Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Purge
Jump to ToC
If you want to nominate an article for deletion, please read this carefully first.

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

More information.

Things to consider:

  • It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
  • Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  • Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

  • Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
  • Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
  • If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
  • Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
  • Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

See also Guide to deletion | Alternative outlets | Undeletion policy | Deletion guidelines for admins | Deletion process
Archived delete debates | Speedy deletion policy | Category:Pages for discussion


Add new AfD section

Treffpunkt.svg
Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      February 28 (Tue)      February 27 (Mon)      February 26 (Sun)     More...
< 29 February 2 March >
Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] Tabula Association

Tabula Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Tabula Association" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This organization appears to be an adult education center (although you'd never know that from the overblown description provided by the COI author). References (such as I could understand from Google's translation of the Hungarian and Romanian originals) appear to be little more than program announcements and local "feel good" features. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Anthony (evangelist)

Tony Anthony (evangelist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Tony Anthony (evangelist)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article relies on primary sources. It was deleted after WP:PROD for lack of verifiable/independent sources, then undeleted following this request in which an anon editor stated:

Tony Anthony is a well-known evangelist and author and his Wikipedia page had a removal request from people attempting to harm his story. We are seeking undeletion because there are a number of sources to verify the claims of Tony Anthony and we wish to have those stated on his Wikipedia page. -72.145.180.19 18:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

However, judging by the material that was added after the undeletion, these were still just primary and self-published sources. In the eight weeks since it was restored, I also tried to find sources; although I added the best that I could find, they are still not good enough to retain the article. On the article talk page and various user talk pages, multiple editors have questioned the veracity of Anthony's claims about himself. The article is not verifiable as required by WP:BLP and must therefore be deleted. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Media coverage of Anthony appears to exclusively rely on his own account as a source. The most exhaustive research done on the man is the considerable investigation detailed here (it's a loooong thread to read through, give yourself a couple of hours...), but since it's on an open discussion forum it's unusable per WP:RS. In the absence of any coverage in reliable sources that doesn't stem directly from the subject himself, I can't see this passes WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete for reasons stated. His is not, unfortunately, an especially remarkable life and the only suggestion of notability is that he has published a book about his experiences. The problem is that this is the obly source for most of the detail in the article, and is the background to most of the other sources. Emeraude (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

His life is pretty remarkable (kung fu world champion, elite bodyguard, murderer, tiger-tamer, desert survivalist etc.), but only if you believe his own account - which most people who've made even the most cursory investigation don't. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Landmap

Landmap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Landmap" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

A web service. No attempt made to demonstrate its notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Landmap buys datasets from leading data providers and supplies them free-of-charge to the UK academic community via Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards for maximum interoperability. Also it empowers users through the Learning Zone to access and apply Landmap data in an efficient and effective way so powering high quality research, teaching and learning. This is not just a web service, but a full fledged service based at Mimas, University of Manchester, United Kingdom Dulcet bg (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gogyōshi

Gogyōshi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Gogyōshi" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Notability is highly dubious. Gbooks finds nothing. Gwebsearch results are confined to user-generated matter (Google Groups etc). Gogyōshi appears to be a breakaway form of Gogyōka (whose notability itself has been the subject of debate). Of the 5 references, 4 are to blogs or self-published books (Lulu). The 2 ELs are to blogs. The wp:fr and wp:ja articles are nearly identical to this one. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Zheng

Ron Zheng (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Ron Zheng" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Previous version of article deleted after AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_L._Zheng. No claim of notability established. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • He's "a photographer, poet and award-winning graphic artist". Well, I can lay claim to two of those, but I'm in no way notable, and Zheng's article contains nothing to suggest that he is either. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination

Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This 'space currency' was a corporate publicity stunt, with no realistic prospect of entering into use. It only received transient news coverage at the time and has shown no long-term notability, with no significant coverage since the initial announcement. Essentially this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Apache Airavata

Apache Airavata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Apache Airavata" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No asserted notability in this unreferenced article. Fails WP:GNG. I have previously nominated the article for CSD, but was declined with the reason "csd does not apply to products, software, etc". Bmusician 11:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • KeepMerge and Redirect to Apache Incubator. I've rewritten the article and added citations. Airavata is a notable software framework of reputable (open-source, non-commercial) build by the Apache Software Foundation, with clients in its initial market being universities and research institutions. There seem to be plenty of available sources out there if the one's I've added aren't enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge to Apache Software Foundation with redirect: The sources in the article are unacceptable at all: the paper by the authors (one with DOI), the speculations on a future product and three home sites. I failed to find the good sources in the wild, as books and news know nothing on the topic, scholar yields three sources for Apache (primary) and another one with passing mention; and most of web search results are either tied to ApacheCon or Universities' groups and departments – all being primary sources for the topic. (Though I stopped researching when the tourism-related results started prevailing.) This is actually a tricky thing, as this software is a successor of another software, and it is easier to find someone who didn't develop it. Still, the notability is not inherited. I'm not entirely sure whether it is WP:TOOSOON or permanent, but no indication of notability is available for me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, I was misled by Google telling gentle fibs about how many more sources there were - my nose was too close to the grindstone to see very far. The keyword is "incubation" - this is an early-stage project and ASF have presumably been self-publicising rather too hard here. It's likely TOOSOON for a full article so I've changed my !vote to Merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
As I got it, incubator is a genre of this software, not its current stage with ASF. Though you are right about merging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think if you look here you'll probably agree it's an early-stage job, but it doesn't matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 08:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 10:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Ogunyemi

Paul Ogunyemi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Paul Ogunyemi" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable football player who has never played at a notable level, PDL not notable .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment of "kid's page". (non admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Pierce123

Jamie Pierce123 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Jamie Pierce123" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Looks like a simple mistake, editor probably meant this to be added to their own userpage

Aunty-S (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad

List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of officers and commanders in the Battle of Stalingrad" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The article is largely surplus to requirements given the information already contained in Battle of Stalingrad and the associated Axis order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad and Red Army order of battle at the Battle of Stalingrad. EyeSerenetalk 08:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 08:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. The article's content duplicates what is better covered in other articles, and doesn't serve a useful purpose. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Harrison (singer)

Sarah Harrison (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Sarah Harrison (singer)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable artist who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. – Kosm1fent 08:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Corey Smith (artist)

Not a vote 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 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}
Corey Smith (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Corey Smith (artist)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Does not meet notability guidelines for WP:ARTIST UnQuébécois (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The subject is notable with multiple citations from reliable sources.[1][2][3] Please review the subject and help Wikipedia expand the new media artists Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts Alice0000 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The questions of notability of an artist:

  • Is the person regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors?
  • Is the person known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique?
  • Has the person created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?
  • Has the person's work either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?

I do not see any of these as being answered yes.--UnQuébécois (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The questions of notability of an artist:

  • Is the person regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors?

Yes the subject is highly regarded in the snowboarding/art scene, I wouldn't be wasting my time making this wiki (and soon other visual artists pages) if I didn't respect him and his contributions to our community.

  • Is the person known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique?

The subject's art creation technique is very unique, especially in the type of hand-made display. The subject has created a new concept in hand-built wooden snowboards contributing to the free ride movement.

  • Has the person created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?

There have been countless print and online articles/interviews of the subject concerning his entire body of work, individual series, photographic work, film/video contributions, and more recently his hand-made snowboards/art.

  • Has the person's work either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums?

The subject's work has received international acclaim and notoriety. The subject has permanent residency at several public and privately held galleries.


Does this help answer your questions...there is countless references that are being accumulated and added simultaneously. Any contributions you might have will be greatly appreciated. Alice0000 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources.--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Please take time and review the current third-party sources, non of them are self published... "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" a majority of these online sources are taken from their own mass globally 'printed' articles Alice0000 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reliable third party sources that support any notability of this artist. Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#How_to_meet_the_requirement. Are you connected in any way to this artist?--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you have little to no knowledge of this subject. Please present me with a source that will satisfy your requirements on this topic The subject is notable with multiple citations from reliable sources including peers.[4][5][6] Please review the subject and help Wikipedia expand the new media artists thank you Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts Alice0000 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to quote your page "1> "NO! You can/must not do that." This type of interaction fosters an environment of Confrontation between the parties involved, especially in situations where people of dissimular backgrounds are involved. Example: What is wrong or forbidden in one culture might be completely acceptable in another, it is not anyone's place to judge another's background.

2> "It might be better if you do it this way." Following this way of interacting with people nourishes a much more cooperative and friendly surrounding. Example: While one might do or say something that is not viewed as correct by others, the impact might not be known to the "offender" and should be educated as to the issue, allowing the "offender" to proactively be aware."

Please do not judge and help expand this topic you are not currently satisfied with - Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts Alice0000 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not able to find any reliable third party sources, I have tried to. I do not have requirements on this subject, Wikipedia has policies outlining what meets notability criteria. I have assumed good faith, but this looks more and more like self promotion. Please see Wikipedia:Civility before things get heated up.--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - a confusing article, its main claim is that Smith is a notable artist (hence the long list of exhibitions) but there are no independent, reliable sources to support it. If independent and reliable sources are added I'll happily change my 'vote'. Unfortunately Smith has a common surname so its not easy to identify good sources online. Note that the galleries are not independent because they have a vested interest in promoting Smith and his exhibitions. Sionk (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Please advise about improving this topic, do not be deconstructive or negative in your opinions.- thank you

 References
  1. ^ http://artmiami.tv/articles-2/corey-smith-coral-canyon-gallery-red-dot/
  2. ^ http://graeterartgallery.com/otherIndex.php?otherContent=artistsGallery.php&title=Graeter%20Art%20Gallery%20-%20Corey%C2%A0Smith&artistId=5
  3. ^ http://shredonmag.com/news/interview-corey-smith/
  4. ^ http://artmiami.tv/articles-2/corey-smith-coral-canyon-gallery-red-dot/
  5. ^ http://graeterartgallery.com/otherIndex.php?otherContent=artistsGallery.php&title=Graeter%20Art%20Gallery%20-%20Corey%C2%A0Smith&artistId=5
  6. ^ http://shredonmag.com/news/interview-corey-smith/
  • Delete - Lack of reliable sources proving subject meets any of WP:ARTIST criteria 1-4. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - None of the refs convince me of notability heaving had to read each one twice in apparently different sources. Agree with nom - does not meet WP:ARTIST  Velella  Velella Talk   20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, none of the sources appear to satisfy WP:RS and I find nothing to show how WP:GNG is met. --Kinu t/c 20:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:ARTIST is notorious difficult to implement. References as provided by user:Alice0000 demonstrate coverage and notability. The nominator seems to have very little understanding of the concept of notability. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not satisfy WP:ARTIST] nor WP:GNG. The sources provided are either blogs, press releases or images of flyers. There are a couple of online publications that may go beyond that but they do not provide anything beyond the trivial. Basically there's one interview that can be used to establish notability and it just doesn't do it at this time. This is a young artist and this may change in the future and the article can be rewritten then when more substantial sources are available. freshacconci talktalk 03:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Barney the barney barney This article covers WP:ATH and WP:ARTIST. I thought this would make it easier because it has more coverage and notability. Here is another recent interview/article i found by Vans [1]. In the snowboarding + art community this is considered highly notable content. I want to add correlating articles, but I am starting to feel like this is a judgement from a society that is losing touch, and enjoys discouraging others from contributing. Alice0000 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please don't feel persecuted. It isn't society loosing touch nor do the great majority of Wikipedia editor want to be discouraging BUT all articles must conform to the notability guidelines that the population of Wikipedia editors have agreed by consensus. If you think that the guidelines are wrong then please join the debate at the appropriate location. From my perspective, the guidelines as they affect Artists are less stringent than those affecting many other individuals such as Scientists or Engineers many of whom live and die in Wikipedian obscurity despite contributing enormously to society and the well being of society. Nobody is picking on you or Corey Smith but notability can be tough to attain.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:ATH does not apply as his career as an athlete not appear to be notable. Where he approaches notability would be as a designer and businessperson and the only useful source currently available is the interview in Snowboarder magazine. All other sources provided are brief mentions, product promotions or press release-type coverage. Any claim to notability should rest on the business side of things and if you could find real sources, independent, non-trivial sources that go beyond a brief mention or which sound basically like an ad, that would go a long way towards saving the article. But as it stands, there is very little here and he simply does not have any verifiable notability as an artist or athlete at this time. freshacconci talktalk 12:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - This seems to be a silly argument. The artist seems to have a lot of shows and there are a lot of articles to show his work is being seen by many. Also, he has a long history as a professional snow boarder.184.91.185.100 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)— 184.91.185.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bilby (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I Google news archive search for his name and the word "gallery" to see if they mentioned his art and got 90 results, some of which were about him. He is interviewed about one exhibit at Transworld Snowboarding [1] which has other articles about him as well. Mention of him at [2] with the translation found [3]. It says he was once a professional snowboarder, so that's something. Mentions his art. So he was a professional in his sport, so passes WP:ATHLETE and some of the museums he has been featured at are surely notable so he passes WP:ARTIST. Dream Focus 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 07:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources dug up by Dream Focus seem to be of dubious reliability, ditto the We Are Looking Sideways source. The only sources dug up otherwise look like routine, tangential sources — one-off interviews, parenthetical mentions, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nude & Breast Freedom Parade

Nude & Breast Freedom Parade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Nude & Breast Freedom Parade" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. SupernovaExplosion Talk 07:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro

List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

"List of tallest buildings" article about a place that has next to no remarkable tall buildings at all. Among currently completed buildings, it lists only 4 that merely pass 10 storeys. There are a handful more projected buildings, with only one of them reaching higher than 100 meters. By worldwide urban standards, this is just nowhere near remarkable enough to justify such a list article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Article is largely unsourced too, and has been a favourite playground of annoying recurrent socks. (Note: article has been affected by a cut-and-paste move; earlier history of the page is in List of tallest buildings in Cagayan de Oro City.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Internet sexual addiction

Internet sexual addiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Internet sexual addiction" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I don't see enough scholarly research solely on this topic to warrant an article [4] Anything useful information will be better suited in Sexual addiction and Pornography addiction SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Additional note Uncle G has added some more books in the "Further Reading" section which deal with sex addiction in the context of internet, and I think those will be more suitable in the Sexual addiction article. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Paya

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ali Paya Articles for deletion/Ali Paya (2nd nomination)
Ali Paya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Ali Paya" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Appears to fail WP:GNG - WP:PROF AND WP:AUTHOR - article appears to be an ongoing uncited attempt to attack him and an attempt to raise the notability of some critic named - Fardin Jahanbin - Youreallycan 05:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Hip-hop literature

Hip-hop literature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Hip-hop literature" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Prod declined for no reason. Suggested merge to Urban literature, but I see nothing worth merging. Everything here is spammy and promotional, with only primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Urban fiction. A read through the article shows that it refers to itself more as urban literature, which itself redirects to urban fiction. I've heard this term used before, but only as another term for urban fiction as a whole. As a term for a specific niche of the wider genre (like how high fantasy is a niche of the wider fantasy genre), I don't see where there's enough to show that this specific niche has enough sources to warrant having an individual article. From what I found it definitely seems to be on its way, but most of the sources I found use it as an alternate name for urban fiction.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

[edit] Jacques Roy (physician)

Jacques Roy (physician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Jacques Roy (physician)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article is well-sourced. However, this is a classical case of WP:BLP1E. In addition, WP:BLPCRIME applies: this person has been accused of a crime, but has not yet been convicted. Finally, this is all extremely recent and WP is not a newspaper. If at all, this belongs on Wikinews. (Note: I am taking this to AFD on the advice of the BLP Noticeboard). Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete- Subject matter could reasonably by covered at Medicare fraud, minus the BLP concerns of naming someone who has not been convicted, but for now, this Wikipedia:Attack page should be speedied G10 (although I am not attacking the article creator, this may become an event page or return later) needs Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over if he gets convicted. Dru of Id (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect/merge anything of value to Medicare fraud. Youreallycan 05:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a BLPCRIME as stated, and is therefore TOO SOON to publish here. If Roy is convicted there'll be time enough to report on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Subject is not notable except for this event, which hasn't resulted in a conviction. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I think it fails WP:HARM#TEST which is a inclusion test because "Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life" and its just allegations at this point.Theworm777 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] La Riposte

La Riposte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "La Riposte" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable organization, article is self-promotional. Largely unsourced and no reliable sources as to the group's notability, one source is a self-source since Hands off Venezuela is an affiliate of La Riposte's parent group and the article is credited as "written by La Riposte", the second source makes no reference to La Riposte and is therefore not a sign of its notability. Article reads largely like an advertisement for the organization. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Sorensen

Glenn Sorensen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Glenn Sorensen" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable person. Could not find reliable information as to why this individual is important and/or unique in any way. Tinton5 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. I know zip about contemporary artists, but the Museum of Modern Art has some of this guy's work[5], and he's had articles devoted to him in Frieze[6] and Art & Australia. Plus, duuh, there are a couple of dozen articles/reviews listed in his article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep- Per above, and 2002 groupshow at Royal Academy; 5 solo exhibitions in the same Netherlands gallery are not 'local' for an artist working in Sweden, although it seems to be his main venue. Dru of Id (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] J-Blaze

J-Blaze (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "J-Blaze" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Disputed PROD over whether this meets WP:MUSICBIO. On talk page, article's creator says that it meets the following criteria: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. However, no reliable sources have been provided to support that assertion. Singularity42 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Hey folks, original poster here. My rationale for meeting that guidelines is chiefly that he collaborates with and tours with other very notable local hyphy artists, specifically Turf Talk and other rappers (and this interaction is documented in the references). If that doesn't hold up to group interpretation of criteria, I guess I don't have much of an argument, though I quite firmly believe it should be enough. (I am trying earnestly to rectify what I think is a case of WP:system bias with this particular music scene.). SeasideMusic (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue is WP:Reliable Sources. We can't just assert something in Wikipedia; we have to cite reliable sources. YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, and Facebook are not reliable sources. What is needed are multiple, non-trivial coverage by sources that have an editorial oversight. Singularity42 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Does the Monterey County Weekly not count? Confused. SeasideMusic (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
To me, the articles cited don't seem to be actual reviews, etc., and therefore doesn't support the assertion. Instead, they are just announcements about upcoming performances, without anything substantial. Ultimately, though, that's just my opinion. By bringing the issue here, other editors will have an opportunity to review and provide their opinions, so that a consensus can be formed. Singularity42 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explanation. Still kind of confused - I thought the Monterey references had reviews in the text, at least when I read them (they talk about the artist in some detail). Is it because they are short? Do reviews have to meet a certain length to count? (honestly curious, seems to me I see Wikipedians interpreting "significant" versus "trivial" all sorts of different ways) SeasideMusic (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Has self-released his music. No sources to back up "on of the most prominent representatives...". The Monterey County Weekley articles doesn't meet the "significant coverage" needed to pass WP:GNG and they are trivial coverage announcing upcoming performances. I'm unable to find any reliable sources, but "J Blaze" is common... other rappers, a dentist in oakland, etc. Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Verismic Software

Verismic Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Verismic Software" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Remove this article - User:HeidiSmith admits in their talk page that they created the Verismic Software article as part of their paid employment. If this isn't a COI then I don't know what is! The author has crafted an article made of self-published material and other links of a most 'advertorial' nature. It seems obvious the prime aim of the article is to self-promote and it should be withdrawn.

There are clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source [3] is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like [2]. The only source that may be reliable is this, but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. All the sources seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage. It seems clear it was created with a self-promotional intent. Whatyousaying (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has been created and then deleted at least three times in the last 12 months. On each occasion it has appeared in a similar format and without much difficulty established that it was self-promotional. On this occasion the author has admitted working for the subject corporation from the get-go. At least they're being honest but this the reliable, independent, standard we aspire too. The article needs to go.31.185.142.25 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 01:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Real Life Adventures

Real Life Adventures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Real Life Adventures" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No claim to fame for this comic; mere existence as a syndicated comic does not mean it merits more than a line in the Universal Press Syndicate article. Shii (tock) 06:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep sources are thin, but syndicated comics are notable more often than not. There are a couple sources in the article, plus this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
    • All the sources seem to say is that the comic exists and is promoted by its syndicate; there's no evidence it's more notable than comics without articles, e.g. "The Elderberries" etc. Shii (tock) 06:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] TheKompany

TheKompany (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "TheKompany" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge to KDE with redirect. Regardless of whether TheKompany is notable or not, it is only known for K Desktop Envirement. The current KDE article serves as a catchall for KDE community-related items, so the scope of TheKompany article lies within the scope of KDE. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 01:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Handle-o-Meter

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Handle-o-Meter Articles for deletion/Handle-o-Meter (2nd nomination)
Handle-o-Meter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Handle-o-Meter" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Advertising without relevant content. The previous afd was about merging but I can't think of or find any page where the content might be of any value. (Basically a stray article left over from times where sourcing and notability was handled more liberal.) TMCk (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as being the nominator.TMCk (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 01:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on author request. JIP | Talk 05:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Street Evangelists

Street Evangelists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Street Evangelists" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Does not meet WP:BAND, in other words, no indication of notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Unreferenced article gives no evidence whatsoever that the subject meets any notability requirement. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Anna Balazs

Anna Balazs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Anna Balazs" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

All sources appear to be primary sources, and I cannot find anything that meets WP:RS or indicates if notability as an academic is met (as I am unsure if her organization is in itself notable). No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Any coverage I find about "Anna Balazs" are about the completely unrelated professor of engineering of the same name at the University of Pittsburgh. Possibly part of a walled garden related to the article Henriett Seth F. (see the deletion discussion of said article). Kinu t/c 04:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Safe Creative

Safe Creative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Safe Creative" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Page is basically an ad for an ineffective (at vis-a-vis US rights) private "copyright registration" service that seems to be seeking legitimacy. Sources are all either from the company itself, lists of similar companies, basic reviews, or from corporate partners. This is perhaps a close call, but I just don't think it's there yet. Mgcsinc (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Dear Mgcsinc, Thanks for reviewing and pointing there's improvement to be made. I have tried not to create an ad like page, but to inform about an online private registry that based on technology, rather than authority can create a valid iuris tantum evidence as the Berne Convention and International Treaties suggest. I have some ideas and issues to point out like a) While US resident citizens do need to use the US Copyright Office to sue in the US, they might use private registries evidence to sue in other countries and legislations. b) The article does not seek legitimacy, there's the critic you state. It has been marked and highlighted thanks to the archive.org and that is the reason Safe Creative allows people to use a simplified wizard to send their registrations to USCO in the US, and outside. Also non US citizens use this system to register works in the Library of Congress c) Keep in mind that other English language users, such as UK residents, might find private registries valid. Also the article can be read by people from India or China, for instance. d) Some of the earliest endorsers, and some of the links, come from Creative Commons, not a partner though have collaborated in several projects together. Some of the earliest meetings of Safe Creative have been together in events with members of Wikimedia, Creative Commons and the MIT. I think can provide more links to this, true. d) There are being proposals to arrive at WIPO (Safe Creative has been invited to events at WIPO) will add those links too. e) Most important for me is the fact that the role of any registry is to provide information rather than only generating full evidence to sue. By providing up to date information of the situation and authorship of works, many infringements might not even take place. This is a key role, I believe. An example is wikipedia with images. If the page linked from Wikipedia pointing to the authorship claim dissapears, the validity of the first inclusion can be questioned, while having a point (or group of points sharing information in the future), public or private, providing this kind of information migh help to lower the uncertainty. Also there is in general a consensus, as proposal proposal from some countries arise, to have an back active registration system again so that ARR (all rights reserved) option must be and opt in. --Oneras (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Hello again. Have added some relevant links from the invitation from WIPO for Safe Creative and some links to declarations of Media Photographers Assoc. and Creative Commons. Any suggestion to improve the wording or structure of the article will be more than welcom. Maybe I could act an "issues at stake" section to comment the issues here stated? Cheers!--Oneras (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • After talking with some friends I have decided will refurbish the article to make it more about direct information of the company. Give me a few days to make the changes, please. --Oneras (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you're going to clean it up, I suggest that you do it as soon as possible since at the moment this could be speedied because it's pretty much an unambiguous advertisement for your company. Also, I want to direct you to WP:COI. It's not against the rules to edit an article for a company or product you're involved in, but it is heavily frowned upon because it's so easy to write it as an advertisement without meaning to. Definitely do a cleanup, but also look into getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies to help you if possible. If the article remains, you'll definitely want to get someone else to do the editing for you since that would help take care of many of the concerns of COI and neutrality. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
  • Comment I've cleaned up the worst of the advertising and weeded through the sources to get rid of anything that didn't mention the company or was a primary source. (For Oneras: a primary source is anything that is released by the company, such as their website or their press releases. Even if a press release is posted on another site, it's still considered to be a primary source. You also cannot use things that merely state dates of meetings or gatherings.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

[edit] Ashitha (model)

Ashitha (model) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Ashitha (model)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No reliable secondary source has substantial coverage to show the notability of the subject. She may be an actor, but that does not prove notability. Fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic_Criteria Wikieditindia (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Removed CSDA7 notice. I don't know why someone would tag this for speedy deletion when its clear the article is trying to assert a case for notability. Give editors a chance to review before content is destroyed, please. Thanks.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Rider Mania

Rider Mania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Rider Mania" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Long-tagged uncited article with no indication of why the subject is notable e.g. longest running, largest in country, large number of riders. Biker Biker (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nominator seems to be confusing an encyclopedia with the Guinness Book of Records. Notability for an encyclopedia does not equate to record-breaking. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Enuf

Dr. Enuf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Dr. Enuf" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources added by Milowent. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Marek

Mark Marek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Mark Marek" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Seemingly unnotable animator. While various searches do bring up hits, they are pretty much only to personal sites and other wikis, thus failing WP:RS. While this doesn't effect the article's notability, I thought it might be important to note that the page was initially created by a user who has since been indefinitely blocked for creating multiple inappropriate pages, and the PROD was removed without explanation by a second user who was later blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the page creator. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Fletcher

Carrie Fletcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Carrie Fletcher" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

No indications of notability. Some acting experience in London's West End, but no indications that anyone noticed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Some acting experience in London's West End" rather understates her CV. Any acting in the West End is a major achievement, and I note that she has played major roles in some productions and appears on the recordings. Article could do with some improvement (references for a start), but I see no need to delete it. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Is for Nightmares

Blue Is for Nightmares (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Blue Is for Nightmares" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I'm nominating the entire Blue is For Nightmares series for deletion because there is nothing to show that this early series by Stolarz is notable. While I can vouch that the books are good, there are no independent and reliable sources to show notability and a search for sources did not bring anything up. At the very absolute most these would be usable as a redirect to the author's name, but they have no notability in and of themselves. Fails WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79 I am also nominating the following related pages because they lack sources and I was unable to find any.:

White Is for Magic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Red Is for Remembrance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Silver Is for Secrets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Black Is for Beginnings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Here is some coverage in Publishers Weekly that backs up the "500,000 copies in print" assertion[7]. A writeup in School Library Journal[8]. And some newspaper reviews[9][10][11][12]: the reviewers aren't Michiko Kakutani, but taken together I'd be inclined to keep--preferably as one consolidated article for all the books.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the reviews for each individually are so scant, I think it might be a good idea to just redirect the individual titles to Blue Is for Nightmares and rename it to "Blue is for Nightmares (series)". I didn't see any of these when I was searching, but together they'd make for enough sourcing for the series as a whole. I'm not entirely sure that this link to the Diario Femenino article would make for anything other than a trivial source since it really is so brief of an article and doesn't really say anything except that WIFM has sold over 100,000 copies.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
  • Yes, I concur with your suggestion to redirect the book titles to a single series article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to withdraw my nomination since we do have sources (yay! thanks Arxiloxos!) enough to warrant a single article for the series. I'm going to post a { {mergeto|Whatever}} tag on the articles, so we can have them merged into one main article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

[edit] Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The concept of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases is not widely recognised within the medical community. Despite what the article says, it is very difficult to group together the widely divergent diseases listed. The fact that they're all treated with immunosuppression is about the only thing. Searching the term as a text word on Pubmed yields 45 references, none of which address the concept in itself. I think deletion is the best step here. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article needs extensive development and lots of citations, but it is unquestionably notable. It does need some expert attention to select and paraphrase good review articles (i.e. secondary sources) from the thousands of papers on immunity and inflammatory diseases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Bearian there's no shortage of RS. Have added one obvious book and marked page as needing medical attention... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)

Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Non-notable elementary school with no evidence of its presence in independent, reliable sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge any valid, referenced information to Mascouche, Quebec. Then redirect. Searched and didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources for the topic. However, some of the information sourced by primary sources would be useful to improve the Mascouche, Quebec article. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The article on "Pinewood Elementary School (Mascouche, Quebec)" is closely related to the "Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board" (SWLSB) article, primarly because the school is governed by the latter school board, and also because the name of the school figures on the "SWLSB" article. Pinewood Elementary school makes up an integrant part of the city of Mascouche, Quebec. I am therefore in accordance to mention the school in the "Mascouche, Quebec" article, but I disagree with the complete deletion of the article on Pinewood Elementary School, which contains a significant amount of useful information.

Also, please note that, as the main author of the article in question, I have NOT completed the article. I will keep improving it, adding information, new sections, etc., over a short period of time. This means that even if the article seems to miss some facts or not follow Wikipedia's guidelines properly (which I doubt), it is O.K. becuase everything will be fixed in the weeks to come.

For any personal messages, please write back on my talk page. Thank you. --MaxAMSC (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the Pinewood Elementary School article in question is closely related to the existing article named Rosemere High School, which is also part of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board.--MaxAMSC (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

High schools are considered notable due to the typical coverage they receive, but elementary schools are not. Of course, if you can prove that this article passes WP:GNG, that would be a different story. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Joy Kingston

Joy Kingston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Joy Kingston" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Much of the text on this page is copyvio from this page on a connected site. I've been Googling and can only find maybe about 20 throwaway references to her in old 50s newspaper reports, and one dress in the LACMA with no information at all on it. While I normally champion obscure/nearly forgotten (by the modern world) fashion designers, I cannot find anything to indicate that Joy Kingston was particularly influential in her day. Even the bio does not mention that she won any awards except for the Dallas Alice (which I've never heard of and doesn't seem to be much about it on Google either although there IS a band called that which is swamping the results a bit...) so I'd query whether she was particularly notable in her day either. It pains me to say this, but I nominate this page for deletion, due to lack of resources, and the fact that there's such a nice biography on her on the foundation website so it's not like it's info not available elsewhere. Mabalu (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Foot hockey

Foot hockey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Foot hockey" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:VERIFY. Probably original research. Llama's Koala (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Foot hockey (also known as Boot hockey) is extremely popular in Canada. It is played in about every school yard in Canada and has been for decades. Touch football would be a perfect example of what it is like in terms of popularity. Definitely not a crystal issue, but will take some searching for sources. Not a source towards notability clearly but an example that it is a very old game here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I've PRODded this in the past, and my rationale then still holds; it may be popular (in Canadian schools, at least) but there aren't enough reliable sources that have been written about it, leastways not that I could find. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Big problem is that it goes by a few names. The other common one (probably the most common one) is "Boot Hockey" which yields a few more pages. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Boot hockey appears to be a different game; according to at least one source (p.364), boot hockey is played with sticks and a puck, rather than with the feet and a tennis ball. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel really sad when I see such comments (the one made by Yunshui above) in a deletion discussion about an article that has been around Wikipedia since 2006 and has had well over a hundred different wikipedians contribute to it. The article was started by a Wikipedian who made 12 contributions to it between 2006 and 2008. Since then hundeds of others have made small contributions, but seems like no one took "ownership", a concept that is frowned upon at wikipedia, but unfortunately necessary to keep an article alive. See contributions[13]
I am sad, even though this is not a topic that I care about or have contributed to. I am sad because so many others will be disappointed. I am sad because this article is only the tip of the iceberg, tens of thousands of other articles at Wikipedia are sure to follow into this black hole.
As I said this particular topic holds no interest for me personally, but there are hundreds more that do, none of which will stand up to the scrutiny of the deletionists who seem to have taken control of all the AFD discussions here. These deletionists spend their wiki-time lawyering almost exclusively in these deletion discussions and their only contributions are their DELETE votes together with a set of nicely mastered wiki-acronyms that only wiki-lawyers are familiar with. Ihave yet to see these people actually contribute anything to the articles they are voting to DELETE.
Countries such as Canada will be the sure losers of this wiki-deletion movement, because the press in Canada is not in the business of providing free access to knowledge. Few articles survive on the web in Canada once the topic becomes less news-worthy, and with the way copyrights law is nowadays, most information becomes unavailable in very short order after publication. As a result it is not that easy to find reliable secondary sources to support articles.
Sorry to intrude on this discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If it makes you sad, there's an easy way to make yourself happy again: find some reliable sources and cite them in the article. That's a surefire way to get any nomination based on notability grounds overturned. Personally I'm happy to change my !vote in the event of sources coming to light, and I believe any other Wikipedian would be as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Cost (band)

The Cost (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Cost (band)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Not enough independent, significant coverage. I've been unable to find anything but the single SF Chronicle interview. Danger High voltage! 21:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Danger High voltage! 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I've added a few sources to the article, in addition to the SF Weekly piece that had previously been in the 'External links' section. I found a review at Pitchfork and two brief Allmusic reviews here and here. Not an abundance of coverage to be sure, but there's just enough I think to meet WP:BAND.  Gongshow Talk 07:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] DePaul Detour

DePaul Detour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "DePaul Detour" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Not notable. References are self and a local radio interview. ghits are fb and the like. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Red

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Dead Red Articles for deletion/Dead Red (2nd nomination)
Dead Red (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Dead Red" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails wp:band. BBC has their name in a list of other bands, and that is the only non-primary link. Too soon. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The only reason it squeaked by WP:NBAND last time was because one of their songs was used as a theme song to the National Geographic show Philly Undercover. Other than that, I agree that it's too soon. I did hold some reservations over the theme since there weren't any non-primary sources to back it up, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
  • Comment 2.0: I noticed that the rule for that under WP:NBAND has changed somewhat (or I just didn't see it earlier) to where that might be considered to be WP:ONEEVENT. There's not an article for Philly Undercover yet since it seems like it only started airing recently, so I'm thinking this should be a delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
  • Delete. The only thing that kept this article last time was that they'd done a theme song for a television show and since that's the only thing of true notability about them at this time, they fail WP:NBAND this time around since it's just WP:ONEEVENT.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Panfletonegro

Panfletonegro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Panfletonegro" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

A seemingly unnotable website and blog. It has no references that would support any sort of notability. Searching around only gives results of personal pages (facebook, twitter, etc), thus it fails WP:RS. Rorshacma (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are a handful of articles that came up in Google News archive and some hits in Google books (mostly in a directory-type setting), but they aren't the type that would help it pass WP:WEB. This is just a website that is more noticed than the average website, but still isn't notable enough to warrant its own article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Add new AfD section

[edit] AfD footer

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.
I.
Put the deletion tag on the article.
  • Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article.
If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Include in the edit summary
    Afd: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]
    replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated.
The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)
  • You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the Afd tag is removed.
  • Save the page.
II.
Create the article's deletion discussion page.

The resulting Afd box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the Afd page.

  • Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page. Some text and instructions will appear.
  • Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions are on that page).

OR

  • Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page.
  • Insert this text:
    {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
    Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
  • Add a deletion sorting template to the nomination, if appropriate.
  • You can check "Watch this page" to follow the debate.
  • Use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]
  • Save the page.
III.
Notify users who monitor Afd discussion.
  • Open the articles for deletion log page.
  • At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:
    {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}
    replacing NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.).
  • Link to the discussion page in your edit summary:
    Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]
  • Save the page. Your insertion will be expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName}}.


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=462921135"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages