitus (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I still do not feel it's appropriate to have separate pages for every dress worn to a red carpet event that receives publicity and am inclined to support the idea of merging these articles where possible, perhaps into the designers' pages or into pages dedicated to specific Events. This would reduce the amount of short, independent articles while simultaneously making them easier to find for readers interested in the topic. However, I would also like to add that the article has been fleshed out considerably since my original nomination and I withdraw my "short and unlikely to grow" comment but not my vote to Delete. I would also like to take umbrage against the charge of sexism as I have personally voted to delete a number of so-called 'geeky' pages (the Nintendo Support Forum being my most recent example) although I tend to mostly vote to delete non-notable person pages as there are so many non-notable people running about (present company excluded of course). I am sure a number of other editors would also concur but they might also add that both computer games and cars are used by many people many times whereas these dresses are typically worn by one person and just once. So the comparison is completely invalid IMO. Sorry for the lack of puncuation here but I guess that dress has left me breathless... Dusty|💬|You can help! 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to a merger; standalone articles are overkill. In my case, I've nominated, or voted for, the deletion of plenty of the aforementioned Linux distros, as well, so... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The content presented is backed by reliable sources and provides sufficient support such that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - I was fulling going into this thinking "Delete", but I was swayed by Dr. Blofield's arguments. Its certainly never an article I'd create/write/read, but it doesn't matter. There's a precendent that articles about dresses are appropriate, and there's the coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. Separate of my lack of interest in the subject, it does appear worth keeping. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Nice dress and article, sourced. Ericoides (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Worthwhile and reliably sourced article on a subject that I don't give two hoots about. Actually an important runway dress, if there is such a thing. If it is not being kept as a stand alone, then it should be part of the yearly red carpet parade. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. It isn't our place to decide what is silly and what isn't, that is the job of the reliable sources. Our job it just to document it if they do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject appears to pass WP:GNG, and is signifigant for being a work of article. I find Blofeld and DGG's arguments to be compelling. --LauraHale (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The question is not "is this article reliably sourced" because it's obvious that it is. The question is "is this dress notable" which means more than reliably sourced. It also, for example, has to pass the one event test and that is my main concern with this article (and is why I wouldn't consider nominating dresses that have had an obvious lasting impact). Granted, the one event policy as written applies to people not dresses but (part of the problem IMO) there are no guidelines for determining which dresses are notable and which are not. I think it's fair to apply the one event test to these dresses. I am not a fashion guru (even though I'm smoking hot) but my assumption is that editors here will evaluate this dress against that and other relevant criteria and come to a consensus. Thank you, Dusty|💬|You can help! 21:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability and weight of coverage in reliable sources generally go hand in hand.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. More than one person would consider a fine dress to be a work of art. Even Jimbo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost every single citation is written from the perspective of the person wearing it, and briefly mentions the dress. There's hardly any proper description or detailed analysis of it. Most of the articles cited rely on the image and don't even say any more than the designer's name or very possibly the fabric. Such superficial coverage we know as 'trivial', and none of that supports the assertion of notability of the given dress, IMHO. My support for the article would be much stronger if there were more columns (and more column inches) dedicated to the merits or otherwise of the dress itself, rather than simply how the mannequin herself looks in it. In other words, whether the mannequin has chosen the right dress for her ought to be largely irrelevant. But that is not the case. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There are some detailed articles on it which we can only pick up snippets of. The People magazine article and one or two others have full blown articles on it. Most of the articles are from newspaper fashion critics writing about the Oscars and a lot of them only write a paragraph or so or even a few words on the dress to fairly cover the other dresses worn, yes. And some articles do offer Armani's and Blanchett's comments on the dress. But the sheer number of sources which make a thing of mentioning and talking about this dress makes it notable. Enzo Petito has no article covering him in detail, mostly snippets compiled. A lot of articles are constructed this way, they still meet notability requirements. It would be unreasonable to expect whole books, magazines and big articles dedicated solely to one dress. Your argument is way stronger for the grey dress and I agree with Mabalu on this, the info in that could be merged into the 2007 red carpet articles easily, but this particular dress I think meets notability requirements in its own right.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Per adequate coverage in RS. A dress should be not inherently more or less notable. Smallman12q (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - As long our coverage of Linux distributions is being held hostage to this issue, what other choice do we have? Kauffner (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I move that the discussion be closed as Keep 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, and second - first time I've seen Jimbo make a sensible comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2013 (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 redirect to Steven Blane. At some point, the discussion went overheated, the article was severely rewritten after the nomination, and some users changed their votes. However, as I read it, everybody agrees that if one removes all material strictly about Steven Blane, the remaining sources are not sufficient to establish the notability of the website. We thus have a choice between delete, merge, and redirect. I have chosen redirect, which leaves the page history intact, and there is no prejudice about merge: Whoever wants to take the existing material and move it to the article on Steven Blane is welcome to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sim Shalom Synagogue

Sim Shalom Synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable website with a couple of mentions in weekly local newspaper. Created by a PR agent, prod removed by an editor with a username that suggests they are the person running this entity. Number 57 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I went through the article to remove blatant advertising, remove unsourced statements, and format refs. I found a more national ref on PR Newswire, but more refs are needed to meet GNG. Yoninah (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm mistaken, PR newswire is used by people distributing press releases, and so is not an independent, reliable source. Number 57 09:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Redirect to Steven Blane (rabbi) per IZAK. I just created this page and put in all the references that talk about Blane and Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute, but not about Sim Shalom Synagogue. Yoninah (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Merge and Redirect to the new Steven Blane (rabbi) article to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING per agreement with User Yoninah (talk · contribs) [also, retaining the following and other comments since all the material has now been kept and merged and redirected into the new Steven Blane (rabbi) article] because, especially WP should recognize the power of the web. This is a WP:N subject, regardless of its affiliation, this is not just "the wave of the future" it is the future and it is now. A careful reading shows that this is a serious effort with multiple domains [4] [5] [6] [7] creating a cyber/virtual synagogue as well as a seminary to train its rabbis, something to be expected in this day and age. I have wikified the article and added more links to give it better context. Kindly please practice Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. In addition it is always wise in such situations not to rush to judgement and take to heart WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly sure how I bit the newcomers? G2003 has been editing for almost a year, and produces a steady stream of advertisement-type articles (I strongly suspect he is a paid editor). I also removed a large part of your addition to the article, as it made no reference to the subject whatsoever (I'm rather concerned that as an experienced editor, you think that a section entitled "Introduction: E-learning" is appropriate). Number 57 09:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Hi Number 57: Thank you for your observations. You may be right that G2003 may be a paid agent, but you know what, who cares, if he creates useful new information the WP community at large and experienced editors will decide what to keep and what to throw out. At any rate G2003 does a lousy job at formatting new articles so he must be a big newbie and thus must be accorded courtesies for that. WP welcomes contributions from the universe. Many articles start out as POV pieces and then are re-written and improved to comply with WP policies. As for the sections you object to, I appreciate your comments, but in trying to improve an article, one has to find corroborating information and I try to do that first from WP itself. I will look at anything if it can help. Feel free to object. Right now I have spent time adding WP:NPOV additional WP:RS and I think that the article should stay. This is an important development, bigger than this single synagogue even. There are other efforts of this nature and they need to be noted especially in a cyber-encyclopedia like WP. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I do not see why people who have been editing since 2010 (just checked his edit history) should be treated as newbies. If you can't learn how to write an article properly, especially if you're being paid to do so, then what should be expected?
      • You have enlarged the article, but the number of references about the subject (the Sim Shalom Synagogue) has remained at two local newspapers and several self-references, so I still do not see that it is notable. The rabbi running it has a few passing mentions in national newspapers, which just state that he runs the synagogue, so not the significant coverage required by the WP:GNG. Perhaps an article about him would be more likely to be worthwhile, but I'm not sure. Number 57 12:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree with Number 57. You would think that an online synagogue that has been around since 2011 would have more online references. I also don't understand all the entries IZAK added in the See Also section, which are mostly Orthodox websites and whose inclusion suggests some kind of connection between this Universalist online synagogue and Orthodox Jewish outreach programming. Yoninah (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah: Thank you for proving my WP:NPOV bona fides! It is VERY obvious that Blane and the Sim Shalom Synagogue are very much NOT Orthodox, in fact they are the opposite of that. However, WP does not limit itself by creating articles by one ideology alone or by one faith only, as you know many Jewish-content articles have much alien stuff inserted into them because this is WP. On the technical side there are direct parallels between the online work Blane is doing with the kind of stuff that other Orthodox outfits are doing. It is similar work, not "co-operative" work nor is it meant to "deceive" anyone as you imply. Please apologize, I am working as a WP editor not as an advocate for any one POV. That's all. That is why "See alsos" exist in order to show a similar and related in some way, but not "exact" examples that a reader may be interested in. IZAK (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Week keep. I think the cited Forward article is more than trivial local coverage[8], and another article was picked up by JTA and distributed more widely[9]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The cited Forward article does not actually mention the subject of the article at all. Number 57 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The JTA article is about the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute and gives a one-line mention that Blane is also the founder of Sim Shalom Synagogue. Hardly a reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I didn't realize there was already a separate article about Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute; maybe we should wrap all the Blane-driven entities into one bundle with redirects.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. After the recent edits to remove advertising, the article still seems beefy enough to pass the general notability guideline. The nature of the subject (in this case, an online religious cyberservice) shouldn't really come into play; there is enough coverage for the subject for GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you advise where exactly this coverage is? None of the references added to the article since I nominated it are about the subject - most are about the rabbi running it. Number 57 11:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, and I am corrected. I would like to withdraw my vote for keep. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Number 57: You are being far too strident in your attempts to wipe out this article. You state, for example, "None of the references added to the article since I nominated it are about the subject - most are about the rabbi running it." Which is incredible, because almost all articles about synagogues have sections about their rabbis, particularly if he/she is the founding rabbi and is very much still actively involved with it. Rabbis are noted in Jewish media far more often than their synagogues. A synagogue without a rabbi is like a carriage without a horse or a monarchy without a monarch (be they good or bad, whether you like or dislike them, is immaterial.) This is an old discussion. A synagogue does not need "notoriety" or "mega-coverage" to be notable or to have a WP article about it, because after all, a synagogue is, well, just a synagogue, where Jews come to pray and follow/hear the rabbi, period, and there are hundreds if not thousands in Category:Synagogues, so that if anything this is a WP:N synagogue because it utilizes the modern Internet and up to date technology to achieve its aims, something that Wikipedians of all people should appreciate. Why that bothers you so is more of a question. IZAK (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What bothers me is that this synagogue does not appear to be notable as there is almost no third party coverage of it. What Wikipedians should appreciate is 100% irrelevant. Number 57 08:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The sources cited for a virtual synagogue establish the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Which ones? Number 57 08:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as per Alansohn and IZAK. -- Olve Utne (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  Change vote to “Redirect to Steven Blane (rabbi)”. The contents are better maintained in one common article, now that that one has been improved. -- Olve Utne (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to keep badgering people, but I'm still at a loss to exactly why what policies are being followed here? Where is the coverage required to meet WP:GNG? Number 57 09:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Number 57: This is a subtle but serious point that you are missing, once there was user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) who had noted [10] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here since after all this has been tagged as both a {{Synagogue-stub}} and {{Internet-stub}} with some good WP:RS now added and that naturally also requires more time than the "executioner's block treatment" you are subjecting this intriguingly encyclopedic topic to. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what Wikipedia guideline or policy that opinion from an AfD in 2007 follows, but even so, back to my original question, where are the sources to prove this "notability in the field"? Number 57 10:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Number57. Has anyone who voted !Keep taken a look at what the sources are talking about? Aside from the 4 citations from the Sim Shalom website, here’s what the other sources have to say:
  • The Jewish Standard article in Footnote 1 concerns the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute; it has a one-line mention of the Sim Shalom synagogue: "Blane also is the spiritual leader of Sim Shalom, an online synagogue that broadcasts weekly services to congregants who log on from around the world." The Jewish Standard article in Footnote 8 doesn't mention the synagogue at all.
  • The Intact News article is about circumcision, and simply names Rabbi Blane as "Rabbi of Congregation Havurah Sim Shalom, and Dean of the Jewish Spiritual Leader's Institute".
  • The Forward article in Footnote 9 is about the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute; it doesn't mention the Sim Shalom Synagogue at all.
  • The Ynetnews article in Footnote 10 is about the Jewish Spiritual leaders Institute; it has a one-line mention of the Sim Shalom Synagogue: "He now trains rabbis and runs an online synagogue, Sim Shalom, which holds services for a global congregation every week."
  • The Al Arabiya article in Footnote 11 has the same subject as the Ynetnews article, and uses the same one-liner about the Sim Shalom Synagogue.
  • The New York Times articles in Footnotes 12 & 13 are social announcements about Rabbi Blane officiating at weddings. No mention of Sim Shalom Synagogue.
  • IMO, all these refs should be used to beef up the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute page, and let this one be deleted until real sources can be found. Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yoninah: Firstly, the sources cited are all sufficient for what is after all a STUB of this level since most stubs do not even have any of this. Secondly, all you say proves that Rabbi Steven Blane has conducted fascinating and notable activities. Personally I do not agree with his ideology, but so what that is not the point! because even if one disagrees with his views the man is doing cutting-edge stuff that is being reported in media that you are far too dismissive of. Thirdly, you are contradicting yourself since what you say amounts to proposing that Sim Shalom Synagogue and Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute should be merged and redirected into one Rabbi Steven Blane article (something I would not object to should that happen as I have mentioned earlier) that would/should/could have a valid section dedicated to the Sim Shalom Synagogue he founded as well as the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute he founded and runs, but let's see how this AfD runs its course. Fourthly, you must make up your mind which it will be and quit displaying a very evident violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is understandable since this type of non-Orthodox outfit runs against your sensibilities and I fully sympathize but WP is not an Orthodox synagogue it is just, well, a WP:NPOV encyclopedia or should try to be. Fifthly, even though I do greatly sympathize with you I do think that you are acting as a POV warrior without realizing it perhaps, and need to consider WP:SPIDERMAN since by going to such extreme lengths to banish this topic you cannot simply "wish it away" simply because it is distasteful to you. IZAK (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - At issue here is notability. The sourcing is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Whpq: I beg to differ with you. Could you please point to the exact WP guidelines of what makes a synagogue or a website notable? especially a cross between a synagogue and an inter-active website as in this case. The sources cited are more than sufficient for this level WP:STUB, could you also cite the WP policy guidelines of what makes a stub notable or not and just how many citations are required of a stub to be given time to be improved. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Whoa. I cannot believe that you (IZAK) are accusing me of such nefarious motives. I'm fully aware that Wikipedia is a forum for all points of view. I wouldn't have spent time searching for more sources and cleaning up the page if the subject was distasteful to me. But the issue here is notability. I took extra time to list all the references to show that the sources are completely insignificant. I think it would be a wonderful idea to write Stephen Blane or expand Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute rather than continue to beat the dead horse of Sim Shalom Synagogue. Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • So why don't you then suggest a merge and redirect? (which you didn't), rather than trimming down the article and when I finally cite the sources. There is no need for sources to be "elaborate" it's enough that they come from respectable publications even they are one-liners they are good enough since there is no WP policy that source need to be treatises. Maybe since you are now into cherry picking this and that, this article should be left and maybe merge everything else into here. It is you that is making a mountain out of a molehill. IZAK (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • First of all, my edits preceded yours. I cut down the article and you expanded it. Second, where do you want to "merge and redirect" to? Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute is in worse shape than this one, reference-wise, and Stephen Blane hasn't yet been written. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Want to start merging all three topics into Steven Blane? be my guest. It would reduce problems with WP:CONTENTFORKING. I have no objection to merging all three topics into one as long as all the cited material stays. IZAK (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Of course all the citations you found will stay – they're all about Stephen Blane and the JSLI. I'm not sure if I can do this by tomorrow, though, so I'll copy the refs into a document and work on it later. Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Jolly good, I am on board with you on that! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • • Comment - The exact guideline that makes a synagogue notable is Wikipedia:Notability, and the oen for wbesites is WP:WEB. The Sim Shalom Synagogue fails to meet either and accusing others of bad faith doesn't change that. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wphq, kindly do not speak in meaningless generalities, please cite exact policies, anyone can cite huge policies that do not effect the initial creation of articles that start out as small stubs. Thanks, IZAK (talk)

• • • • • Reply - If you are looking for a specific guideline that covers synagogues, then there isn't one. So the general guideline applies. And that applies to stubs as well. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Much of the sources in ther article are there to provide sourcing for statements about the rabbi, Steven Blane, and make no mention Sim Shalom Synagogue. What coverage there is that does include Sim Shalom Synagogue is either not reliable, independent, or significant. After reviewing the sources in the article, I concur with Yoninah's analysis above. Furthermore, my own searches find no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Steven Blane (rabbi) as the article has been created since the AFD started and he appears to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps it has improved since it was first posted here, but looking at the article now and its refs and those indicated above it has sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As discussed above, none of the sources added to the articles since it was nominated are actually about the subject (i.e. the synagogue itself). Could you advise which references help it pass WP:GNG? Number 57 08:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Please note that I have changed my !vote to Redirect to the newly-created Steven Blane (rabbi), per IZAK. This new page includes all the references that talk about Blane and Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute, but not about Sim Shalom Synagogue. Yoninah (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Yoninah for all your hard work. I have struck my "Keep" vote and changed it to Merge and Redirect to the more sensible repository within the new Steven Blane (rabbi) article to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING per agreement with User Yoninah (talk · contribs) also, retaining my other comments since all the material has now been kept and merged and redirected into the new Steven Blane (rabbi) article. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep but merge is fine as well, per WP:CON. --Shuki (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why keep? And if a merge, what do you feel is mergeable? -- Whpq (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:GNG; can't support a merge to Steven Blane because I don't think that article's subject meets WP:BASIC. Miniapolis 21:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What about Steven Blane does not meet BASIC? The article cites "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Steven Blane is not the subject of this discussion; Sim Shalom Synagogue is. Since you asked, though, WP:BASIC states that an article's subject must be the subject of "multiple published secondary sources...", etc.; only one of the references in his article (the first Jewish Standard citation) meets that criterion. Miniapolis 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The rabbi and the online synagogue are related. A degree of notability is found for both. Policy should only serve as a guideline. If the Sim Shalom online Synagogue should fail to garner sufficient support in reliable sources—should it be deleted? Its first sentence reads: "Sim Shalom Online Synagogue is an interactive online Jewish Universalist cyber-synagogue that offers weekly synagogue services to an international community via computer hookups and participation." My gut reaction is that if that is an accurate description of the subject of the article, it should not be deleted. We know that real houses of worship are interactive. But is it possible that there could really be a "Jewish Universalist cyber-synagogue"? I would recommend against deletion because the topic is interesting. There is also a modicum of support in sources. Perhaps not enough when strictly applying policy, but the topic is sufficiently captivating that I would not want to simply lose what information we have at present in this article. Bus stop (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So you're basically saying that if we apply policies, then it should be deleted? Number 57 09:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, of course not. We are not a bureaucracy. This is not a project strictly bound by rules. You are certainly justified in invoking policy for its salutary effects, but I cannot agree that policy indicates that we should delete this article. Policy would certainly be applicable peripherally to all other aspects of the writing of this article. But I don't think policy should be invoked to the strictest of extents and senses to result in the deletion of the article. My reasoning leads me to believe that the interests of the reader as well as the project would be best served by Keeping the article. This is hardly frivolous or flippant material. It is serious material, worthy of further consideration, and some sources provide a degree of support. Bus stop (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, did you read my synopsis of the sources, above? The sentence that you like in Sim Shalom Synagogue is mentioned in only 3 of the 13 sources, and no other coverage of the synagogue is available. The rest of the article is patched-together WP:SYNTH. Are you suggesting that we pare the article down to that one, verified sentence, because it's "interesting"? Yoninah (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be specific—where do you see an example of WP:SYNTH in the Sim Shalom Synagogue article? Maybe you are correct, but I haven't found it yet. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge into Steven Blane, an acceptable compromise. Blane does appear to be notable and all sources mentioning this subject revolve around him. J04n(talk page) 20:39, 19 April 2013 (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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Kaptein

Lawrence Kaptein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable educator. Unreferenced biography with no sources to be found to back up claims made. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I see nothing meeting WP:PROF. SalHamton (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2013 (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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

FunAdvice.com

FunAdvice.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

searched for coverage - there is maybe one article that I can see which would count as recognisable independent reliable source - have to conclude that I don't think this is notable. _nonsense ferret 19:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - I could find only one "news" type source and that was from a private blog. Couldn't find a single reliable source, let alone enough to quantify "significant coverage". Stalwart111 02:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 15:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete because it appears to have no reliable 3rd-party sources and I do not see any sources indicating notability.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:01, 14 April 2013 (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 delete. WP:BLP1E. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Poonam Pandey

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Poonam Pandey
• Articles for deletion/Poonam Pandey (2nd nomination)

Poonam Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP with grossly insufficient citations that fall well below WP:N Jsharpminor (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• KeepThis model is a page 3 frequenter, and there might not have been much notability unless the amount of coverage she gets in entertainment pages of newspapers. Among the sources provided in the article, there are many reliable sources such as Times of India, India Today. Her claim to fame began when she promised a striptease if Indian cricket team wins 2011 Cricket World Cup, this was widely reported in media. Although India won, the promise never became true. However, she continued to grab attention of media for petty reasons. However small the reason may be, the result is wide coverage in media. There may be thousands like her, but she became the lucky one to get media attention. So, there is coverage, and she meets notability critia.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This person got coverage initially due to her fake/false claims about running nude and most coverage was about her subsequent tweets about teaching love-making tips and other similar stunts including self-made claims about working in the "hottest movie ever"(Nasha)....All these attempts got media coverage initially but seems to have died-down as no notable work either as an actor or as a model has been done by the subject and no further improvement of the article is possible--Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Adamstraw99. No significant coverage other than the twitter incident. JK (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.Jussychoulex (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Demise

Your Demise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another fail for WP:BAND, imho, albums released on insignificant indie label, can't see much reliable, independent coverage (ok so there's a gig review or album review here or there, all seem to be posted by online contributors, not editorial staff, i.e. fans). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination per numerous sources found by editors below, although I agree with Colapeninsula that a lot of what x/he lists are not very in-depth, I would say that as a whole, the sheer number go to establish notability. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep There is a good amount of online coverage, though much of it is not very in depth. But i think together it meets WP:GNG. Coverage in well-established UK metal magazines[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] AllMusic profile[21]. Punknews.com[22][23] Articles on other websites[24][25]. There's a shortage of reviews but I did find: AllMusic[26], Bring The Noise[27][28], Sputnik have a "contributor" review[29]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• (ec)Keep. Allmusic has a biography and a review of one of their albums (which saw a US release on Earache Records). There's also a review from Rock Sound, among others (e.g. [30][31][32], though some of these may or may not be classed as reliable). Article needs sources, but meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 10:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough coverage to be considered notable via that route. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clubroot (musician)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Clubroot (musician)
• Articles for deletion/Clubroot (musician) (2nd nomination)

Clubroot (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just not convinced of this guy's notability, okay so there are one or two favourable reviews of his albums, but I am not getting "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician ". CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The coverage found in the previous AfD is sufficient to establish GNG-notability. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Michig, notability has already been established. The article needs improvement, but not deletion. — sparklism ^hey! 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Michig. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to be pedantic, but I beg to differ, two album reviews and the FACT thing that reads like it's just taken from a press release, you can send stuff in to AllMusic so it gets published etc. Although notabilty is not temporary, I do not find that the sources presented at the first AfD are sufficient, two are album reviews where the artist is fleetingly discussed. From WP:NTEMP "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time re-assessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion" and further on "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."
  • I would argue that this person fits the above criteria, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see "multiple, non-trivial coverage" personally. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Understand your point, but IMHO an artist who garners an Allmusic biography alongside album reviews from Pitchfork [33], Scaruffi [34], Sputnikmusic [35], PopMatters [36], The Needle Drop [37] etc is generally going to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 10:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, I see that an AllMusic bio is editorial apparently, the only recent review is from The Needle Drop which is apparently a blog/vlog according to Wikipedia, I am still dubitative about their overall notability, I guess let the AfD run its course. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per Sparklism. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2013 (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 Speedy keep. Non-admin closure. I will note that the previous AFD was closed as speedy less than a month ago, and the nominator was subsequently banned for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. We might be dealing with a problem related to this particular article, but that has no bearing on the subject's merits for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Lagro High School

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lagro High School
• Articles for deletion/Lagro High School (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lagro High School (3rd nomination)

Lagro High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although High Schools are excempt from Speedy Deletion criteria A7, I disagree on this school being notable. The article itself has several erroneous content and original researches. These issues are hard to fix, that is why I am recommending WP:TNT. Also, the school has no coverage in reliable sources and in any media, and the sources presented are mostly unreliable.Imeoneta03 (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• This appears to be a clear keep under customary Wikipedia practice as a verified (and large) high school. But I note that the nominator is the same editor who originally started this article in May 2012. Is there something specific about this article that is motivating the recent, repeated deletion efforts? --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - It is verifiably a high school. Article could user more third-party refs, as most present are blogs and self-published. However, it is a high school, and if I understand correctly that's generally enough. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - very large high school, 7000+ students, and seems definitely capable of meeting WP:ORG. AfD is not the place to decide editing disputes. We fix or tag articles on clearly notable subjects rather than delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - This is a high school, which would've been kept at the previous AfD of exactly a month ago even if the nominator wasn't a sock that time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. If there are problems, the better course is to discuss them on the talk page and improve the article, rather than scrapping it entirely —C.Fred (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chatharu Nair

Chatharu Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a single citation, no assertion of notability, strong PoV issues, and potential original research. – Richard BB 15:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete All I found in a search was the website of a hospital founded by his family - from which the article is basically paraphrased. Nothing else found searching in English. No biographical information on which to base an article. Maybe there could be some sources in Malayalam, but we can't assume it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW this article's author also created two articles about the hospital: CNS Ayurveda Chikitsalayam & Research Center and CNS Ayurveda Chikitsalayam. I think both should be candidates for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated them both: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNS Ayurveda Chikitsalayam & Research Center. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - I couldn't find anything to satisfy WP:V. I even tried the death dates and there is really nothing. It may or may not be a hoax but regardless, if this was trully a notable person, then any information from other languages would have long ago been ported over to english. - Pmedema (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Lacking reliable sources, not notable. -- Scray (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: Lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2013 (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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mashachapada Road

Mashachapada Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Unreferenced article about a non-notable street. John of Reading (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• this article is just a description of a street or a small area of Mira Road and thus not suitable to be an article of Wikipedia. this article should be deleted.Arja36 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable at all. Dough4872 21:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom and Dough. It reads more trivial to me. Tinton5 (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2013 (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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

LISA+

LISA+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Proposing as a non-notable product, this is little more than a thinly-veiled advert for the product, WP is 2nd hit, company website #3 and that's all folks. Wasn't sure if it would get CSD'd under G11, feel free to SNOW delete. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - if it's not G11, it's pretty bloody close. Stalwart111 03:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. The advertising tone is actually not as bad as usual. This is a traffic engineering software for the planning and management of signalized intersections. In English, this means "software that controls traffic lights," and the article's text is the kind of writing that makes me want to reach through the screen, grab somebody by the collar, and shake them.
  
  So why isn't the article written in proper English? Because describing the product as one of several programs that run traffic lights makes it pretty obvious that no individual product in that category is ever going to have the kind of lasting significance it would need to be a encyclopedia subject. In this category, I reckon that only the products that malfunction so spectacularly that they get blamed by reliable sources for multiple fatality wrecks have a shot at ever being encyclopedia subjects. Be glad that yours is not one of those. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - software article lacking 3rd party references to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (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 Looks like it's been speedied. Peridon (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Katheriya

Katheriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Frankly, I did not understand what the article was trying to put across.. What is the context? And it says to be continued... The Wikimon (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete appears to be a collection of cut and paste content from various blogs. I have removed some of them that I could identify and formatted the article to make it a bit more readable. No sources are given. noq (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2013 (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 redirect to Daegu FC. I note that Lukeno94 questions whether the title would be a sensible redirect term. In this case, redirection is favoured by the majority and no concrete rationale as to why this would be an unsuitable redirect has been provided. Thus, I think this is the best result here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyunpung High School FC

Hyunpung High School FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD challenged "based on US-based Google search results alone", although the Google search doesn't appear to show any sources which would indicate notability. Original concern was "No indication this school football club meets guidelines including WP:ORG", which stands. C679 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 13:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - not really a sensible redirect term, and it's a High School/U18 team, so not notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete because there should be a policy that high school teams are not notable (except in a few rare cases), even though they get media coverage. Borock (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Daegu FC, a parent club. GiantSnowman 20:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect: same as Snowman. Also there are other U18 High-Schools with articles. Someone may want to check those out. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect, agree with GiantSnowman. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Article is relevant to the development of Football in South Korea. It needs more citations, not deletion. Note that all of the existing citations are Korean and likely wouldn't be found via the US-based google search provided as support for deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment "Football in South Korea" is notable, high school teams are not. Pages without citations, whether or not they would be notable, are not useful. The case here is the article is neither notable nor useful. C679 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• redirect But if there is enough cover by other citations and enough content it should be Daegu FC Reserve and Acedemy. Govvy (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2013 (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 Speedy delete. Peridon (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nishant Gairola

Nishant Gairola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article on the same person was created recently and was deleted as well. Article shows no difference from its predecessor and should be deleted as it doesn't meet WP: Notability standards... The Wikimon (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete none of the cited sources establish notability, several fail WP:RS subject fails WP:Notability. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:33, 10 April 2013 (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 Speedy delete a7, no real assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nishant gairola

Nishant gairola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has been re-created, as it was deleted previously. Shows no significance, has bare URLs, and may not meet WP: NPOV or WP: Notability The Wikimon (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Boum

Joseph Boum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There many such similar articles which have been created for each player of a football team. However, there is no indication of significance and thus must either be put under one page or better, just wait until more information can be found. The Wikimon (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment He's played several games in the highest-level Turkish league for Mersin İdmanyurdu SK, a professional club in a fully-professional league (albeit one that was only promoted in 2011 and is soon to fall out of the top level)[38] and therefore meets WP:NFOOTY. He seems to have received some coverage in Turkish media so the article could be expanded.[39][40] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• KEEPFor footballers to be notable he is to pass WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNGThe turkish league is fully pro 16:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - with forty some odd appearances in the Süper Lig, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: While I think WP:NFOOTBALL is a wholly inadequate criteria compared to WP:PROF, this individual has been paid to step onto a field. Ergo, he satisfies the notability criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:NFOOTY. Needs improving however. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - The article needs improvement but it passes WP:NFOOTBALL. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as above, article should be expanded as there is enough to demonstrate notability. C679 20:58, 15 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Tønder concentration camp

Tønder concentration camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Believed to be a hoax or mistaken information, but not blatant enough for speedy deletion. Peridon (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Probably less a hoax than just a misunderstanding. From what I read in Danish sources, the only notable WWII prison camps in Denmark were Horserød camp and Frøslev Prison Camp [41] -- and these were not "concentration camps" (in our current understanding of the term) but rather prisons for saboteurs.[42] As far as Tønder is concerned, after WWII, from 1945 to 1947, it was the site of one of a number of refugee camps to detain the large influx of people fleeing from Germany into Denmark [43]. I haven't found any Notable or Reliable Sources with which to build an article about a temporary refugee camp -- so until those can be shown, this article should be deleted. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V unless some reliable source can be found. The Danish article da:Koncentrationslejr mentions only Horserød and Frøslev. A search for "Tønder koncentrationslejr" produced nothing relevant - one possible turned out to be about a resister from Tønder who was sent to a camp in Germany. Even if there was a camp of some kind at Tønder, what is described sounds like a transit camp rather than a concentration camp as that term is normally understood. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Wayback Machine link for cited source shows no mention of a concentration camp on the page. Barring the existence another source, fails WP:V. Richard Ye^talk 08:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - There has never been a place called "Tønder concentration camp" or similar. In the last months of WWII a relatively large number of east German refugees escaping the advancing Red Army fled to Denmark and many settled in Tønder (a town close to the German border with a relatively high percentage of resident Germans). When the war ended the refugees were transferred to a newly established refugee camp "Eksercergården" near Tønder. Had there been a concentration camp or a prison camp in Tønder, such camp would naturally had been used instead of establishing a new camp. I assume that the "Tønder concentration camp" is in fact "Eksercergården" however; this was not a concentration camp but a refugee camp for East German refugees. Pugilist (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC) - Just for the record, User:Rubr's contribution to the Danish article on da:Tønder claiming existence of a concentration camp in Tønder was soon removed. Pugilist (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2013 (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 Closing as Keep with nominator agreeing. Peridon (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

316th division

316th division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly written article. No references, no categories. Doesn't really have enough meaningful information for the user to do anything with it. I submitted this to CSD but the CSD was denied and it was suggested that it be submitted through AFD instead. Kumioko (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep AFD is not cleanup. User:Fram has demonstrated the correct procedure by following our editing policy and expanding the article from its first faltering start - kudos. Warden (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Note: - This article had been deleted through the CSD process and Fram is going to extraordinary measures to expand the article and ensure its worth keeping. I have no problem with this AFD being closed if someone else agrees. Kumioko (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Lives and portraits of all the presidents from Washington to Grant

Lives and portraits of all the presidents from Washington to Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly written article. No references, no categories. Doesn't really have enough meaningful information for the user to do anything with it. I submitted this to CSD but the CSD was denied and it was suggested that it be submitted through AFD instead. Kumioko (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. No attempt to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per RHaworth. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, but I think this article should have gone through WP:PROD instead, to save time and resources. Edge3 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable publication with no references. Stalwart111 03:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, if their were one or two more deletes, I would WP:Snowball per Edge3, Sadads (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:50, 14 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Watchfinder

Watchfinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Company fails WP:CORP and article sounds promotional. Dewritech (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Another online shopping site advertising on Wikipedia. I don't see the article making a claim of minimal significance, and Google News finds only press release coverage of routine transactions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:52, 14 April 2013 (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 speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Flip page mobility

Flip page mobility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Spammy/promotional article with no references and no real assertion of the company's notability. Biker Biker (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tagged for speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, also patent nonsense: Through the development of integrated hardware, software and services, it will provide platforms and solutions for seamless access to information, including e-mail, voice, instant messaging, short message service (SMS), Internet and intranet-based applications and browsing. The Company's technology will also enables an array of third party developers and manufacturers to enhance their products and services through software development kits, wireless connectivity to data and third-party support programs.
  >
  Note also multiple re-creations and speedy deletions here and at Flip Page mobility; recommend WP:SALT for this persistent spammer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 11 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Harris (American writer)

Christopher Harris (American writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not sure that anything here amounts to notability as an author. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. In addition to WP:RS issues, the sources given when all taken together still fail WP:AUTHOR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep All information was verifiable. Yahoo Fantasy Sports and ESPN.com both qualify as WP:RS so biography meets GNG. • Wordsword1 (talk) comment added 17:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. No secondary WP:RS whatsoever, just a lot of WP:PRIMARY sludge that fails to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Yes, he has published a few short stories that have failed to win critical notice of any kind, but that is insufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2013 (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 speedy delete. G12: copyright violation of [44] Yunshui 雲‍水 09:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The maintenance for the laptop battery

The maintenance for the laptop battery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not Wikipedia Kenanwang (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Is this some kind of a joke? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G12 and WP:NOTMANUAL. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 06:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - It has been nominated for speedy deletion because it is an unambiguous copyright infringement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sportsbet.com.au

Sportsbet.com.au (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-created page. Basically an advert. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Currently a WP:COI violation that reads like an advertisement. Even if cleaned up, topic appears to fail WP:CORP. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. NickW557 beat me to it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Also seems a close paraphrasing of http://www.workatsportsbet.com.au/Sportsbet/About_Us.html
• Merge to Paddy Power. I rewrote it and added 3 refs to reliable news sources, but most of the coverage relates to its takeover by Paddy Power, so it might be better covered there. (However if someone can find more news sources from before the takeover, it may well be notable as a big player in a controversial industry.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep There's enough source material for this to be notable, and I have added content to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Per the sources below, this topic does not appear to fail WP:CORP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've added more sources, including some that relate to its business after the takeover by Paddy Power. I'm still a bit unsure whether keep or merge is better, but perhaps the people who voted delete above will reconsider their judgment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep in light of Colapeninsula's improvements; it does appear to be notable. I lean toward keeping this separate from Paddy Power because of the different territorial emphasis, but I do not feel strongly about this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I did a Factiva search, and there are hundreds of relevent newspaper articles with significant coverage. Colapeninsula has put in some good ones, but there are plenty more. --99of9 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - passes WP:WEBCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:28, 12 April 2013 (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 SPEEDY KEEP. Wrong forum. Please take this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead. JIP | Talk 04:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faizan Noor

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faizan Noor (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Faizan Noor|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. No sources. No claims to notability made in the article. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2013 (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 speedy deleted per CSD G7. It was deleted by User:DGG. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

M. D. Shoatzycoatl

M. D. Shoatzycoatl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Self-published author of one book. No Google hits except for book shops. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:47, 10 April 2013 (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 Speedy Keep. Nominator was blocked indefinitely.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Evelyn Kozak

Evelyn Kozak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Kozak is not the last living person born in 1899, the oldest female, or the oldest American. How exactly does she deserve an article of her own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssistantManageratWalmart (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 April 2013‎ (UTC)

• Keep. I was under the impression that those known for such things - she is the oldest living person in a country with the third-highest population in the world - is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep based on the multiple reliable and verifiable sources covering her based on her extreme age. Alansohn (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I see no issues of notability here.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep She is the oldest Jewish Person ever, and among the last 10 from the 1800's. She has much notability. Mjjd226 (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2013 (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 Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked indefinitely.I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Soledad Mexia

Soledad Mexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Mexia is the fourth oldest living American and not the oldest female or the last living person born in 1899. She may merit a mention in a list, but I don't see how she meets the criteria to have an article of her own. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssistantManageratWalmart (talk • contribs) 01:48, 10 April 2013‎ (UTC)

• Keep. It's my understanding that the oldest living person born in a rather large country passes the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. I see no issues of notability here.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2013 (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 delete. No evidence/argument presented for notability j⚛e decker^talk 17:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Frida Berrigan

Frida Berrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Berrigan_Stats)

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

Only superficial information is known about her, there doesn't appear to be any notable information–outside of the fact that she is the niece of Daniel Berrigan–and the only source cited is her own organization, which is not independent information. Ricksantorum2012 (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2013‎ (UTC)

• Delete not even an assertion of notability in the article. Writting one article that is namable and being a peace activist does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. The only sources provided are from institutions with which she is directly associated and a piece which she wrote herself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2013 (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 Speedy Deleted under A9. Album titles are generally redirected to the artist, so putting a redirect here is logical. If you wish to discuss the redirect, you may wish to head over to Redirects for discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Once Upon Our Yesterdays

Once Upon Our Yesterdays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Copyvio of [50] The Banner talk 01:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The copyvio is now gone, and placing more than 2-3 albums in an article for one artist is cumbersome. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. This album appears to be from a band who doesn't even have its own article here on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under CSD:A9, as the article is tagged under. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reply - If Doogie White still has an article, the album at a minimum, should be merged into his article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, it shouldn't. It's just a tracklist, and it's a non-notable album of a non-notable band. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - the article was deleted, presumably under CSD:A9, and now we have a barely valid redirect created by Jax. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:23, 11 April 2013 (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 delete. Fails WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Loughborough Students' Men's Hockey Club

Loughborough Students' Men's Hockey Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not professional - seems it should be deleted or merged to university article. 2 other users have nominated for deletion using speedy and prod. There are arguments for notability, but it needs proper discussion. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not sure why not being professional is a reason for deletion in a sport where the top club level (where this club plays)[51] is (as far as I'm aware) not fully professional. I'm not an expert on hockey but given that the UK has more than one magazine dedicated to hockey, I would imagine that one of the top clubs would have enough coverage to be considered notable according to the GNG, even for those for whom just being one of the country's top-level clubs with a team that according to their website includes three current England internationals - two of them GB internationals ([52]) isn't enough. Here is a search on one of those magazines' website. --Michig (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- Student clubs have to be very notable to be worth having an article on. In non-professional sports, the clubs of the top league might be notable, but often it will be better only to have an article on the league. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete per WP:ORG or redirect to the university article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. While the lead does assert notability, there are no reliable sources to support this claim. I don't see why this student club deserves an article while most others don't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• keep, it's in the top tier of the league FFS and has heaps of current and former internationals. If that isn't, then I don't know what is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2013 (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 redirect to Burn (energy drink). This AFD has been open for over three weeks, relisting again is unlikely to change the result and the content exists in the target article. Anything worth merging can be done from the history as long as it is attributed. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Burn studios residency

Burn studios residency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable marketing event. Already included in Burn (energy drink). Dewritech (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect - to Burn (energy drink) as does not meet the criteria for a separate article. Dejakh~talk!•did! 19:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to Burn (energy drink), this doesn't warrant a separate article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Stone Free (band)

Stone Free (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BAND. The coverage doesn't assert notability:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20121006175322/http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=95411
• http://web.archive.org/web/20080731132557/http://www.newagebd.com/2008/may/23/may23/xtra_inner6.html
• http://web.archive.org/web/20090720080736/http://www.newagebd.com/2009/jul/10/jul10/xtra_also5.html

And I couldn't find any other (reliable) sources, just Myspace/Youtube/etc. benzband (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: The first link surely doesn't assert the notability, but in the second one, the band seems to be really the subject of the coverage! I'm not sure if it's enough though. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: - is subject of coverage/media. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - The article on the band doesn't demonstrate the required notability for a band; doesn't comprise the multiple reliable sources needed to verify it. The onus is really on the article to demonstrate notability - not the sources that are actually not even in the article. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Weak keep, not just because others said the same but because I really am torn. The single source seems like it isn't enough, yet a hard rock band in a part of the world where most people are too poor to buy Western music CDs and where the musical tradition is really, really, really different from British/North American rock music does seem notable in and of itself. I say keep unless I see a stronger argument against it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong delete. So the only criteria of WP:BAND that the band can justifiably fulfill is point 1 or 7. Regarding point 1 (subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works ), we have three sources referencing the band (only one of which appears on the article page) and two of those sources are by the same publisher. The second publisher is similar to that of a university newspaper in presentation (with a small circulation to match). The article in the Daily Star is quite definitely a trivial article. It simply says... here's a cool band... which, rather like BBC Introducing's biography listings, isn't of all that much notability. Regarding point 7 of WP:BAND (most prominent of the local scene of a city), the external link to their facebook page shows only 700 likes. Face it. The band is a garage band. Charon123able (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• As a full disclosure, Charon123able did leave a request on my talk page for me to review this discussion, which is within Charon123able's right as I did mention that a strong argument against keeping could sway me. And this is a strong argument, though given my own wishy-washiness about this issue, I don't think it would be balanced for me to push strongly either way. Henceforth, I would like to retract my support for a weak keep, but for the sake of keeping said balance I cannot replace it with more than a weak delete. Take that for what it is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable cover band, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 18 April 2013 (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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Eurolanche

Eurolanche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet the notability requirements for organisations. It is extremely unlikely that a fan club of a sports team would be notable in itself and this seems to be the case here. From what I can tell, none of the sources listed discuss the club in any detail and a search for more did not yield anything. SmartSE (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Many of the links here are for the organization itself, or for Youtube. Additionally, there is an article for this fan club in three other European languages. Two of them were created by the user Dadoman (see here and here), while the third was created by a different user who also seemed to have registered solely to create this article (see Lopflop here, and check the contribs). It seems that someone who is either a member of this club or otherwise connected who also happens to be multilingual decided to create the article. Nothing against the club or its members personally but I don't think fan clubs in general pass the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucky Diaz and the Family Jam Band

Lucky Diaz and the Family Jam Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Being named by People Magazine as a "Cool Kid" album does not mean a band is notable. This band would fall under too soon. Company is not yet notable. Article is promotional in nature and created by an editor that promotes companies and people on Wikipedia. CitizenNeutral (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, the subject of this AfD has received mentions in multiple non-primary reliable source(s), that being said the subject has not received any significant coverage that came up in my searches. Furthermore, the passing mentions, if added up do not total to significant coverage of the subject, therefore the subject fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Not only does the band not quite seem to scrape by the general notability guideline for bands, but Special:Contributions/Maryallison85 does seem to indicate an account with a tendency to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2013 (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 no consensus. All we seem to agree on is that this is a borderline case in terms of notability.  Sandstein  09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Craig Graham

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Craig Graham
• Articles for deletion/Craig Graham (2nd nomination)

Craig Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

1. no sources on the person - notability is not inherited - fails WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG . (independent of AfD, creator has WP:COI ) 2. advert Widefox; talk 15:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Propose to WP:userfy (2nd time). Widefox; talk 14:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Weak keep - I realise it was me that added the 'notability' tag, so I probably err in favour of deletion. However, notability is inherited if something you personally create (a book, an artwork, a film etc.) is widely reviewed/written about. Producers and directors are a grey area in my view, because TV programmes are generally a team effort. Graham's book are co-authored and seem not to have attracted much attention. However, The Age article describes Graham's process in creating his series, Border Security; if there was more news coverage like this I'd be inclined to argue for a 'weak keep'. It's very borderline indeed at the moment. Sionk (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

  Comment Don't think we even have a reference for the DOB, or other bio data. The theage source is primary - his words.

There's only incidental mention of the person in TV listings etc. I also agree with the comment at Talk:Craig Graham - why was this accepted from AfC? This is the same WP:SPA WP:COI creator from the previous AfD that has correctly recreated via userfication - the article and its photo has been created by a digital PR company he works with (that had to change username due to username violation), but has not disclosed this COI on her new account. Widefox; talk 09:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed my recommendation to 'Weak keep' after finding a long complimentary 2012 news article in The Age. There is an evident link between Graham's skill and creative input and the success of his TV documentaries. The WP article still needs cleaning up, all the same! Sionk (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

not sure that helps with notability - a primary source per WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG (interview about a TV programme). No bio info for a BLP, but very useful if we had multiple secondaries, and the programme does look notable. Widefox; talk 14:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure a news article that quotes Graham constitutes an "interview". In fact I'm sure it doesn't by any normal interpretation! Sionk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Weak keep with some details. After the first AfD, this was userfied. The article seems to be better now, but it was a number of issues which the nominator brought up. Still, the news article coupled with inherited notability makes me uncomfortable with simply deleting it or even userfying it again. It really seems like a notable subject with a flawed article in need of someone putting forth the time to research and write. I suggest this: let's keep it for now with a specified time limit. If the article is not improved in terms of asserting and sourcing notability by that time - let's say two weeks from now or something - then we nominate it again for one last time and all of us concerned (Sionk and Widefox) agree to all give a strong recommendation for final deletion. If notability is asserted and sourced by that time, then we leave it. Does this sound like a good way to just settle it? It's already been nominated before so it seems like a somewhat contentious article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2013 (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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chamberlain Group

Chamberlain Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is largely promotional, has lots of links to product pages, and has no citations. A Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources. Seems like it could be a candidate for speedy deletion, but I decide to bring it here instead. CitizenNeutral (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There was a notable Digital Millennium Copyright Act case involving this firm, but that is already covered in an article in its own right (Chamberlain_v._Skylink). AllyD (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The google news results show that several acquisitions are considered notable. Based on WP:GNG and considering the legal case, I guess this is sort of notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep per the news results. I think it's a company which is notable but the article was really poorly researched and left unsourced. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Trio Towers

Trio Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established, for this proposed project. All I could find is a self-promoting blog site at http://noorcities.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/new-engineering-and-style-philosophy.html. ELEKHH^T 10:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 10:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 10:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Just some towers which might supposedly be built one day according to a blog. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Speculative building proposal, made as early as July 2007 - on account of that blog post. Page created in March 2010 and no additional information has been added since then. Website registration has also expired. I'd be surprised if this plan made it through the 2011 civil war, if it wasn't already shelved prior to it. Funny ^Pika! 18:13, 10 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

P. Narahari

P. Narahari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet the criteria for notability other than being an efficient mid-level civil servant who has collected a number of awards locally for doing his work diligently Sesamevoila (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ofcourse his work is notable. He is District Magistrate of Gwalior city, and for other cities in past. People wants to know about him a lot more. Many other news websites have written about him. I don't think this article should be considered for deletion. Shobhit Gosain —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. An article about a local mid-level official created by a user who, according to his own user page, is from the official's district. All the work and the photo are from this one user. Despite a sincere effort, I just don't see a demonstration of notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is right, but still his information is much needed for public of city he serve for. His contribution to the society is notable. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - A non-notable civil servant: yes, there are lots of awards there, but there's no reliable sources to prove they were given. Nor do they seem particularly major/notable awards. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 18 April 2013 (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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Critical Containment Methodology

Critical Containment Methodology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I came across this while looking for sources for a related AfD for The Miracles Report. A search comes up with nothing that I could find that would show that this specific system is particularly notable. It's a noble cause, but we can't keep things just because they're noble or nice. The sources on the article don't really help as far as notability goes, since most of them are primary source, links to pages for the physicians, or things that aren't really about this specific system. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete for all the reasons stated by the nominator. Despite the relatively long list of sources, I see too many issues with the nature of these sources and how this system is mentioned to accept sufficient notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Most (if not all) of the sources are either about the topic of workplace bullying in general without mentioning CCM anywhere, or are first-party. Therefore notability is not established. --Atlantima (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (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 Bauhaus discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanity Assassin

Sanity Assassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not able to establish as Wikipedia-notable outside of a Trouser Press summary. Lachlan Foley 03:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to Bauhaus discography, where strangely it isn't currently mentioned. --Michig (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I've added sourced content about the single to the article (from a book that includes a complete Bauhaus discography), and added the single to the discography article as well. Still can't figure out if this is notable or not; if it got significant news coverage, it would have been three decades ago when it was released, which makes it hard to find now -- Foetusized (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Just found out why this isn't listed in the band discography -- diff -- which also makes the argument against merging this article to the discography. The song itself is important enough that as a non-LP song, it has been included in such greatest hits collections as 1979–1983 and Crackle – The Best of Bauhaus, but because it was first released as a fan-club only single, it can't have an article nor be mentioned in the discography. Don't you just love Wikipedia logic? -- Foetusized (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Even fan club releases, if officially released, belong in a discography. --Michig (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep This was an un-albumed single, and should have its own article for completeness' sake. Listmeister (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. It's a single with a single source. "Completeness" is not a criterion for either the general notability guidline or those relating directly to bands and music. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2013 (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 Bauhaus discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bauhaus E.P.

Bauhaus E.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

has not received enough notable coverage to warrant as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley 02:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to Bauhaus discography. Can easily be covered there. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge I'm a little surprised at the lack of coverage, but I'm not finding any. Garamond Lethet
  c 07:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Slightly weaker keep than for Sanity Assassin and the other albums. EP's, I can be more flexible about those. Listmeister (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Merge. It's a three-track EP, I'm actually not that surprised. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. EP of previously-released songs, released by their USA record label. I'm not surprised by the lack of coverage of this record -- Foetusized (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Doug Eldridge

Doug Eldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability whatsoever. Seems to be a case of WP:RESUME. Created by single-purpose account User:T hendersondc. bender235 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails to show notability. This is a self-serving puff piece. Note that a lot of the sources in this article are either dead links or didn't really go to where the article claimed it would take us.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete for all reasons stated above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Billings Canal

Billings Canal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD contested without comment. Original reason was: "There is no assertion of notability. There are very few reliable sources on the topic, and the article has been an orphan for over 3 years now." Should the article not be deleted, it should probably be redirected to "Billings Bench Water Association Canal" as that is the official name of the canal. A. L. H. 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is notable, e.g. "Billings or "Flow of Water in Irrigation and Similar Canals. Warden (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I had seen those sources when I added the PROD. The problem is that "Billings" has a single paragraph on the canal, and "Flow of Water in Irrigation and Similar Canals" doesn't contain any information about the canal beyond a few observations about things like the flow or the composition of the banks. Other people may feel differently, but to me those both seemed to have little more than passing mentions about the canal. A. L. H. 06:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I consider these sources to be significant in this way. Also, the canal seems to be a significant topographical feature and so will appear in maps and atlases. Warden (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep- The coverage so far isn't great, but it is significant enough to pass WP:GNG as well as playing an important roll in the development of Billings and surrounding areas.--Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Weak keep. The article itself is in some serious need of research and rewriting, though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Seems an important geographic feature of he area, but based on their web site, the article could and should be very considerably expanded. There is probably local historical sources available also. Irrigation was avery important factory in the history of this part of the US. More generally, there is a key difference between "no reliable sources" and "few reliable sources" -- one means we cannot write an article, the other means we can. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (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 delete. J04n(talk page) 22:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Hodges

Paul Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be a borderline notable analyst of some sort. I don't think it really falls under speedy but it reads as a giant piece of self-promotion right now which pushes me toward deletion unless it is completely reworked with some 3rd part sources and not just links to his own work. Sasquatch t|c 21:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete -- self promotion by a business adviser. I note a great dearth of initernal WP links to anything else that might be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Per Special:Contributions/JustinPugsley, it appears to be a promotional piece created by an account devoted solely to making a resume. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I checked two obvious places - Who's Who and Debrett's People of Today, and he's in neither. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as we do not use being in Debrett or Who's who as a criterion for inclusion, it shouldn't be used as a criterion for exclusion either. Their practices are not the same as ours'. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, not being in one of these doesn't mean one is not notable. But inclusion definitely indicates notability. So I looked, but couldn't find. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we have ever used inclusion in any Who's who compendium as a RS for notability; I do agree that the UK one is not as unreliable in this respect that the US publications with these titles. I cannot remember any discussion of Debrett's as a RS for notablity. Possibly this discussion should be continued at WP:RSN. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This is a promotional essay for his ideas. Neither they nor he are notable. The book referred to a a private published ebook (available free, btw, which in this case does not indicate the laudable desire to publish open access but the commercial desire to make the general ideas available to promote the paid services; it is not even in WorldCat. There's nothing wrong with doing this, but no reason why we should be a part of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist Jat

Buddhist Jat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Neologism. While Buddhism and Jat people both are notable, this as such is not notable. The article itself tends to narrate bits and pieces of the history of Buddhism and Jat people, and we already have articles on those topics. Dwaipayan (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete; the topic does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Actually, the article would be a perfect candidate for WP:TNT regardless of the subject's notability. Sentences in the article like "Any religion, which preached oneness of God and condemned superstitions and idol worship easily appealed to and was adopted by Jats in large numbers", "When Vedic Hinduism gave place to Pauranic idol worship... Jats became Buddhists ..." and "they don't eat meat, do not wear the sacred thread, and do not stick much for untouchability as other Indians do and respect saints" are not just hopelessly POVy and blatantly false, they also betray a lack of understanding of the influence of Arya Samaj on Jats.[53] Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 04:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears to be some sort of essay or personal reflection. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete We have an article for Jat people and that covers all religions; we have articles for Buddhism. The article is chock-full of original research and I've never come across an academic study that refers to Buddhist Jats (although if there has never been a single Jat who converted to Buddhism then I would be astonised). If any sources should turn up then the issue can be dealt with in the Jat people article. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Monstercat

Monstercat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no indication that the subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH, none of its artists seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BAND (not that it would make a difference), and none of its released albums seem to be notable. Completely unreferenced. Unable to find significant coverage in third-party sources, only self-generated and social media content. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. I also looked for any evidence of notability and found nothing. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete No indications of notability among research. Also, this may be a recreation of deleted material, I have worked with something similar in the past. Checking the deletion log now for evidence of this. T.I.M^(Contact) 01:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a promotional article created by a single-issue account. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete As per above, subject is not notable. Charon123able (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Save I've fixed a lot of the problems mentioned here. Please reconsider this page, as it is more detailed, cited, and meets many more guidelines (to my knowledge). Danvb10 (talk) 2:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The article still does not meet WP:GNG as all the references used are from Monstercat's own website or Facebook page. Samwalton9 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess I'll just find all the info somewhere else then.. Danvb10 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Any better? Danvb10 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment While I applaud your efforts in saving the article, the reality is that, while it looks better, you have not managed to establish the company's notability in any way. All except one of the references are primary, and the one that isn't doesn't seem to fall into what we'd consider reliable. Believe me, I tried. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment So, basically I just need to find more secondary sources? Danvb10 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As long as they are reliable (WP:RS), yes. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter Spitzer

Peter Spitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be notable. His publications are about being a clown-doctor. The article also seems somewhat promotional Uberaccount (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Article was declined for creation twice and content has not changed since then. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per the comments above. A promotional article whose creation was already declined. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's a very unencyclopedic article. But Spitzer might be notable as Australia's leading clown doctor, since there is media coverage of him.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per the comments above. A promotional article.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, needs tidying and references adding, not deleting. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. The sourcing is so thin as to be virtually nonexistent. No WP:RS whatsoever to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, or anything else. Qworty (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Spitzer is acknowledged as a leader in the field of Humour ,particularly clown work, in Hospitals and with Seniors with Dementia. As a result of his extensive work in this field, he is invited to deliver lectures and workshops at Medical Schools and at Medical,Arts in Health and Allied Health Conferences throughout the English speaking world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drqigong (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 April 2013
• Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. That's why lots of networking sites exist, but we are not one of them. The sources pointed out are either blogs or local news. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, sources in article and those provided above are local or small circulation, not enough to establish notability alone or taken together. Also promotional. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2013 (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.