Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 February	23 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). I'm not typically one to use notability guidelines other than the GNG, but with verification for placing in the competitions there's at least enough for a short article on her, and that's the whole purpose of the notability guidelines, right? Thank you, Voceditenore, for your excellent work on this. CtP (t • c) 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mekhitarian Anahit[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable individual. The only sources currently present in the article are the subject's own website and the Russian Wikipedia. I checked for sources in three languages by searching Google Books and Google News archives with the search terms "Mekhitarian Anahit", "Մխիթարյան Անահիտ", and "Мхитарян Анаит". The only items retrieved were either passing mentions in articles, directories without any significant coverage, or false positives (refers to "Anahit Mekhitarian" but was written as "Mekhitarian, Anahit".) Additionally, I found this, but it's impossible to tell if it contains the necessary significant coverage or even if it's a false positive because there's no preview or even "snippet view" available. CtP (t • c) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the article can't seem to decide what the proper translation of this person's name is, so I've performed some additional searches with the name variations. Again, there's some passing mentions in articles. A Google Books search reveals mentions in reference to awards she's won; I question whether this ultimately means that she's notable. CtP (t • c) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Article about famous Armenian opera singer , Soprano who is well known in the art society, and in the society of opera lovers. This article will be helpful for people who wants to be familiar with high art of opera and well clear singing, and will promote to developing and spreading opera art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.74.15 (talk • contribs) . Moved from Talk:Mekhitarian Anahit. CtP (t • c) 14:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not arguing the usefulness of articles here. The issue I expressed in my nomination was that I felt that this individual didn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for promoting anything, regardless of however good the cause is. CtP (t • c) 14:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: copyright problems abound as well. Compare the first revision to the subject's official biography, labeled "Anahit Mekhitarian ©All Rights Reserved", and you'll notice large portions are verbatim copies. CtP (t • c) 17:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has won or placed in a major music competition". I have added inline references verifying that she has won three major singing competitions. All three of these competitions are very well known. Having said that, I have completely re-written this and removed the hype, name-dropping, and cherry-picked quotes. The whole article was a verbatim paste from her official website. I strongly suggest that the article's creator find a reference to support her having been made a "Honored Artist of the Republic of Armenia". It doesn't have to be in English. It is quite a chore to research this, as I suspect there is a fair amount available under the Russian and Armenian versons of her name. Note also that in Italy (and possibly elsewhere), they seem to spell her last name as Mkhitarian. If this is kept, it will obviously have to be moved to Anahit Mekhitarian. "Anahit" is her first name. Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harry Sidebottom. J04n(talk page) 12:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior of Rome Series[edit]

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

see parallel AfD for Harry Sidebottom. Minor series of historical novels, unsourced, no signs of serious critical attention in high-quality independent sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Sidebottom. I did a search and while the series doesn't merit individual entries for everything, one central entry would suffice in this case. Considering that the author has some non-fiction work and has presented briefly on a show for the History Channel, it's probably better to just redirect to his article. I've merged any pertinent data. On a side note, I'll be pasting this to all of the various entries for the AfD to save typing time making individual arguments. If there are any questions it'd probably be better to comment on the main AfD entry for Sidebottom.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah- I see that you're putting all of these in one lump AfD. I didn't see them listed here, so I thought you were putting them in individually.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Sidebottom[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable author of a series of historical novels, no indication of substantial critical coverage in independent sources, no further biographical interest beyond the books. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~neutral~~keep on WP:Author. Some people would consider a GS h-index of 5 good for a historian. I'm not sure. Maybe too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, but redirect his books and series to his article. I did some searching and there's just enough out there to warrant one entry for both the author and his works. Much of it is about his Warrior series, but I've found some sources for the author in general and his non-fiction books. I think that for now an article on him and a short section on the series as a whole is probably the best option here. I've merged some of the data, so at this point it's just a matter of continuing to work on the page and find what other sourceable information we can get to make his page more than just a short entry.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed where he's consistently used as a source in several books and texts. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- As far as his non-fiction work is concerned, every academic gets some quotations by others; that doesn't mean anything. I see no signs that his influence in the field is anywhere near the threshold of WP:PROF. As of now, the article speaks exclusively of the fiction stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of his non-fiction books did get reviewed by Diálogos, which looks to be peer reviewed as far as I can tell. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did see where some of his stuff is used in various classrooms, specifically his book Ancient Warfare, so his non-fiction work does have a bit of a reach beyond his own college. ([6], [7], [8], [9]) The fiction stuff is easier to find sources for, but I just think that since there are mentions of his non-fiction work (especially in relation to his fictional series) and his career in general, an article on him would be better than just making an entry for the book series. It'd give us a way to make the information a little more rounded than just an entry on the book series. So far there's not much out there that can't be encompassed in the author's article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus his Ancient Warfare book is in quite a few university libraries. ([10]) We could just create an article for the book series, but I really think that'd be limiting the amount of info we could include about Sidebottom's other works. I'm not really arguing that he passes the guideline for professors as much as coverage and usage of his overall work would help him pass WP:AUTHOR and that we should focus on encompassing as much information as we can rather than just limit it to one book series.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think he is notable as the author of well known series of popular books and these have been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Eg

Levick, B. (2010). FICTION IN BRIEF: Harry Sidebottom: Warrior of Rome III: Lion of the Sun. Times Literary Supplement, Sep 24th, 21.
Warshaw, J. (2008). Harry Sidebottom - Warrior of Rome. The Times Literary Supplement, 5497, January 1, 21.
Sly, Gwen (2010) Review of Warrior of Rome: Lion of the Sun, Historical Novel Review Issue 54 (November 2010) (Msrasnw (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Reviews cited above are sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR. Ray^Talk 18:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- four books published by Penguin plus one by OUP plus the Lecturer position (=Prof.) at an Oxford college is enough for me even before seeing the reviews, etc. here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of High School DxD terminology[edit]

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

A list of in-universe terminology. As far as a I know, this isn't encylopedic or even notable enough for it's own article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also WP:FANCRUFT and original research. Merging to High School DxD is another option. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 23:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe fictional articles can be written without terminology sections if incorporated correctly. So it should just be outright deleted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dragon, articles such as Shakugan no Shana once had terminology sections but were merged in with the plot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was deprodded with the reason: "The reason why that page was created, was because that information was occupying too much place on on the main page and to make extra space for other information. And deleting that page would put all the efforts of the users who made that information, which was moved to another page, to go to waste. An that is unforgivable" The "efforts of the users who made that information" is what's called WP:OR. I see no reason why this article should stay as it is unsourced and full of WP:FANCRUFT, if someone wants to merge this info into the plot (as a brief mention to avoid WP:ALLPLOT)) it could be helpful and feel free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I've never been a big fan of terminology sections or articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My-HiME terminology), as they're always full of original research, which is a major no-no in Wikipedia articles. Plus, it's too fan-crufty and technical to be of use to anyone who is not a fan of the series. Too much undue weight on in-universe content. Such content belongs in a fanwiki, not in a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia which strives to exist on content which is important and notable to all, but at the same time backed by citations. At most, (very brief and concise) paragraphs of the article's content can be merged to High School DxD's Plot section. Shakugan no Shana is a very good example of an article which improved greatly after the terminology section was phased out (it went from C-class all the way to becoming a Good Article). If such sections and articles are removed, then Wikipedia articles on anime can now focus on out-of-universe information, such as the series' production, reception, legacy and the like. If the article's editors believe their efforts will go to waste, they can either focus on another, more encyclopedic topic, or contribute to a High School DxD wiki and improve it. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was created by splitting off a section of the main High School DxD article. However, someone has undone the removal of the content from the main article, so that it is now in both places (the split article and the main article). If it is determined that the section should not be kept, someone might want to remove it from the main article again (or perhaps combine some of the information into the plot section of that article). Calathan (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed it from the article as I see this as a way to skirt the consenses that happens here. I have also added a note on the IP who removed the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consists entirely of OR and sources are unlikely to exist. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Per sources found. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Abdullah Ahmed[edit]

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

~~Unsourced article about a politician. Unable to find coverage/verification online.~~ —Theopolisme (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn thanks to Phil Bridger's excellent detective work. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, I could not find any reliable sources about the subject online either, therefore the article must be deleted per WP:ANYBIO. This maybe an online or an english preference bias, on my part; but without sources to verify content (or the person even having lived), no article can be created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that we might have a transcription problem here that makes searching for sources extremely difficult, and the article author hasn't helped by not saying which province of Kurdistan the subject was governor of and when, and not giving a spelling in the Sorani (used for Kurdish) or Arabic alphabets. I've tracked down the subject's son's email address so I'll ask him if he'd like to clarify these details or to lead us to some sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard back from the subject's son, and have made a couple of clarifications to the article based on what he wrote. He doesn't know of any published sources that we could use to establish verifiability and notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for the name in Arabic script I've found this, which confirms that the subject was a member of the Court of Cassation (supreme court) of Iraqi Kurdistan. That position would appear to get him through WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN per reference found by Phil Bridger--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amilton de cristo[edit]

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

The sources on the article do not provide significant coverage of Amilton de cristo from what I can tell from google translate. I can not find any significant coverage but that may be caused by my lack of knowledge of Portuguese. GB fan 21:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References in the article don't mention him. Unable to find anything except for social media pages. Bgwhite (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not come near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. (Part of an attempt at promotion by a single purpose account, which has edited only about two non-notable pastors at one church, one of those two apparently being the editor himself.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recreating of Amilton de Cristo, which has been removed multiple times. -- Mdd (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fox (lacrosse)[edit]

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

Non-notable semi-pro athlete —teb728 t c 21:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Player of Box Lacrosse and coach for amateur Lacrosse. Nothing found that could support WP:ATHLETE. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Author has added further details to the article. Summary for me: Assistant Coach - Offensive Coordinator ... for a college lacrosse team. Reads like a job application. --Ben Ben (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... arguably speedy delete since "semi-professional lacrosse player" doesn't strike me as a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Borderline A7. Safiel (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the article has enough claims of significance that it doesn't qualify for CSD A7. However, the claims in the article don't show that he's notable as an athlete or coach. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes's Law of Laws[edit]

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

Non-notable unsourced article about a "law" devised by a non-notable person. Frigid Ninja 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody's paid any notice to this law. Time for it to hit the Rhode. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism, only primary sources provided. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep under rationale 2a, a frivolous nomination. Subject is clearly and undeniably notable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Pistorius[edit]

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

I'm sick and tired of hearing about this person. It's ironic that the Academy Awards are Sunday night and this person is giving the Awards a bad name. Sporty213 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, obviously. No valid deletion reason presented by nominator. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G3. CtP (t • c) 21:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Nyang Gwardlidac[edit]

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

Non-notable made-up language supposedly invented today. CtP (t • c) 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Sporty213 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Please note that Sporty213 has made string of similar "delete per nom" !votes. CtP (t • c) 20:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC) "Sporty" here has since been indef-blocked for general disruption, but seemingly also as a sockpuppet, as Checkuser was performed on him and his pages have been speedied under criterion G5. CtP (t • c) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedily delete as the only Ghit on this is our page, which is obvious nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3 as a blatant hoax. Frigid Ninja 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as nonsense. AfD not necessary. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn by nom). (NAC) Till 01:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EAR (band)[edit]

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

This article is quite ambiguous, about a musical project/collective centred around musician Peter Kember. The article remains unsourced after 2 years, apart from a quote claiming to be from one of its album sleeve notes. I can't find anything of substance online, not even for the most recent album. As such, at best it should be redirected to the Peter Kember article (which already has a large paragraph on the subject). Sionk (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of coverage, e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. The band also featured Kevin Shields and other notable musicians. --Michig (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn' - Well found, though they need adding to the article to replace sources like 'sleeve notes'! Sionk (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my todo list. --Michig (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Moore (artist)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable, independent, secondary sources WP:PEOPLE and sources in the article support notability only in Cork, Ireland. I am One of Many (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I sympathise with the author who points out visual artists are under-represented on Wikipedia. However, this article currently stands as more of a CV for Moore, cited to primary sources with a clear vested interest in promoting him on their websites. There is what appears to be a magazine review of Moore's joint exhibition in Cobh (where he is also gallery director) but no indication of the source. We need proof Moore and/or his work are widely known and I can't find anything convincing online. Sionk (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Disclosure: I am the primary author of the article and have met and worked with Moore, since we are fellow sound artists. I understand the objections to this entry. However, it is unrealistic to expect any artist working in an experimental or fringe field to have acknowledged third-party articles extant. It is quite simply the fact that no press exists that covers these activities. So this policy in essence says that only artists working in populist forms and genres should be represented in Wikipedia. It turns the encyclopedia into a popularity contest. I disagree with this on principle. And as a lifelong supporter of regionalism, I do not think that artists should have to flock to the major cities of the world to have their contributions validated. If Moore's visual art was not worthwhile it would not be in private and public collections. If his sonic art was not valid then he would not be sought after as a collaboration partner. But I agree the entry needs to be tied to other artists. That's easy to do... except that all those other artists could have the same objections levelled at their entries! Where is the incentive to write half a dozen other entries knowing they all could be deleted? Robin726 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much sympathize with the points you make, but objectively, how are editors to judge when a relatively unrecognized artist is doing profound work without secondary sources? Notability forces us to leave out, for now, people who will one day become recognized as innovators. This is true for many fields. If we started allowing entries for everyone with some potential in some area, Wikipedia would no longer be an encyclopedia. Keep in mind that it might not be the right time for an article on Harry Moore. Maybe in a year or more there will be an objective basis for notability. Again, none of this has anything to do with the quality of his work. I really want you to continue writing articles. One idea is to write articles on the artistic movements themselves. There is likely to be much more source material and you can point to many artists. In time, individual artists within a movement may gain sufficient notability to justify their own articles.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete. I am One hits the nail on the head. The chief requirement of Wikipedia is that there should be sufficient independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I did find this brief story in the Irish Times, but unfortunately it's only an exhibit announcement, not a review. It is not true that sources on contemporary artists don't exist (newspaper reviews of art exhibits are common enough, and there are any number of more specialized magazines that can be used as sources) and it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to make up for gaps in their coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could only find directory information. The citation list consists entirely of non-WP:RS web-pages and it appears there's not much more out there. There are similar concerns for The Quiet Club, to which this article links. Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Sionk, unfortunately this artist does not meet the notability guidelines at this time. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G11. Peridon (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SurfRap[edit]

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

Apparently a "culture, mentality, entity, genre of music and ultimately a global Movement" but in reality just a non-notable neologism which has received no mention in books or in the news. Just try Googling with the search term "SurfRap", and all you'll get are false positives, a large number of them in foreign languages. CtP (t • c) 16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is this even here? WP is not WP:MADEUP? -- Alexf^(talk) 17:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article and the related Stephane Cohen, created by the same author, are both tagged for speedy deletion as A7 (the latter article was tagged by me). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Kent[edit]

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

This article reads as a coatrack - an article about Whole Woman Posture disguised as a biography. (Whole Woman Posture was speedied as unambiguously promotional.) I couldn't find the kind of in-depth coverage of Kent that would be required to demonstrate that she meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the only sources provided that mention her are self-published; the other sources are for some of the medical information in the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for essentially the same reasons as the nominator; this page is a thinly-veiled advertisement for WWP, and sources about this Christine Kent appear quite hard to come across, going by the above Google links. CtP (t • c) 16:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pretty poor BLP article, but maybe Kent is one of the very few people who wants her personal medical history detailed on Wikipedia! She attracts interest on specialist forums and personal websites, but I can't find any reliable coverage about her or her book online. At least I know now what a 'coatrack' is on Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply

I've tried to take in your concerns re citing sources/verifiablility and personal health history. I have edited and added citations which I believe address your concerns. She is notable because she has done original research in an area which affects millions of women world wide and offers an alternative to traditional therapies that have a high failure rate (e.g. mesh). User:Fabprint 23 February 3013 —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Fabprint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem is that most of the references aren't about Kent herself, but the health conditions she researches. CtP (t • c) 14:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails applicable notability guidelines, and above coatrack concerns still apply. Lack of suitable refs about the article's subject. -- Scray (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable promoter of an alternative medical regimen that even the article admits is "not yet widely accepted by the medical community". That's a bit of an understatement. I found zero coverage about her and her treatment at Google News, and absolutely nothing at Google Scholar or PubMed; apparently she has never published anything in any peer-reviewed journal. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 MLS SuperDraft[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined. While there is more information than in the last version, it's still too soon to justify an article, given that dates, location, and whether or not it will be merged with the supplemental draft all remain to be determined. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 11 trades made pertaining to the 2015 MLS Draft, which is two draft cycles away. There is a Wiki page for the 2014 NHL Draft (two cycles away) which has 10 trades and no event date, and the 2014 NFL Draft (two cycles away) which has only 3 trades. If these similar North American sports drafts warrant pages now then so does the 2015 MLS Draft.Bubbagump24 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale. If you ask me these pages should be deleted also. The bottom line is any future event which in and of itself has not yet received any coverage is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has received coverage from media in Kansas City, Boston, Salt Lake, Toronto, Los Angeles, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, Vancouver, Portland, Washington D.C., Columbus, and Montreal by virtue of reporting traded 2015 draft picks involving those clubs. This draft has similarly been mentioned numerous times by U.S. and Canadian national news media reporting 2015 trades. Two-thirds of the clubs in the league have already made 2015 draft trades. That's notable.Bubbagump24 (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely my point. The coverage to date has all been incidental. To date there has been no coverage of the draft itself, as evidenced by the fact that the date, location, and format are all still to be determined. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, too far away. Giant Snowman 09:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly nothing notable can be said about this topic now, WP:ROUTINE coverage of picks being traded does not equate to solid basic information such as date, location and logistics. Which leaves the article without any encyclopaedic information. C 679 19:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added date, added location, added format. Bubbagump24 (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Plus there's no evidence regarding the date and location of the draft. – Michael (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." It goes on to state: "In particular: 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

Every previous MLS SuperDraft has been "of sufficiently wide interest" to merit an article. The event "is notable and almost certain to take place" as it has occurred every year since the league started. The fact that 13 of the 19 MLS clubs have already made trades involving picks in the 2015 SuperDraft is evidence that "preparation for the event" is already in progress. All of these facts run contrary to the rejection criteria stated in WP:Crystal. Bubbagump24 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too far away. Bring it back in a year. WP:ROUTINE news reports about traded picks does not equate to significant coverage. No one is disputing that this could be a valid article later, but there does seem to be agreement that for now, it's too early. C 679 05:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the page wasn't created because of the date, it was created because of actions pertaining to the event. If only 1 or 2 trades had been made I would agree that it doesn't deserve a page. But 11 trades have been made involving 68% of the clubs in MLS. The date is irrelevant at this point. The page creation was driven by the actions of the clubs and MLS. Bubbagump24 (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 12 trades involving 74% of the clubs in MLS, including the 1st round 2015 pick traded today. Bubbagump24 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Munshi Singh[edit]

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

Not reliable sources provided. Notability not observed. DO not follow the criteria of Wikipedia notability. Jussychoulex (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Searching doesn't find anything other than, maybe, professional directory stuff. There is another person of the same name who was a test case player in a Canadian immigration incident. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete He is a botanist for sure, but not enough coverage on him to support his notability. There are two colleges in Bihar, Munshi Singh College and Munshi Singh Law Collge - but they are not named after him. So tried a modified google search with this string "Munshi Singh" botany -wikipedia -"munshi singh college" -"munshi singh law college". This gives 13 results, last five points to wikipedia page itself; other ones have list of few papers (from journals).--GDibyendu (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF; a Google Books search for "Munshi Singh" cotton turns up a few mentions of his papers, and he has a few citations on Google Scholar as well, but not enough to meet criterion #1 of WP:PROF. The article says he won an award from the Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, but there doesn't appear to be any online evidence of this. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Provisional Siberian Government (Omsk). (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Republic[edit]

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

I am scientist, I live in Novosibirsk, and history of Siberia is very interesting for me. I claim, that there wasn't any "Siberian Republic" in history. Two times there existed Provisional Government of Autonomous Siberia, but neither first, nor second claimed Siberia as independent country. Both provisional goverments claimed themselves as goverment of part of RUSSIA, and planned to extend its power to the whole Russia. Maybe it was misinterpreted by some users, who considered declaration of organisation the Siberian Provisional Goverment as "Declaratio of Siberia Independence". --Slb nsk (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It currently doesn't provide enough references to establish notability, and the proposer's claims seem correct as I see no evidence of a desire for an independent Siberia at the time. A redirect to History of Siberia would be possible, or Provisional Government of Autonomous Siberia. I'm willing to wait and see if anyone can provide more references/evidence, but think a redirect or delete is likely. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur with the nominator. The best way to deal with this page is to redirect it to Provisional Government of Autonomous Siberia (redirecting to "History of Siberia" is possible, but not as specific), which is the solution I support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 22, 2013; 14:53 (UTC)

Comment - Ya can't redirect to a disambiguation page, can ya? Isn't that a double-redirect? I'm going to dig through a few books to see if I can find a definitive answer here. Carrite (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. There seems no reason for a separate article, barring an unjustified POV claim for a republic's existence, so redirection is appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Provisional Siberian Government (Omsk). Okay, this is not as hard as it seemed; two articles, one on the Vladivostok Government and one on the Omsk Government, which were inexplicably named after the obscure figures who nominally headed them. I've boldly renamed. It is correct that this is a fork; I own a couple books by Shlapentokh but not this one so can't really see what exactly the cited source says — but the notion that there are two "encyclopedic" Siberian governments of the Civil War period is correct, I think. I'll keep puttering around with these pieces a little. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Provisional Siberian Government (Omsk). Admittedly I know relatively little about Siberian political history, but I did a bit of investigation and discovered that some sources do refer to a "Siberian Republic" which existed in 1918. However, upon skimming the context of these sources, it would appear that the Provisional Siberian Government (Omsk) is the subject of discussion. For anyone interested in working on the article, here are some sources I encountered: [21], [22], [23], [24]. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that this relates to the short-lived Omsk Provisional Government for the short interval of time before Kolchak (a White general and military strongman) took charge of the merged governments based in Omsk in the fall of 1918. Carrite (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your fourth link there, the book by Smele, looks to be cutting edge — probably the best single source on the topic. There are dozens of books on the Russian Civil War which would touch on the topic, of course. Carrite (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the subject found the following. 1. Processes of sovereignty in Siberia (February 1917-1923.) § 4.1. Education Siberian State and its elimination - the theme SUMMARY on ВАК 07.00.02, Doctor of Sciences of the History Sushko, Alexey. Taken from http://rudocs.exdat.com/docs/index-172947.html summary says the following items in the first section "Education Siberian State and its elimination" shows the process of the formation of the Siberian Republic, Managing oblastnicheskim mainly on the composition of the Provisional Siberian Government ministers. The ideology of regionalism was the ideological basis for the creation of the new state. 2. SIBERIAN NATIONALISM AND THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN THE REGION (March 1917 - November 1918)) - that the same author. This source overthrow overthrow of Soviet power and the subsequent proclamation of the Provisional Siberian Government Declaration on state sovereignty of Siberia from July 4th, 1918 defined the transition regionalism in the status of state ideology. The future historian must unambiguously be noted that in 1918 there was an independent Siberian republic - recalled GK Gins [26. Pp. 121]. The basis of the state ideology could only lie Siberia Siberian patriotism, promote regionalists <> With the formation of Russian Provisional Government - Director, Siberian nationalists agreed to self-liquidation of the Siberian republic as believed that "it was impossible to go to Moscow to oblastnicheskimi slogans" [33. Pp. 22]. With the declaration of November 3, 1918 "On the transfer of sovereignty in Siberia Russian Provisional Government" Siberian nationalism lost its political importance. 3.Nikitin Alexey. Statehood "white" Russia: formation, evolution and collapse (1918-1920 gg.): Abstract of thesis. Dr. ... jurid. Sciences: 12.00.01 - Template: M: University of Moscow Russian Interior Ministry, 2007. Quotes In the second section, "The Autonomous Siberia: parliamentary or authoritarianism," explores the process of statehood in Siberia .... Another very important measure to strengthen the public of Siberia, in a declaration of the Provisional Siberian Government on July 4, 1918 "On state independence of Siberia" . This act was declared international personality, unrestricted and independent of the government, led by the Provisional Siberian Government. 4. GK Gins. Siberia, the Allies and Kolchak. volume 1 - The future historian should definitely be noted that in 1918 there was a 4 month self Siberian republic. 5. Chronicle oblastnicheskogo movement in Siberia (1852-1919). Quote 1918, July 4. Omsk. Provisional Siberian Government adopted the "Declaration on the state sovereignty of Siberia." (GARF. F.5871. Op.1.D.92.L.8.) Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first work your mentioned was made in my university, hence it was easy to me to see the original text in russian :-) Russian text clearly says that "there was a PROCESS of creating Siberian republik, but it was terminated: those, who could make this, prefer to restore non-divided state of Russia". --Slb nsk (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it was 4 months in 1918. To quote the original SIBERIAN NATIONALISM AND THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN THE REGION (March 1917 - November 1918)) - The future historian must unambiguously be noted that in 1918 there was an independent Siberian republic - recalled GK Gins [26. Pp. 121]. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Provisional Siberian Government (Omsk).--Soroboro (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted for the fourth time. Peridon (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Student Asociation[edit]

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

Re-creation of article recently created and deleted as non-notable org. Editor appears to be president. No evidence of notability. Googling "All Student Association" isn't helpful as there are so many phrases referring to all activities of a Student Association... adding "Aurangabad" to the Google search produces no likely hits in first couple of pages. PamD 14:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing concerns appear to have been remedied. Sandstein 09:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Mandal[edit]

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

Autobiography, only one source cited, a lot of unverified information. Notability might be in question as well. The Determinator p t c 12:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page. Claims many awards received but not one source for any of them. Autobio. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete working artist, but no assertion of notabilty. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable artist, meets our notability criteria, see the reviews listed here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-notable person. Seems that page created for send promotion. Do not fill the criteria of notability as per Wikipedia guidelinesJussychoulex (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep - This subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by simple copy editing. Source examples that consist of significant coverage from reliable sources include:

Painting his love Indian Express
Tales of transition DNA
Mandal's country canvas in town for art lovers Times of India
Mumbai's monsoon made artsy. CNN.

— It seems that the delete !voters here may not have searched for available sources to qualify deletion per Wikipedia's WP:BIO gudelines. See also: WP:NRVE, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability criteria per sources available. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I did nominate this article for the AfD, I think with the references that has been added and as long as neutrality is maintained this article can be kept. The Determinator p t c 22:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with independent sources the artist is clearly notable. Perhaps another message should be left reminding the author on WP:NPOV iComputerSaysNo 13:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tactilate[edit]

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

Dictionary definition of non-notable neologism. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contest that this is a non-notable neologism. It is certainly notable. There is no other word in existence for this definition. This word has been voted in by 1200 users globally and has already been used by 1.5 million people in the last week. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willjelbert (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is conferred by discussion in third party reliable sources, not uniqueness. I couldn't find anything discussing this in depth. Moswento ^talky 12:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In February 2013, a competition was run on the Happy Animals Can Think facebook page to request people contribute their entry to invent a word that best represented imagining the sense of touch. Wikipedia is not for things that just got made up on Facebook. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In particular, Wikipedia is not for neologisms. The existence of reliable sources to indicate notability is just not there. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is in fact the argument of Willjelbert that has convinced me that this article should be deleted, because the whole thing was just made up and voted for on Facebook. CtP (t • c) 16:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All valid reasons for deletion are listed above.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would appear that the article creator, Willjelbert (talk · contribs), has a conflict of interest as the supposed creator of the term "tactilate", William Jelbert. CtP (t • c) 03:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing On[edit]

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

Non-notable film. No indications of any coverage of this film in any media. No notable participants. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything either. Of course, there may be coverage under an Urdu title, but I couldn't find reference to an Urdu title. Moswento ^talky 13:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF and lack of coverage. The thing seems to exist,[25] but as it is not to be released for two months, it has no coverage. A return might be reconsidered after release and only IF the thing gets coverage to meet WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find any good sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silverfly (airline)[edit]

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

Silverfly is a planned airline concept, a company which so far has not acquired any aircraft. Therefore, it should be deleted, also because the following Wikipedia policies are violated: First, the whole article consists of product announcements. It is purely speculative per WP:CRYSTAL. Secondly, it has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (all media attention Silverfly got so far has been due to self-published intentions concerning planned routes and aircraft). Per WP:CORP, this is needed, though. Thirdly, a google search reveals that the most important contributor, User:Mahdi Prijatna, seems to be the business advisor of Silverfly, so it's a breech of WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. Baltia Air Lines comes to mind here, an investment scam which was deleted for similar reasons. --FoxyOrange (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Permanently ground~~ - Until there is significant reliable coverage for it, then I can't see how it is notable. It's just an airline that failed to take-off (or did, only once.) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Upon reviewing one of the sources in the article (which, IIRC, wasn't there the last time I checked; last time I checked it, the sources implied it only had one flight), it confirms that there was a scheduled service, if only for a few days. I believe that any airline, as long as it had scheduled flights, is notable, if only just. However, there is an awful lack of reliable sources, even in Malaysian media. Although there doesn't appear to be an established consensus that any scheduled airline is notable, I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but the lack of reliable sources, for me, makes this airline's article hit turbulence. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This airline has had scheduled passenger flight service with two airplanes in 2010, and as per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a general consensus and precedent at AfD that airlines that have operated schedued service are notable; it is the act of scheduled operation that establishes that notability. Notability is not temporary; provided that notability can be verified through reliable sources, which it appears is the case here, the article is suitable for keeping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The case it, so far there is no proof that Silverfly has operated any scheduled flights. From the few sources available, it more looks like Berjaya Air had wet-leased one of its aircraft, so that all that happened was a short-term marketing/branding event. And then again, there is no general consensus that notability in an airline was established by scheduled flight operations. There just is no special notability guideline for airlines, but WP:CORP should be followed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS can be formed through normal editing pracitice. Normal editing practice and precedent at AfD is that scheduled airlines are notable fo the fact that they are scheduled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a general consensus to keep airlines that have offered scheduled flights, and as The Bushranger (talk · contribs) stated, notability and its general guideline is not temporary. There are already some reliable sources provided in the article that verify some statements. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 05:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Erotic sexual denial. Arguments over whether or not this term is widely used are irrelevant. The relevant issue is whether or not this subject is differenct from erotic sexual denial. No case has been made for that and hence the WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument has the day. Spinning Spark 23:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tease and denial[edit]

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

Notability is not established. Content is duplicative of erotic sexual denial. Sourcing is also problematic. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify which article it duplicates? The page for erotic denial doesn't seem to exist. Do you mean Erotic sexual denial where the nominated page is split from? Funny ^Pika! 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term is widely used in femdom and fetish pornographic websites. A search for the term on Amazon shows some results. Reliable sources for the topic are hard to find because of search engines' bias towards pornography instead of encyclopedic content and social stigma on pornography that prevents that more serious studies about the topic become known. Some references might be added in the future, but it has WP:POTENTIAL. And the current state is actually not bad, just lacks references. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipeda-en, not wikipeida-en-porn. If a term is widely used, one would expect there to be many references. Whether or not search engines have a porn bias (a concept i reject as the Internet 's backbone was built on porn) is irrelevant. There are many many "porn" terms that do have articles. At the moment there is no potential, nor is any likely to develop. The ESD article will do fine. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 10:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have misinterpreted me. The internet is biased toward pornographic content itself (for masturbation). Searching for "porn" is more likely to yield more results like that than encyclopedic content, news articles or studies about pornography as a phenomenon. It is hard to find reliable sources for topics like autofellatio for that reason. But somehow they managed to do it. I'm sure there are some reliable sources for Tease and denial too, since it is a widely used term. It would be better just to wait until someone digs them up. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a widely used term, there should be evidence of its use. This isn't urban dictionary is my point. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it is an urban dictionary at all. I really think that the article is useful and encyclopedic, but seriously lacking reliable sources. But that issue can be fixed. I'm sure those sources exist and an expert in human sexuality would be able to find them. I can say that by comparing it with similar, but successful articles. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most modern sex advice books are likely to discuss it. They do have to be found, though - . A quick G-scholar search (without even trying for synonymous phrases) finds: Gentry, Cynthia W. What Women Really Want in Bed: The Surprising Secrets Women Wish Men Knew About Sex.'. Beverly, MA: Quiver, 2010 isbn 9781592333394 ' p. 17 ; Gregg Norris Glossary of BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Dominance, Submission, Sadism, Masochism); Eva Christina, The Book of Kink: Sex Beyond the Missionary New York, NY : Perigee Book, ©2011, isbn 9780399536946 ; D. Mainon, "A New Kind of Girl" p.277-91 in Silver, Alain, and James Ursini. Gangster Film Reader. Pompton Plains, N.J.: Limelight editions, 2007. among the less standard literature is FetishDiva Midori, Linda Santiman, and Steve Diet Goedde. Wild Side Sex: The Book of Kink : Educational, Sensual, and Entertaining Essays. Los Angeles, CA: Daedalus, 2005. There are also works of fiction (see Google Books) DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clear evidence of significant coverage among multiple different secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ESD covers the subject, and the references provided by DGG can be applied to improve that article. Also, a redirect or improvement to Tease will get readers to the right place. What this article (along with other similar articles) might become is a WP:NOTHOWTO, and a single article such as ESD allows editors to follow one page, not multiple. Finally, we have WP:OSE considerations. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, these articles do not cover the subject, the article for deletion is not a how to, and my arguments were not WP:OSE. Please read carefully my comments above. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Erotic sexual denial. The two topics are insufficiently different to merit separate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Erotic sexual denial. DGG has found sources about the topic, however they are not cited in the article, which is unsourced and so we don't know whether the content matches the sources. Consequently, the content should be suppressed until it is made verifiable to readers by inline citations. As this is contested content by virtue of this AfD, it must be sourced or removed per WP:V. Also, the two articles are about the same topic as far as I can tell. We need only one. Ideally, one is redirected to another, which is then reduced to a sourced stub to remove all the unsourced content, and it can grow back from there to the extent editors cite sources for any additions. Sandstein 09:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Farah Khan. Sandstein 09:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year (2013 film)[edit]

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

Originally this was a PROD, but I removed the PROD and am bringing it to AfD because there's just enough here to where this might squeak by notability guidelines based on the amount of coverage it's received over a long period of time. This film has been in continuous pre-production for years now, with the film getting pushed back for one reason or another. The amount of news coverage for the movie has been fairly impressive, enough to where this might be one of those rare exceptions to the WP:NFF rule. I can see both sides of the argument, but I thought this would be best served with a discussion here on AfD. At the very least this should be incubated until filming begins. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IF there were any confirmation of an imminent filming date incubation would be a suitable option. However, WP:NFF could be seen as satisfied by the amount of persistant coverage showing the topic of the film's pre-production and setbacks as a topic notable enough for a weak keep. IF neither option proves viable, a merge and redirect of sourcable information about the project to the filmmaker's article is a policy based solution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this from the beginning of this month mentions the planned start of filming in the first quarter of this year. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to director's article and post mention of the merge on that article's talk page so it can be easily undone if filming does begin. (Maybe an "undo" link that other editors can use when the time comes?) Could also post similar notices on the talk pages of the actors' articles to at least disseminate the status and the know-how to restore an article that will go on forever. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
incubate or merge - I am not finding any significant coverage that shows this multiply-delayed project is notable for its delays. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is the "significant " coverage about the subject of the article? There are several pieces of gossip and rumors and plans about different things that have not happened. But no significant coverage about a actual film. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to director's page. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Farah Khan, director—I'm leaning towards incubation, but we don't know if this film is going to ever happen. Keeping the information in the filmmaker's page seems like the best solution for now until the coverage is more substantial. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as the nominator has failed to put forward an argument for deletion and no one else argues that the page should be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Cain Külbel[edit]

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

Tentinator (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete this article, Tentinator? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote a controversial book "Mordakte Hariri", which was noted and reviewed by media such as Naharnet, Lebanese Daily Star [26], but also by other (anti-Israeli) media worldwide. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No deletion rationale presented. In addition he has been written about a fair bit, and I have added information and references to the article (plus a 2-part article by him as Further reading). There's one further article that I am unable to retrieve, at Aujourd'hui Le Maroc, dated 27 April 2006 whose title begins "Affaire Hariri : le livre qui ...". Anyone who can make their search function behave and get a functioning URL for that, please do. Otherwise, I believe I have assembled enough independent coverage of him and his book (and his subsequent jailing) to demonstrate notability under GNG, in case this is not closed on procedural grounds. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jürgen's position as a journalist and investigator make him noteworthy. His book on Rafik Hariri's assassination propelled him to international notoriety. George Al-Shami (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good work, Yngvadottir! This nomination should be closed procedurally, as no reason for deletion has been provided. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Work above finding references shows he is notable. Nomination doesn't give a reason and it was done by Twinkle so may have been accidental: nominator was asked for a reason on his talk page on 22nd and hasn't edited since. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inappropriate AfD nomination. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as keep, no deletion rationale supplied. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JECatt[edit]

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

Tentinator (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JECatt is a junior enterprise. In wiki there are a lot of pages dedicated to junior enterprise. They are student associations (in wiki is full of this page)...so why you want delete it?

P.S. an example: Junior ESSEC--Crostadinner (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Ladas[edit]

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

Not notable. Tentinator (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This surgeon is not notable, although I wish the nominator had expanded on their reasons for saying so. Ladas was the subject of one significant item in an independent source: the Daily Mail article which is already cited. One such article is not enough. Otherwise he seems to be a competent but run-of-the-mill surgeon. The puffery in the article is uncited, and large parts of the article are cut-and-pasted from his bio page at the hospital where he practices.[27] Google Scholar finds him as one of multiple authors on some moderately-cited papers; that's not enough to qualify per WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also, the article reads like a resume, and its creator has a sketchy contribution history.Gdfusion (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. h-index of 14 is not quite enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited biomed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article does not make a credible case for notability. Simply publishing papers is not enough, and the claims of being a noted pioneer in a particular medical procedure are not substantiated. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Main notability seems to be the introduction of a new medical technology. That seems a bit WP:1E to me. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails applicable notability guidelines, based on citations in the current article and my searching of PubMed. -- Scray (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ΓΙΩΡΓΟΣ ΛΑΔΑΣ "Ο Ελληνας χειρουργός που σκοτώνει τους όγκους" unless sources like these in Greek are all self-published. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also "This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. " In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy threepwood[edit]

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

advertising or promotion Bwcajp (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless the user re-writes it such that it doesn't look like an advertisement. There are some reliable sources, but I am unsure if they are actually sufficient to meet WP:GNG - hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 09:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Paper Author - I have re-written the plot, added references to Literary Wales, South Wales Argus, Swansea Met University, BBC Wales, added another section with referenced quotes. Can you check again to make sure you are happy? Ive noted the references at the bottom haven't increased although ive added sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristy Maloney (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Paper Author - Someone has added a video clip as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristy Maloney (talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything that makes the book seem particularly notable--no reviews or mentions at all. The author conceivably might be, but the article is probably too soon in any case. squibix (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy. The big issue is that this is simply WP:TOOSOON for this series to have an entry. There are two sources that talk about the author in relation to the books, but those aren't enough to show that the books or the author have received a depth of coverage. The other links in the article are uniformly unusable as far as notability goes and aren't really usable as external links either. I've kept the trailer and the book website in the EL, but the rest just show that the book and its author exist and existing is not notability. The other sources are almost all database entries or various types of primary sources. I've left a link on Kristy's page about some of the issues, so I'll try not to be too verbose here. I have no issue with someone userfying a copy of the page (WP:USERFY), although I will say that the previous version did have some problems with tone and read more like an advertisement or a fan page. (Not that I think that this was an attempt to spam or advertise, just that they're new to Wikipedia and are somewhat unused to writing in the NPOV here. I say this as someone who started off writing articles exactly like the original version.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. When this article was nominated I was confused as to what it was about; article is much clearer after the rewrite and the subject seems to be notable. (non-admin closure) ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 23:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jangnama[edit]

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

This article is rather poorly written, and I'm not sure if it passes WP:GNG, although I admittedly have little knowledge about this subject. It has no references, thus fails WP:V, is probably mostly original research and is not written from a neutral point of view. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 07:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK and GNG. G-searches turn up completely unrelated material. I don't see how it would qualify for CSD G3, but I won't rule out such possibilities. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 09:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. "Jangnama" generally seems to be a genre of heroic and war poetry in India, specifically associated with Islam. There were quite a few different Jangnamas created, according to the Encyclopedia of Indian Literature.[28] This article appears to be on a specific poem. Google Scholar finds Bhatti, Harvinder. "Mapping the World of Contestation: The Semiotics of Jangnama1 of Shah Muhammad." Reconstructing identities: society through literature (2008): 56, which may be relevant, but sounds perfectly awful. This article is very flawed, but the underlying concept appears to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have revised the article with a stub around the general concept, taken from the Encyclopedia of Indian Literature. The original text stands below my additions. That text appears to have been forked out of Shah Mohammad. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's something of a problem that most works on this are not written in the best English but I find the same definition and numerous book references. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge related articles to this one, and clean up.. There's no clear consensus that the topic is necessarily viable after that, so the merger doesn't exclude a later renomination for deletion. Sandstein 09:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old Rajans Scouts Association[edit]

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

A single scout group in a single college. We have almost never including articles on individual chapters of national associations. I note also the highly promotional wording: "It was a very refreshing and fascinating programme which any scout can remember with pride" There might be a point in a general article on the series of meetings, but the best way even to handle them would be to mention them in a single line in the article on the national association. see below for my further comment about merging into here DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is one other possibility: a merge to Lake View Park International Scout Centre. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It has become clear over many years now that individual Scout Troops or Scout Groups are hardly ever notable. A large number of such articles have been redirected or deleted. If the Scout Group is not notable, then an old boys association for a Scout Group is less notable. It should be merged with Dharmaraja College or Lake View Park International Scout Centre, but the content would have to be cut back considerably. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first ever old Scout association in Sri Lanka which has over 35 years of history. Up to now it has organised 7 international events. Beside its separate body, its not the Scout Group or the college. So I believe its notable enough to keep as a separate article in Wikipedia. I'l rewrite the article to avoid promotional wordings. Please keep this article in wiki. --Chandana.uduwela 03:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Rewrite the article to avoid promotional wordings. Please check & keep this article in wiki. --Chandana.uduwela 08:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a trove of events related to this association currently nominated for AfD - and rightfully so, as individually they do not stand out. However, if the one or two sources for each of those articles are merged into this one, then this article should stand on its own. The problem seems to be that this association's content was spread out across multiple articles when it should have all been kept here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single scout groups are not notable LGA _talk^edits 10:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable promotion page. May merit a one line mention on another article. DiverScout (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As suggested by MezzoMezzo, added all the event details in to this article. And also removed promotional wordings. So please keep this artcle. Chandana.uduwela 08:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am now inclined to support the suggestion that MezzoMezzo makes above. To explain it more fully the following articles have been deleted or are also at AfD:-

Dharmaraja Centenary JIM 1987 - at AfD which is still open but a merge here has been suggested.

RANSAI 2008 has been speedy deleted.

Rajans Millennium Jamboree 2000 has been speedy deleted.

RISGO Centennial 2013 - at AfD with the conclusion to merge here.

Rajans JIM 2003 - at AfD which is still open but a merge here has been suggested.

The involvement of this Scout Group and more importantly this Old Rajans Scouts Association, makes it significanlty different and more notable than any other Group I have heard about. I will strike out my comments above. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am willing to agree to merging all the material here, if the article is rewritten in encyclopedic language. Taking everything collectively, there is probably enough notability. I'd withdraw the AfD formally, except that another editor has said delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MezzoMezzo, there are enough sources to support notability if the other articles are merged here. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Old Rajans Scouts Association. Sandstein 09:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajans JIM 2003[edit]

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

non notable individual meeting of a single scout group in a single college. There might be a point in a general article on the series of meetings, but the best way to handle topics like this is to mention them in a single line in the article on the national association. There's nothing significant worth merging, and no need for a redirect--anyone looking for information will naturally go to the page for the national association. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single scouting event, no lasting significance. LGA _talk^edits 07:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ because, while there are two items that might be used to reference it, one of which is most assuredly in a WP:RS, the more useful of the two is for the series of meeting organised by this scout troop. An acceptable outcome would be to create an article on the series of meetings using that reference as the hook on which to hang the article. I hesitate to do that now since the article is under deletion discussion, but would be happy to take it on if the consensus reaches the verdict to delete (0.9 probability for the verdict). If that is the case, perhaps the deleting admin would drop the content into my userspace so I can do a little work on it before releasing it into the wild (Though I'd prefer to know fro editors that this might be a valid article before doing any work on it). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of !vote to Support Merge to Old Rajans Scouts Association per MezzoMezzo below. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have added the reliable source reference to the article. I fear it to be insufficient, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dharmaraja College and use the page in question as a redirect. The source doesn't support notability warranting a separate article, but it could be used to beef up the notability of the associated college. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I propose merging it to Old Rajans Scouts Association. This is part of a serious of AfDs for events closely related to that association. Put together, they could all support the notability of a single article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter merge would be an acceptable outcome, and one I would support. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Old Rajans Scouts Association per MezzoMezzo. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Old Rajans Scouts Association. Sandstein 09:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmaraja Centenary JIM 1987[edit]

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

non notable individual meeting of a single scout group in a single college. There might be a point in a general article on the series of meetings, but the best way to handle topics like this is to mention them in a single line in the article on the national association. There's nothing significant worth merging, and no need for a redirect--anyone looking for information will naturally go to the page for the national association. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single scouting event, no lasting significance. LGA _talk^edits 07:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--If there no way that we can keep this article, please keep the article "Old Rajans Scouts Association". Will add these details as a section in there. Chandana.uduwela 22.06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge into Old Rajans Scouts Association and turn the page in question into a redirect. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Old Rajans Scouts Association per the considerations brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Rajans Scouts Association. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dealerbid[edit]

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

No reliable sources for notability Ref 1 is just a one sentence mention, ref 2 is a press release and labelled as such in the source. This should not have been accepted from AfC. The stimulus for this article presumably is that the company intends to launch branches, and this is part of the advertisement campaign for them. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I find the same hits as the nominator: the references in the article are insufficient, and Ghits are all website directories except one odd hit for a P. D. Eastman book—not Go, Dog. Go! though.
Delete Fairly obvious attempt at SEO of something that isn't notable to begin with. All I see is self-generated content. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The delete side have simply stated a policy but have not elaborated any further. Arry's argument that the table provides relevant information on the TV media in New Zealand as well as the other arguments pointing out that there should be consistency between the countries do, at the very least, have merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 New Zealand primetime television schedule[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. RNealK (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does New Zealand primetime TV differ from U.S.? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination). postdlf (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those shouldn't exist either, but if they're to be kept, then WP:NOTDIRECTORY needs to be deleted. RNealK (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...or you're simply not interpreting it in accordance with consensus. Do you have any argument to raise against this New Zealand list that would not be applicable to the U.S. lists? Any way to distinguish it at all? postdlf (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep First, remove listings of upcoming programs, such as listings of which movie will be broadcast in a given timeslot through the end of March, since that makes the article an electronic TV Guide. Per WP:NOT, "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." Stripped down of listings of particular upcoming or weekly episodes, this would be an example of "historically important programming lists and schedules." It would be a useful organizational tool with respect to the articles about the individual programs. It is appropriate to keep this article without needing to change WP:NOT, so long as it is stripped of upcoming programming listings. If there is no consensus to revise the article to resemble the US prime time schedule articles, then I would favor deleting it. Edison (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a directory RadioFan (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not intended to be a EPG. It's simply meant to be a resource to show when major television programmes aired in New Zealand. This is meant to be similar to the US TV schedules, which have repetitively been kept from deletion nominations. I think that it is unfair to delete this article when those continuously are kept. However, the NZ article is more in detail than that of the US, but this is simply because NZ scheduling runs a lot differently to US scheduling. This gets even more confusing when most shows follow an episode-after-episode run, yet others last all year, emulating the US broadcast. Additionally, as explained in the article's introduction, series lengths vary widely. This is why the dates when shows air, end and go on hiatus are included. Also, to the point about future listings not be included, only a week ahead is actually listed. When it says 'onwards' that just means as far as programming is known. NZ programming is sporatic, and not predictable, so listings "until the end of March" aren't actually included. The heading January-March is only included because the tables will have to be split into four groups to accommodate the multiple changes to the TV schedule. It should be noted that scheduling settles down considerably in April-June, as 23 episode long seasons last over the entire period. The listings of the week ahead is only included because listings are much more accessible before the scheduled programmes air. If anyone follows the references at the end of the article, you will notice there aren't any retrospective listings (this is part is also why in line references aren't included, as they will become dead links quickly). So yeah, this should be kept as long as its US counterparts are. Arry 20:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the strong consensus demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination). As long as the article is revised per User:Edison, it falls under the "historically significant program lists and schedules" exception in WP:NOTDIR. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12, copyvio of http://www.myspace.com/dmingomusic Yunshui 雲‍水 10:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'mingo[edit]

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

I failed to find enough reliable coverage for this person. he does appear to have a page on Billboard, but apparently no charting work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - it's a copyright problem. Eeekster (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sourcing issues seem to have been addressed. Sandstein 09:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CloudForge[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The article only has one secondary source[29] and the rest are press releases. A Google News search[30] is empty. CorporateM (Talk) 03:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no singificant coverage found in non-primary reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable per the guideleines of WP:GNG or WP:CORP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reviewing the potential secondary sources provided by Nickb79 on the talk page, I have incorporated some of them into the article. They mostly replaced the press release based references. Of the seven references in the article, I consider the SD Times, developer.com, and Infoworld references to be reliable. The Cloud Ave and DevOps Angle refs are journalistic sites that could be considered to be widely read blogs, and so possibly notable. There are two PR based references left in that aren't reliable, but can probably be trusted to verify the particular facts they cite. The multiple reliable sources suggest this topic is notable. After a nice cleanup by Drmies and CorporateM, the promotional parts have been excised, leaving a fairly neutral article. Notability of the topic and few problems with the article suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep For same reason. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources were not originally found because it was recently renamed from Codesion to Cloudforge. Also, the article is now non-promotional and reasonably sourced. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hulse[edit]

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

Nothing beyond facebook. - Altenmann >t 03:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I suggest that as the nominator has said, and also because the only other page that is not on Facebook, is his LinkedIn page, [31], So, and on a quick search of Google, I can't find any other items or resources that mention him. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources other than Facebook and LinkedIn, per above. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been G3'd. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. The situation is as DoctorKubla says. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve J. Kauffman[edit]

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

Individual does not exist, page created in error

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 22. Snotbot t • c » 02:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7: author requests deletion. Looks like this page's creator gave Kauffman the wrong middle initial, and has subsequently created Steve A. Kauffman instead. For future reference, SwerdFish83, it would have been easier to rename the page; see WP:MOVE for instructions. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As per what Gene93k said. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plip!

You mean what DoctorKubla said. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIM Democracy[edit]

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

There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards. The one reference and all but one of the external links are on web sites belonging to one or other of the organisations creating, publishing, and promoting the game, the one exception being a FaceBook page. This means that no independent sources at all are provided in the article. Thinking, however, that there might be suitable independent sources which the author of the article had not included, I did a Google search. The first page of Google hits contained their own sites again, facebook, this Wikipedia article, several youtube videos, a couple of twitter pages, an advertisement for a "workshop" which introduced the game to potential users of it, and a review on about.com. The character of about.com can perhaps best be illustrated by a couple of quotes from about.com's web pages about about.com itself: "About.com connects your brand to consumers at their moment of need", and "Real examples of how About.com helped brands achieve their marketing goals". Moving on to the next couple of pages of Google hits, I found some more of the same, together with blogs, website listing sites, etc. I did not find anything that could possibly be regarded as significant coverage in a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the about.com review, there is no coverage in reliable sources. I'd say the about.com review does lend itself towards establishing notability, though not strongly. About.com does exercise enitorial control over articles; it';s just not clear how strong the editorial control is. In my personal experience in reading about.com, I've observed that they often have a mess of overlapping articles and information duplication that would indicate the writers are given a lot of leeway in what they do. In any event, that one article is not going to establish notability on its own. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even though about.com review establish a moderate notability, no other reliable source talks about this board game. It lacks third-party coverage. I think it is too early for an article about this game. WP:TOOSOON Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Jacenko[edit]

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

This person does not satisfy the criteria to have a biograhpy. It is a sham and a poor attempt at boosting her own so called profile for personal means Dukeofsydney (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded this almost a year ago with the comment "No significant encyclopedic coverage in independent reliable sources" and that still applies. Most coverage is self-generated or tabloidy in nature. The-Pope (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of meeting WP:BIO. allegedly dating famous people does not make one notable. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per LibStar, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 04:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This hilarious piece says it all. Mabalu (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I would point out that there was no need for the nominator to use such rude and hostile language when making this nomination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It has been correctly highlighted that many of the references look like fan sites, which are more often than not unreliable, but assessing the reliability of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, and there's no consensus here that the sourcing is insufficient. Sandstein 09:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wyrd (company)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article has been tagged for over a year as requiring some independent sources. The company and its products undoubtedly exist, as multiple fansites, blogs and ebay listings confirm on a quick Google search. However I could find no reliable material from independent sources and indeed the article does not assert that the subject meets the WP:GNG criteria. There does appear to be a relaxed standard on WP for games and their publishers; very few articles in this area are adequately written or sourced. This article is no worse than many in that respect but WP:OSE can't be a reason to keep. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Speedy delete This should be speedied immediately. Its notability seems to be well below-par, and the article is pure spam that has been copied off the internet (I cannot be certain which site, but there are quite a few of them). Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless copyvio. Sources I found:

review of Malifaux Lazarus at Brueckenkopf
six minute video interview with Eric Johns of Wyrd at GenCon2102
Tabletop Gaming news has about 34 articles on Wyrd

The first source is independent of Wyrd and marginally in-depth. In so far as a gaming news portal is is considered reliable, it looks reliable. The second source is indepth and playunplugged.com, while enthusiastic, seems independent of Wyrd. The third source is independent of Wyrd and like Brueckenkopf, looks reliable. Most of the articles on the site Tabletop Gaming news are short, but in total could be considered sustained, in depth coverage of Wyrd and its products. It looks like there are multiple reliable sources that would indicate the topic is notable. The article does have problems with a non-neutral point of view, but those are surmountable problems (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details) and the topic notability would indicate keeping the article. If Ohconfucius's assertion that the article is a copyright violation is true, however, then the article should be deleted, per WP:COPYVIO. Mark viking (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:COMPANY. I'm not seeing a wide range of reliable and independent publications that cover the company in depth. In fact, the company appears to be quite small; according to their own company website's about us, it leads off with "Wyrd Miniatures, LLC is a small, privately held, Atlanta-based company producing entertainment and hobby materials.". On the same page, Wyrd lists 4 staff members. Google News Archive is largely inconclusive for any sources other than trivial mentions, and Google Books is even more void. Mkdw ^talk 07:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'm not at all certain about the reliability of the sources, but they look acceptable and enough to meet the GNG. If there is a copyright problem, that's another issue. As far as I can tell, size of company doesn't play a role in our inclusion guidelines (but I don't normally work in that area, so I'm happy to be corrected if there is some written or unwritten rule there). Hobit (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs to be rewritten (and I will likely end up doing it), but Malifaux (by Wyrd) is now common among tabletop skirmish games such as Warhammer 40K, and Warmachine/Hordes. Games Workshop, Privateer Press, and Wyrd are the big 3 Tabletop Skermish game companies. This event calendar shows the big 3 (including Malifaux) scheduled every week. http://www.hatsgames.com/ This article is (currently) similar to most descriptions of Malifaux like this following website. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/Malifaux?from=Main.Malifaux This is because the authors are summarizing the same material from the first Malifaux rulebook. To me the primary problem with the article is WP:PRIMARY. Although Wyrd has only a few employees (they have more than 4 now), they do have people referred to as Henchmen who do in-store demonstrations at game stores, organize events, etc. The Henchmen are not employees, but do get some sort of company credit to buy stuff with. Wyrd's website mentions the Henchman Program. Secondary Sources: There are Podcasts, Blogs, and Battle Reports on YouTube. The only secondary source the article has now (which does not cite anything) is http://pullmyfinger.wikispaces.com.

Wyrd had two successfully-funded Kickstarter projects, Through the Breach http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1334239018/through-the-breach-a-malifaux-roleplaying-game, and Evil Baby Orphanage http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1334239018/evil-baby-orphanage-0. AGProductionsInc did some reviews of Malifaux models as well. http://agpminis.com/ also refers to these videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_660LeqMPFk&playnext=1&list=PL9E7054F8CECDDFE7&feature=results_video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm_Wyi3jrvE&playnext=1&list=PL9E7054F8CECDDFE7&feature=results_video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOwF81OI3Sk&playnext=1&list=PL9E7054F8CECDDFE7&feature=results_video Dakka Dakka was somehow involved in a Malifaux model painting competition. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/494754.page http://gamerslounge.coda.net/ -- Podcasts on Malifaux, Warhammer 40K, and misc other stuff. http://theaethervox.com/ -- Podcasts, seems to focus only on Malifaux. http://www.belloflostsouls.net/ -- Reviews of Malifaux, Warhammer 40K. http://cheatedfatesradio.blogspot.com/ -- Another Podcast sight. http://www.cheatedfatesradio.podbean.com/ -- Related to the link above. (Anonymous User) 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary: My position is that Wyrd (via Malifaux) is big enough in the Tabletop Gaming community to warrant a Wikipedia article, but the current one should be rewritten. I am not a Wyrd employee, and am not a Wyrd Henchmen.--MrNybbles (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the article is mainly about Malifaux, not Wyrd Miniatures as a company. It would be more natural to have an article under the name Malifaux, with Wyrd Miniatures and Wyrd (company) redirecting to it. I suspect that people are more interested in reading and writing about Malifaux. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Malifaux and incorporate a little information about the company (and the existing article only has a little) into an article about the game. This is what i meant in my previous comment, but I didn't know that moving was possible when I wrote that. If you look at this discussion, a lot of it has been about Malifaux, the game.

I noticed that the company is really called Wyrd Miniatures so if this article survives, Wyrd Miniatures should be created as an article or redirect. 24.24.214.15 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24.24.214.15 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still seeing a lot of blogs, product pages, and run-of-the-mill board game coverage. Most of the coverage is about their products and not the company directly. These may be suitable sources for an article about their product. Mkdw ^talk 03:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split I split the article, moving material related to the game Malifaux to a separate article and adding a redirect from Wyrd Miniatures. Reference to independent sources and more company history are added. Concerning the question of notability, it relates to the compartementalization of popular culture media coverage, making it neccesary to go to specialized miniature wargaming and modelling media. Furthermore, these kinds of companies are heavily outsourced, relying on work by freelancers. More references to media coverage is greatly appreciated. Oslomin (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of community engagement I see. A deletion discussion is not solved through voting, a consensus may be reached, the subject lacks notability, voting may not change this fact. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has received major revision after the community engagement commented on above, now with references to articles from gaming- and plastic manufacturing media, which under the relaxed standard referred by Kim Dent-Brown could be argued to be in compliance with WP:GNG. Furthermore, the repeated Relisting could be an argument for a "no consensus" closure. Oslomin (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to be clear, I'm observing the apparent fact that a de facto lower standard of notability and sourcing seems in fact to exist in this area of WP. I'm NOT saying that I think this is OK or arguing that such a lower standard is a good thing. This will be a tricky one for the closing admin to call but if the final result is Keep or No consensus I think I'll have to take this de facto dual-standard for consideration elsewhere by the wider community. (Goodness knows where!) This won't be sour grapes, I just think such an unofficial departure from the usual standards needs wider discussion. I have nothing in particular against this article, and indeed maybe there's a case for different standards in different parts of WP. But I think this should be by explicit community agreement rather than by creeping caselaw. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discuss a merge or redirect in the talk page. Secret ^account 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Philippine University College of Medicine[edit]

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Xeltran (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Philippine University - No evidence to suggest that the individual colleges are notable in and of themselves - though feel free to provide sources proving me wrong. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges; no WP:RS evidence that this college is individually notable. AllyD (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - practice is to keep law schools and medical colleges. They have inherent occupational importance and this one looks separately notable in any case. TerriersFan (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm inclined to agree that law schools and medical schools should be considered notable. This one needs better references. --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This college seems to occupy a floor of a Nursing College and offer "Lifestyle and Fitness management" qualifications. If the article is to qualify for retention as a medical school, it would be useful to see some verifiable information that it is sending qualified medical doctors out into the world? AllyD (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, or merge this faily new school, per AllyD. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Central Philippine University. The coverage I found consists of this announcement of the school's opening and lots of articles by the same author, e.g. [32], [33]. I don't see any indication that this institution is notable enough to be an exception to the general rule from Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges that "In general these organizations are not notable (see WP:ORG) and should not be split off from the main institution article." --Cerebellum (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus shows that this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, keeps are not grounded in policy. As for the book is in a library comments, that is not mentioned in GNG, and in passing mention at Wikipedia:Notability (books) for good reason. Secret ^account 22:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Psychology[edit]

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

Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar that has failed to gain notability outside of Sarkar's Ananda Marga organization. The two citations to reliable sources are a brief quotation and an unannotated listing in a bibliography. No independent discussion of the book exists in the popular or scholarly press and there's no indication that any such discussion will be forthcoming. Recommend deletion.

Instead of several non-notable articles, the editors might want to create a Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (bibliography) page where each of these books would be listed. Garamond Lethe 03:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm gonna make this comment first, then place a vote. I'm not a staunch supporter of anyone or anything that makes a claim to new frontiers on an ancient practice. Yoga has stood the test of time, and anyone claiming to have "created" or "investigated" aspect(s) of it previously unconsidered is gonna have to put forward a compelling argument. That said, there are a number of fine words in the entry/article that amount to nothing else readily digestible. I'll go through a few examples one-by-one; "...psychology, for the author, is a developing science which is considered to be a part of philosophy. Traditionally philosophy has included the branches of ontology, metaphysics, ethics and epistemology, but Shrii Shrii Anandamurtijii has expanded the scope of philosophy to include psychology and spiritual cult (practices)." - this is an original claim. If he "expanded it", then he is claiming to have done the WP:OR on this, and it needs to have independent, third party sources to support it. I see none. Next, we have; ..."Shrii Shrii Anandamurti claims the connection between glands, subglands, nerves and the traditional theory of cakras (or plexi, psycho–spiritual centers) that are described in this theory on a new vision touching topics that traditionally belong to the domain of psychology and not only to the spiritual and intuitional science. - that again demonstrates an issue with WP:OR, and I have bolded the primary text that develops the impression. These are just a couple of the examples from the get go, more are embedded in the text. Now, after having given some supporting reason(s) for why I do not believe there is anything "new" to Yoga that hasn't existed for literally thousands of years that isn't "claimed as new research," I hereby vote: *Delete Barada wha? 05:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: this is the fondamental part of the phylosophy of an important indian author. We can improve it without deleting it!--Anta An (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Anta An (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete; like so many articles in the Sarkarverse, it's effectively a selfpublished book, the content relies on primary sources (ie. the book itself), there's no real evidence of notability, but there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"... bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: the article is sufficiently referenced from my point of view and I think that the notability of the author is undisputed.--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The issue is not the notability of the author who has his own page. It is about the notability of this publication and whther it deserves a separate page. I see no evidence that it is notable enough to warrant this. Just mentioning it on the main Sarkar page would give it sufficient coverage.--Zananiri (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- a sourced article of a notable topic and author.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Knight of Infinity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no one has shown evidence of notability for this book. This is one of a set of articles being staunchly defended by disciples of the author but there is not evidence of notability outside of his followers. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yet another self-published Sarkar book with no footprint outside his movements. Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Quite frankly, this is not a book that I have ever recommended to anyone, but the evidence that is readily available to everyone here indicates that this book is indeed notable by Wikipedia standards. Barada began the debate with some ill-informed remarks about yoga being unchanging. Barada then complained about original research, apparently failing to grasp the fact that Wikipedia's prohibition on original research does not apply to the author of the book but rather to the author of the article. Dougweller subsequently implied that this book has only been defended by the author's followers. I doubt that he can substantiate that claim, because I certainly cannot. Then Mangoe merely repeated the nominator's incorrect assertions - assertions that are easily overcome with even a little bit of common sense and a cursory Google search. First, regarding the claim that this book is self-published, I would point out (1) that the first edition of this book came out one year after the author's demise and (2) the publisher is - obviously - not the author. Mangoe [and?] the nominator assert: "No independent discussion of the book exists in the popular or scholarly press and there's no indication that any such discussion will be forthcoming." And, yet, when I just did a Google search for "yoga psychology sarkar", the very first hit that I got was an independent discussion of the book from 2002, showing up (with variations) in three places here and here and here. On the third page of my Google search, I discovered that even WorldCat lists eight copies of this book. So then I changed my Google search to "yoga psychology anandamurti", and I immediately found that this book quickly turns up at this library and also this library. I even found this book in the National Library of Spain (translated and into Spanish) here. Accordingly, the evidence indicates notability, and I vote according to the evidence. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 8 copies on worldcat for an english language book in a popular subject is utter lack of notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite strong feelings of some. The book just doesn't seem to be notable within its given field of study. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The article is sourced and well written. The topic and the author are notable.--Goldenaster (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- an article sufficently covered with sources. The argument seems notable to me. The author too.--Soroboro (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Soroboro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: The article can be improved and there are enough indications towards notability. --Universal Life (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPI: I've raised my concerns with WP:CANVASS at this SPI. Garamond Lethet c 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's strong complaints:as editor of the article I expressed my strong complaints and various personal suspicions on the above user on this SPI page. Hoping for a serious intervention of an administrator. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is using sockpuppets to vote "keep" on all the AfDs of articles that you wrote. Who would you suggest is the culprit, if not you? I would welcome admin intervention. bobrayner (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I follow your reasoning I can ask you: Who inserted all those AfD's and the "delete" on all these articles on P. R. Sarkar? I have my personal idea on that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that an SPI was filed against me by Garamond Lethe more than four days ago. Though I was never personally notified by Garamond of that SPI, Garamond did eventually announce that SPI here after consulting with - and effectively enlisting the support of - Bob Rayner on Bob's Talk page. The SPI is still "awaiting administration and close"; but two checkuser inspections have been carried out, and neither of the two checkusers identified any sockpuppet, much less attributed any sockpuppet to me. Accordingly, it is quite premature (to say the least) for Bob to declare that "somebody is using sockpuppets" here, what to speak of accusing anyone of being a "culprit". Rather than poisoning the well on this AfD debate, I submit that it would have been more appropriate for Garamond and Bob to have let the admins do their job. --Abhidevananda (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the closing admin: I ask the closing admin to take a look at the table with all the AfDs and the "delete" inserted from users bobrayner, Garamond Lethe & Co. on all the articles related with Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar that I inserted at this SPI.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closing admin is well aware that you and the socks want your articles to be kept, and that various unconnected editors feel the articles fail wikipedia policies. The fact that various uninvolved people disagree with you does not necessarily mean that you're a beacon of truth amid a malign conspiracy; there is a much simpler answer. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bobrayner this is not the right place for such a debate. If you have something to say defend yourself here where I inserted a table showing all your destructive attitudes. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of the kind of in-depth coverage in reliable, unaffiliated sources that would be required to demonstrate notability.Dawn Bard (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I don't like it. The author is clearly notable and the book has a relatively impressive publication history. Deb (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb. Can you point me to the publication history you found? As best I can tell, this book (and the couple of translations) were all published by Ananda Marga Publications (which was set up by the author specifically to publish the author's works). Obviously something caught your eye, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what it was. Could you be more specific? Thanks, Garamond Lethet c 15:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did say relatively, and I meant relative to other self-published works. The mere fact that it's been translated into other languages indicates a level of interest in those other countries, though of course it doesn't mean that the book is any good. Having said that, I note that no evidence is actually presented of it having been translated into languages other than Spanish, so perhaps I am easily misled. Deb (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about a translation into Malay? --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's also Chinese. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Bengali (published just a few months ago). There might not be an Internet link for that, but I could get a scan of the cover and cover pages to upload for confirmation, if anyone has doubts. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Deb. Garamond Lethet c 20:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem continues to be that this doesn't show interest in the work outside the movement. We keep going around this same tiny circle: Sarkar is important, and therefore everything he writes needs to be talked about. Ananda Marga is important, and therefore everything about it needs to be talked about separately. That just isn't the way things work here. Sarkar is important, no doubt about that; and Ananda Marga is also important, no doubt either. But this doesn't make everything they touch important. If you can show that people outside the movement show interest in this particular book, and can show that we can write an article relying on these outsiders alone for information, then yes, an article can be justified. The consistent message here in all these innumerable responses, Abhidevananda, is that you can't put enough distance between you and the topic to address these issues. You appear to be willing to take any shortcut in our requirements in order to publicize Sarkar and his works and followers however possible. That publicity is not our purpose, and indeed, we must step up to oppose using Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle in that manner. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, you could just as well argue that the publication of any book by any publisher proves no interest in that book outside of a specific targeted community. But the fact remains that the Sarkar books are advertised for sale, and I can assure you that no one who wants to buy the book has been refused a copy on grounds that s/he is not a member of Ananda Marga. Regarding your other objection, although Criterion 3 of WP:NB does not require the demonstration of interest outside of an influenced religious movement, nevertheless I did indeed demonstrate a wider interest by the fact that a Google search for "yoga psychology sarkar" immediately brought up hits for independent discussion of this book, in particular, some variations on a 2002 article here, here, and here. So I completely agree with Deb's Keep vote as well as Deb's broadminded reasoning for that vote. --Abhidevananda (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Charter DARTA[edit]

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

To the best of my knowledge, there is no special notability guideline for airlines. Therefore, as any other companies, they must pass the WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. I don't think that Aero Charter DARTA has any significant impact on the aviation industrie to call for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. There does not seem to be any reliable in-depth coverage of the company other than what aircraft it operates, which in my opinion is not sufficient, as Wikipedia is not a directory. FoxyOrange (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur that WP:CORP is applicable. The appears to be a small charter jet company operating in France. The company does not appear, based on my Google search, to meet the primary requirement of CORP, namely: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." --Noleander (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they call themselves a taxi service and should meet the same criteria. Deb (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vibroair[edit]

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

This business charter airline fails WP:CORP: It has not been the subject of any significant third-party coverage. Some editors seem to regard airlines as inherently notable once they offer scheduled flights or operate certain kinds of larger aircraft. With Vibroair, neither is the case. FoxyOrange (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nom failed to review WP:BEFORE. Sources are not required to be in English, so I don't know why [34], [35], [36], and [37] were overlooked, not to mention this English source:[38]. At first glance, there seem to be plenty of sources to establish notability. —Rutebega (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I do not think that I did anything wrong by setting up this deletion discussion. Of course, there are sources. But as I said above, these do not establish notability as there is no in-depth coverage of Vibroair itself. Four of the five links you gave are all the same: covering an order the company has made with Embraer. The other one is a Vibroair press release about the new aircraft type being put into service. As there is no inherent notability guideline for airlines, this is just not enough to pass WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". I believe that the sources I listed suitably establish notability when combined, as per WP:CORPDEPTH. While most of the sources are in the context of the Embraer aircraft purchase, they each describe Vibroair specifically. As an addendum, I wasn't intending to attack you for opening this AFD, and I continue to assume good faith. —Rutebega (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As "routine communiqués" announcing aircraft purchases, the sources fail CORPDEPTH. There are similar mentions in European Business Air News magazine, but again strictly routine.[39] Nearly all of the significant information about the company itself is provided by a press release, hardly independent. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a nominator's task to find sources for the article. WP:BURDEN applies here. The article fails WP:NCORP,and if anyone does not want the article to be deleted, just add the proper sources to it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 03:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE applies, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 17:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe the sources provided satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, the coverage seems pretty routine to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beth dariti[edit]

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

The majority of references seem to be self-published, there doesn't seem to be a large amount of independent, reliable stuff out there. There's a review or two of this person's work, but nothing from a major publication or other reliable source. Seems to fall well below the standards outlined at WP:GNG. Also, author appears to have a major conflict of interest. Jayron32 00:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent a good bit of time looking for any independent, third-party, reliable sources that could provide a basis for a finding of notability and be used to verify the content but I found none at all. If the person who was editing the article and appears to have a close connection to the subject reads this, the links in the last sentence are really for you. You would likely have a much better idea of where reliable independent sources we are looking were published, if they exist, but may not have known that that's what we look for.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to be clear you want to delete Beth Dariti as well as Beth dariti the page which redirects to it I assume ---- _nonsense ferret 01:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. The redirection happened after the nomination. The discussion is about the suitability of the subject for a stand-alone article, not over technical details. --Jayron32 01:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarrah Le Marquand[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. nothing notable about this journalist, one source in article is primary. coverage reveals articles written by her but nothing about her as the subject. [40] LibStar (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. dci | TALK 01:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to request that this page on this columnist not be deleted. I went to it yesterday after seeing Sarrah on Channel Nine discussing immunisation for school age boys where she mentioned she was the mother of two sons and in the context of the discussion I wanted to check how old they were. This was information I found at this page.

I was upset to see it is being considered for deletion as the information on this page is quite useful to people like me who see her on television and want to check a few details of her personal life - all information that is contained on this page. Personally I first looked for her on Wiki after seeing her on a Channel 7 program a few months ago and was fascinated to read about her account of being stalked by a stranger - information which, again, was provided by a link on the Wiki page.

Just finally I would argue that the information on this Wiki entry would appear to be supported by reliable and independent sources, such as her professional entry at IMDB and The Punch. Only one of the links was an article personally written by her and that was about her stalker.

A quick Google search uncovered other bio sources that confirmed the information contained on her Wiki entry including:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/nine-stream-live/meet-the-team/host/sarrah-le-marquand

http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/1483861227/Sarrah-Le-Marquand

I do hope you will reconsider deleting this page. Many thanks, MelfromSydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelfromSydney (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — MelfromSydney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

the sources you refer to are all primary, see WP:PSTS. being upset about an article being deleted is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LibStar, I realise that "being upset" about an article being deleted is not grounds for keeping. But that wasn't the argument I was seeking to make. My point was that this entry appears to offer some substantial and relevant information about the subject, all of which has been backed up by multiple sources. Having come to it via a Google search a week ago, where it provided the information I was looking for, I was surprised to see it listed as being considered for deletion. The sources listed are not all primary. At least half of them are secondary.

Unfortunately judging from your response to me I fear you have probably already made up your mind though. For what it is worth I can only reiterate my appeal on the basis that in my view this entry does indeed meet the necessary criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelfromSydney (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely fails WP:CREATIVE audiodude (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to LibStar as above: This entry appears to offer some substantial and relevant information about the subject, all of which has been backed up by multiple sources. Having come to it via a Google search a week ago, where it provided the information I was looking for, I was surprised to see it listed as being considered for deletion. The sources listed are not all primary. At least half of them are secondary. For what it is worth I can only reiterate my appeal that this entry not be deleted on the basis that in my view it is worthwhile and does meet the necessary criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelfromSydney (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find reliable sources discussing this journalist. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristopher Tate[edit]

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

Fails the basic requirements listed in WP:BIO. This page was nominated for deletion together with a company related to Mr. Tate, and was subsequently deleted, in 2006. afd The page was recreated out of process in 2007 and after a brief revert war (making it a redirect to Zoomr, reinstating the article), the article seems to have stuck. In the meanwhile, Mr. Tate can only be said to have become more obscure - his two companies, his claim to fame (and notability), have become defunct, and it seems likely that a user with a COI has been editing the page, including links to Mr. Tate's linkedIn account, and 2 videos posted on his YouTube feed, showing him being interviewed by Japanese TV. Brooooood (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anberlin. Sandstein 09:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Servants After God's Own Heart[edit]

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

Non-notable album from a non-notable band Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable lazy article doesnt really link to any pages Koala15 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ by same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Then I Corrupt Youth. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anberlin, the only source I found was this review which is not enough to show notability. (Per WP:NSONGS, though, we should redirect instead of deleting.) --Cerebellum (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hypnos (band). If anyone wants to merge anything the histories will remain. J04n(talk page) 00:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway to Hell[edit]

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

Non-notable EP per WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has been reviewed here, here, here, and elsewhere (pulled from first page of GHits). —Theopolisme (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all into the article for the band - then they can all be deleted when the article for the band is deleted. Deb (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anberlin. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I Corrupt Youth[edit]

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

Non-notable album from a non-notable band Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The album's not notable it doesn't even really link to any pages Koala15 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Selling only 1,300 copies_{(referenced at Anberlin)} is not a good indicator of notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anberlin (SaGoh 24/7 turned into Anberlin, and the article on Anberlin discusses both bands). Not notable album: no reviews, awards, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll support the redirect Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus to delete, DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Services Executive[edit]

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

This company fails WP:CORP. I cannot find any significant, reliable coverage from sources not affiliated with the company. All there can be found are the most basic pieces of information (adress, phone number...), and the mere existence of this company surely doesn't make it notable. --FoxyOrange (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They've been in trouble and definitely exist, but don't have significant secondary coverage. Therefore, delete as an unremarkable charter airline. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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