Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:41, 15 June 2012

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 June	16 June >

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwasind

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

~~Article about an individual Ferry (boat) fails WP:GNG as well as wp:Notability (vehicles) DBig Xray 10:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Withdrawing nomination Although this still fails WP:GNG but only because everyone else feels this boat is a Ship and lack of WP:NSHIPS and WP:NBOATS (no clear notability guidelines so far) --DBig Xray 18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep References in article appear to have (barely) already established wp:notability. Short article with useful, encyclopedic information. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given only point out its existence, not notability, (unless I am missing something)--DBig Xray 12:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 100-year-old vessel still in operation seems to meet the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 100 year old vessel still in operation was one of the reasons I started this article. It is not only still in operation, but it is still being used for its original purpose, by its original owners. How many oher vessels of its age remain in operation in North America? I can only think of the Edward M. Cotter (fireboat). I doubt there are more than a couple of dozen. Unless they were truly forgotten vessels, that had never been covered in any WP:RS, it would surprise me if they didn't all merit individual articles. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I had never heard of WP:Notability (vehicles), and that disturbed me, until I took a seocnd look, and saw it was an essay, not a policy or guideline. I left a comment at WP:Notability (vehicles)#Is the advice in this essay of any relevance to ships? I suggested the essay should be amended to explicitly discludes ships from its scope, for reasons I explained there.
It always disturbs me when I see an essay being cited as if it had the authority of policy in an {{xfd}}.
For what it is worth, this essay seems to have been almost forgotten, averaging about one view per day. There is a big spike today, probably all due to my reviews of it. There was a big spike one day several months ago. I am going to guess that is the last time it was cited in an {{xfd}}. It might be worth consideration, to prevent confusion, by demoting this essay from the wikipedia name space, down to user space, and so reflect how little support it seems to have. Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - N(Vehicles) is a de facto demoted essay; the article (barely) meets WP:GNG; and the nominator's implied claim that articles on individual ships are not needed is contraindicated by broad consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability requirements have been met. Brad (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if we accept the opinion in WP:N(V) I don’t see how it applies; Kwasind is not “treated in secondary sources as an example of a type” (ie not just given as an example of a ferry boat), she is “treated by secondary sources as (a) distinct entity” (as are pretty much all ships). Xyl 54 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep as well as Withdrawn. Here, the nominator changed their mind and per the arguments, it is best to SNOW close it. Thanks! (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 12:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wifey's World

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

Article is about not notable pornographic website which serves little more than an advertisement. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has never been any credible evidence of significance, and the article has always served to promote rather than document the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Article on a web site, probably just to promote the website. Falls short of establishing wp:notability although ability to do so might be possible. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It seems like there are a plethora of articles from reliable sources that haven't been used in the article yet. Among them (including those currently in the article): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. I suppose that one could make an argument that a number of these sources are passing mentions, but Wired's profile of the site along with the plethora of other mentions mean that a quality article could easily be written if an editor put their mind to it. From reading the articles, this site appears to have been a leader (the first off the boat as it were) in amateur pornography. Nomader (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also in book sources: [10] (although this one seems to be some weird kind of sex listing) but especially this one: [11] which gives a brief history of the website which calls it "one of the best known stories of amateurs who became entrepreneurs and ran their own sites". Nomader (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Site has historical importance, and there has been enough press coverage to meet WP:WEB. If you're concerned about the tone/promotional nature, then deletion is not the proper avenue: the subject is notable even if the article is flawed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep AfD is not cleanup, and the subject clearly passes WP:WEB and WP:GNG (it would be sufficient to read the previous AfDs). If there are a couple of sentences that sounds promotional this is just an editorial issue and does not require deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Cavarrone. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. Roodog2k (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AZ newspapers and the Wired article seem sufficient. This is one of the oldest continuous porn sites around, tossing this would be like tossing Jennicam or Carol Cox. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep Not sure how it works as I am the original nominator, but after seeing the arguments here and doing some research, this article just needs a major rewrite so it isn't written like an ad for the website.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 03:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the great majority of sites of this sort, this one actually seems to have generated reliable, independent coverage. Not a terribly good article, and rather outdated, but those aren't reasons for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

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 List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Fails BLP1E - will redirect after deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif

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

No source to prove that this wp:BIO of a Guantanamo prisoner is notable. also fails WP:CRIMINAL DBig Xray 09:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero wp:notability-suitable references. Two of the "references" are a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC) I was in error, and also was told that improvement is coming. I will reassess in 1-2 days. North8000 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to jump the gun again, but I lean towards delete. I really don't see the required substantive secondary source coverage of the subject in any of those references. Possibly this should merged into / become a section in some broader article. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources as they are are sufficient, As he is not a criminal, And at the very least, it can be merged into a combination article, so deletion is not appropriate DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Guantanamo Bay detainees already contains relevant information, if the subject is notable only then it deserves a seperate article, i dont see anything special here. --DBig Xray 09:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks "significant coverage" to establish notability under the WP:GNG. What information there is a List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is sufficient so there is no need for a seperate article. Anotherclown (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees per the above: there's not enough coverage (or material) to sustain a biography of this person. Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees per my comments above. Notes on individuals can and should be expanded at that other article; this would be an example. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with DGG, sufficient sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please do not be misled by the sources, they are not even talking about the subject, and only a few are taking the name. --DBig Xray 15:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This article was the target of a very extensive, and in my opinion, questionable, excision. I planned to do more work on updating this article. Unfortunately, the contributor who initiated this {{afd}} kept initiating additional {{afd}}, and responding to these {{afd}} has consumed practically every moment of my spare time, and I have not been able to finish my updating of this article -- so I request a relisting rather than a closure. Geo Swan (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not attack the nominator. Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help. (see WP:ADHOM) The article was nominated as it has issues, Also it must be noted that the notability could not be established even after 6 years and suddenly pleas for WP:MERCY and WP:BADFAITH are being made.--DBig Xray 10:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've not studied the article or its refs in any detail, but the relist request seems reasonable considering some of the work necessitated as a result of the various numerous discussions. I'd normally simply relist it myself now, but TBH don't have time at the moment to deal with any resulting questions. -- Trevj (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article's references are to primary sources, and the few references to secondary sources don't provide in-depth coverage of this person. At best, any claim to this person's notability rests entirely on him having been held at Guantanamo Bay, which of course means that the article fails WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Protest

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dℬig Xray 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails WP:GNG. There is only one source which has in depth coverage of the topic (although its dead). The dead link is not an issue, but the article has no other source having in depth coverage. This article can be also merged with Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir, but I doubt if it is notable enough for that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTFACEBOOK . The article is on a Facebook group named I Protest https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Protest/165093133584647 for the stone throwers and rioters in Kashmir. the only source from Hindustan Times is an opinion piece on Kashmir riots and does not even talk about I Protest. Also fails wp:GNG due to lack of coverage. --Dℬig Xray 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the nomination at AfD the article has been edited and its now claimed to be an article for a song. As clearly mentioned below the article has to pass WP:NSONG for it to stay, as evident this is not a notable song as the reliable sources only make a bare mention of the title or lyrics making it suitable only for the singer MC Kash's article which already mentions this. The article still fails notability requirements and can be deleted--Dℬig Xray 16:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - this nomination is actually funny, the whole article is blanked [12] and then nominated. The protest is definitely notable and to removing it would just be a pro Indian government censorship. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Reasons have been given for every removal. Don't try to take this AfD to another direction. Talk about how does this meet the WP:GNG. Such comments clarifies that the sole purpose of this article is to push POV. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment TopGun please refer Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view. Mocking the nominator by calling it Funny is yet another conduct issue, if you feel that article was wrongly cleaned up then follow the steps in WP:BURDEN with proper wp:RS. Sound reasoning has been given above for the deletion. Also the comment that removing it would just be a pro Indian government censorship is pure POV disregarding WP:N, if we agree with your comment then we must have a "Wiki article for every Facebook group that Hates India" shouldnt we ? The articles here are kept only if they follow WP:GNG not due to Indian or Pakistani POV as claimed above. --Dℬig Xray 09:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys got it right, it is a conduct issue when you nominate articles for deletion without making any good faith attempt to look for a source your self. Yes, I know about WP:BURDEN, but I didn't write anything in this page either... and I was pointing out that it was being nominated due to a personal view (ironic). As for actual content related reasons, other users below have cleared that burden I think. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete content. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename if necessary. The topic of internet protests in Kashmir has broad coverage in various international sources, including The National (Abu Dhabi): Kashmiri protesters turn to Facebook, as well as Times of India Online, protesters 'hurl' tweets, spew vitriol, NDTV (India) Facebook rebels: Kashmir's online protes; Facebook, YouTube used as weapons in Kashmir fight, The Hindu The world of Kashmir's online rebels, The Guardian: Kashmir protesters are using social media to disseminate news and views..., Global Post Social media has come to Kashmir, Indian Express Kashmir violence spills on to the Net, the Wall Street Journal: Rocks, YouTube Undergird Kashmiri Protests. All sources discuss, in depth, the growing popularity of Facebook, YouTube and other social networking sites among locals in Kashmir as tools for their nationalist cause. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another baseless comment. Is there any mention of "I Protest" in all these sources? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We might have started on the wrong foot, but I'll sincerely advise you not to use the word baseless unless it is unambiguous. It gets inflammatory. Just an advise, your choice. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d none of your source mentions I Protest, the Facebook group. The arguements you gave hold for Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir and not for the Facebook group article I Protest--Dℬig Xray 12:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is surely notable. First the articles is missing much facts, that I found. Actually I Protest was a rap song by MC Kash, that was followed by this e-campaign named "I Protest". And I find it notable according to GNG per these source: pp. 81, 105, 113, 115, [13], [14], [15], [16]. --SMS ^Talk 17:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid to say that all your efforts to save this POV pushing article are not working. Please read relevant policies like WP:NSONG. It clearly says,"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This song doesn't meets any of them. Most sources have just a mention of the song, and some include lyrics. None of them have a critical commentary, and therefore what this article can be, is a redirect to MC Kash. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I gave above are enough for this criteria but try WP:BEFORE, you will find many more. --SMS ^Talk 08:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct you, this article fails WP:NSONG. You may like to cross check:have been ranked on national or significant music charts (completely fails), have won significant awards or honors (again fails) and have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups (fails). And as of other sources, I can't find even a single reliable source which has in-depth coverage of the song. The WP:BURDEN is upon you, please prove how this article meets the notability criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I thought that I dumped off the burden by providing the above sources as they talk about the subject in detail and are reliable sources. Should I quote content from these source? --SMS ^Talk 12:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They just name the song. Please try to understand that song articles are not created to be a stub. All sources which you have given doesn't talk about the song much. Some of them have lyrics, but they can't be added on Wikipedia due to copyright. WP:NSONG clearly says,"a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." As of quoting the source, I am doing that for you.

1st source-Only the lyrics of the song, all other mention is about the author
2nd source-only minor mentions of the song
3rd source-again only minor mentions of the song
4th source-only the lyrics
5th source-just one minor mention.

Hope that clarifies why this article doesn't meets WP:NSONG. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the content I was referring in some of the above source, see the excerpts below please:

Excerpts from Sources

“

...And it was the Internet again that would soon carry out the words of teenages Kashmiri rap artists, like the nineteen-year-old MC Kash, 'Coming to You Live from Srinagar Kashmir', as he promised. As the summer slowly wound down, it was impossible not to be snagged by the closing lines of his runaway hit, 'I Protest':

A recitation of names followed, a flat monotone for the summer that was going past.

<names>

”

— Sanjay Kak, Until My Freedom Has Come: The New Intifada in Kashmir, p.xvii

“

Kash made his third song, 'I protest,' in September. 'I thought about these young martyrs and their mothers, and then I thought to put this pain of Kashmir in music,' he said. The result was a highly political and emotional song naming the sixty-five people killed upto September, and saying 'these killings ain't random, it's an organized genocide.' Kash released the song on the online music site Reverbnation, ....... The song rails against 'A Murderous Oppression Written Down in Police Brutality' and vows, 'I 'll Throw Stones An' Neva Run. I Protest, Until My Freedom Has Come!'

It was an instant hit with Kashmiri students, some of whom combined the song with videos and photos on YouTube and Facebook. Kash was not arrested, but police raided the recording studio and questioned the staff about his whereabouts, according to one worker who refused to be named for fear of police reprisal. 'Police were particularly asking if any separatist leader was behind the rapper,' the studio worker said.

”

— Aijaz Hussain, Until My Freedom Has Come: The New Intifada in Kashmir, p.115

“

Kash, twenty, whose real name is Roushan Illahi, has won a fan base among Kashmir's youth, whose summer uprising against Indian rule inspired his local hit "I protest'. The lyrics -- 'Tales from the dark side of a murderous regime, an endless occupation of our land an' our dreams'--tread dangerously close to sedition on India, where questioning the country's claim to the disputed region of Kashmir is illegal.

”

— Aijaz Hussain, Until My Freedom Has Come: The New Intifada in Kashmir, p.113

“

....The urban educated middle class were fence-sitters, and largely lent their support in drawing room discussions and on Facebook by saying 'I Protest', never leaving their living rooms.

”

— Wasim Bhat, Until My Freedom Has Come: The New Intifada in Kashmir, p.105

“

Roushan shot to fame in 2010 — the year where 123 people were shot in the Valley during pro-freedom demonstrations — with I Protest (Remembrance), dedicated to Kashmiris. The mellow beat peppered with gunshots betrays the angst felt by not only those who have lived to see atrocities by the Indian security forces over two decades, but also the future generations grapple with brutal state violence marred to a culture of impunity.

In this song, Roushan makes a reference to the “sponsored media who hide this genocide”. There is also a line about the mass rape of the Kashmiri women of Kunanposhpora village in the northern district of Kupwara by a battalion of the Indian army in the early nineties. The song ends with Roushan chanting the names of “all those martyred” in the summer of 2010.

”

— Dilnaz Boga, A struggle to speak and be heard, Dawn, 27 May 2011

“

The song that passed from phone to phone last summer was "I Protest," by Kashmiri rapper MC Kash:

”

— Weekly Cutting Edge, Taking a hike for peace in Kashmir

I hope you find the in-depth coverage now. Again these are only some of the sources and there are scores of them out there, like: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Some of these may mention about the song but some also cover in detail. I hope that you will find the relevant text, otherwise ping me and I will put quotes here whenever I find time. Cheers! --SMS ^Talk 21:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NSONG...the times of India link doesn't work.No other sources explain the song's cause and it's reason in detail.The whole background section is WP:OR with no references given what-so-ever. Better to merge it with MC Kash article. ƬheⱾtrike Ҿagle ^™ 07:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 08:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage of this song found. Dream Focus 03:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage provided above. Cavarrone (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vibhijain. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This was the last re-list →TSU ^tp* 07:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The song has received significant coverage in various global reliable publications, and as such passes WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Source examples include:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references above are already a part of the artist MC Kash. The rationale given only supports redirection to the artists page. The article still fails WP:NSONG --DBig Xray 07:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited actually do discuss the topic of the song. Of course, they also discuss the person who wrote the song and the context of the song. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. Meets the GNG, never mind NSONG. This BBC quote says it all: The track that first brought MC Kash to prominence was his title I Protest, which is about these demonstrations. The Steve 22:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL + copyvio = Delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annya Sand

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

Completing nomination for IP editor User:136.169.141.241. On the merits, I have no opinion. The original rationale, as per this diff, read in its entirety as "no proof of notability". UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is while she appears to feature prominently in Art in London magazine Winter 2008[26] and Art in England, April 2011[27], I'm unable to read them and I'm not very familiar with either journal. Recently, she seems more active as a curator/organizer[28], though is probably not notable for that alone. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I am the page publisher and am posting this page as Annya Sand is distinguished up and coming artist in the UK. The issue I am having finding the completed articles on the internet derives from the fact that many art magazines - even very reputable publications such as Art London and Art of England do not publish their arcive online. Sand has, as recently as last month, exhibited in Monaco alongside names such as Sir Peter Blake and Damien Hirst. Her reputation as an exhibiting artist is well established. She also has a major London gallery behind her as well. I just wanted to add this to make a fair case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrbreeze (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use offline sources - just tell us the publication, date ("May 2012 edition" is close enough) and the author/title of the piece. I'm always wary, though, when I see the term "Up and coming" related to an article subject - this sometimes indicates that the person may not yet be notable under our policies. This isn't an indictment of the person's worth - far from it, I think Ms. Sand looks to have a promising career ahead of her. What it does indicate is that we don't have enough information to show that Ms. Sand's career has (as of today) advanced to the point that would indicate notability. So, it's very much a "Not Yet" sort of thing as opposed to a "Never Ever" one. The first step here is to find those sources - we'll have a look and go from there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the text is almost entirely a WP:COPYVIO from the gallery bio, as now! Borderline notability otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can get the off-line publication information and update the references. That is not a problem. Sand also has a forthcoming show at a national museum which I will get a reference for. I think that does take her beyond the dubious 'Up and Coming'. I do understand the issue with that description as all young artists, and their promoters, overuse this term. Thanks for your feedback on this. comment added by Ngrbreeze —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "up and coming" is nearly synonymous with "not notable". Wikipedia is not PR for one's client. DarkAudit (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with this on the principal that "up and coming" is an overused term coined over the last ten years to describe emerging artists. On the basis that Sand has works in the collection of the National Museum of Kazakhstan and also has a show there this year, the term "up and coming" is not an accurate description. It should be "established" as she exhibits regularly. I will contact the National Museum and ask for more information on this that can be cited. I do understand the integrity of this approval process and want to make a good case for Sand being listed on Wikipedia. There is a strong cultural identity emerging out of this region and, as an artist, Sand represents part of that. Also, for the record, I am not in PR. comment added by Ngrbreeze —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been offline for a few days but am still looking to finish the references for this page to comply with Wikipedia criteria. Thanks for all the feedback and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrbreeze (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Ngrbreeze/Annya Sand, unless the copyvio issues asserted necessitate deletion. Such issues should be dealt with under the established usual procedure at WP:COPYVIO. -- Trevj (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the OTRS notice. -- Trevj (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BASIC/WP:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Boasso

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

Can't find anything to prove his notability. Although his position within the International Organization for Migration sounds important, I'm unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The most I could find was two mentions by the BBC [29] [30], but they are only mentions and are not close to the significant coverage required by the GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage about him in reliable sources to establish notability. I only see mentions and quotes from him in his capacity as envoy. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to userfy upon request. Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rover (film)

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

Fails WP:NFF. Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:NYF. Return this brand new stub to its author as a userspace "in-progress" draft. Simply stated, while policy accepts the topic of this planned film as having enough coverage to be at least worth mentioning in such places as the articles on Guy Pearce or Robert Pattinson or David Michod or David Linde or Joel Edgerton,[31][32] it does not have enough under WP:NFF to perhaps merit a separate article. This may well change as casting completes and filming begins. If he is willing, the author can continue building his article off of mainspace until that time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Hue Sat Lum 17:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Rain

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

The article is about a metal band that has no references at all and no verification of notability. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 05:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet any of WP:MUSIC's rules for establishing notability for musical groups. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC at present. Article can be restored or recreated if they become prominent. --Artene50 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't seem to find notable and third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Hovhannisyan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Footballer who hasn't appeared in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY." and it's still valid. PROD was contested by Gotveren (talk · contribs) without providing a reason. – Kosm1 fent 05:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 05:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning this fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY, hasn't even appeared in any notable competition.Seasider91 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Played in UEFA Champions League qualification against Viktoria Plzen. Played in U-21 Euro qualification for Armenia. Played in Armenian higher league though it's not fully pro. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And NFT says he has made his debut for Armenia senior team. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment national-football-teams & Soccerway seem to think it was Hovhannes Hovhannisyan who played against Kazakhstan which would make him notable but UEFA seem to think it was Kamo Hovhannisyan this needs to be clarified before AfD comes to conclusion. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The FFA seems to agree with UEFA: Hovhannes vs Kamo. Also, the Armenian Weekly: [33] Time to give NFT a beating? – Kosm1 fent 07:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ArmeniaSoccer.com also say Kamo. It's disappointing that Soccerway apparently have it wrong, and it would help if the FFA fully updated their match details, which only have the starting eleven, not the subs. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - NFT have been responsive to people highlighting errors in the past, if you e-mail them. Giant Snowman 09:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Champions league qualification games aren't a reason for notability as semi professional clubs for example Limerick can compete at this stageSeasider91 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG having not received significant media coverage. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL having not played in a fully professional league nor has he made his senior international debut as sources provided by Kosm1fent & Struway2 seem agree with UEFA that it was in fact a different player. I've emailed NationalTeams to correct both Hovhannes & Kamo stats & also contacted Socerway to fix both also & to correct the match report. Would have to agree with Struway that the source of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that FFA didn't list the subs as it seems they normally do. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nationalteams have corrected Kamo Hovhannisyan & deleted Hovhannes Hovhannisyan. As for Soccerway they have corrected Hovhannes Hovhannisyan but changes to Kamo Hovhannisyan & Line-ups won't take effect till tomorrow. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not played a match for any fully professional teams or represented his country at senior level and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Guitars

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

Was dePRODED (and inavertantly rePRODED by a patroller) without addressing the notability issues. Concern was: No explanation of importance or sources to assert notability per WP:ORG and I haven't found any WP:RS either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citi Bike

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

Not much ban be found about this. No 3p sources. Too soon; I think. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Absurd nomination as sources are quite easy to find, e.g. Citibank Pays to Put Name on Shared Bikes. The scheme seems very similar to London's Barclays Cycle Hire and for a major city like this, notability is certain. Warden (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Plenty of "3p" sources, which are very in-depth to boot. [34][35][36][37][38] It took me less than five seconds to find all of these. Don't know how the nom came to the conclusion of no "3p" sources. You need to follow WP:BEFORE before making such a claim.--Oakshade (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Speedy keep The first Google search page reveals a 7 May 2012 article from the NY Times, which identifies this program as, "...New York’s much anticipated bike-sharing program..." Speedy keep criteria are #1 and #2, "fails to advance an argument for deletion", and "The nomination was unquestionably...disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic is surely notable enough for the paragraphs that have long stood in Bicycle sharing system and Cycling in New York City. 3rd party news coverage is ample. The question that remains is whether the material in those articles should be consolidated here, or consolidated in one of those and this article should redirect there. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SNOW it clearly has WP:RS as noted above. The Determinator p t c 15:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qipa

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

Combination of a dictionary definition and unsourced OR. Also falls foul of WP:NPOV. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 04:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No attempt to establish any sort of notability, sources or sense. It's also kind of sad that our criteria for Speedy Deletion doesn't seem to cover such obvious cases like this.
Query: should redirects be wp:bundled, or are they included implicitly? The pages in question are 奇葩 and Qi pa. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'close' tab admins who use the easy-closing script have includes a 'delete redirects' tickbox. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:DICT, I don't see any WP:RS that might make this phrase otherwise notable. - The Determinator p t c 21:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing significant for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 07:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Govt.High School Pakkay Wala Jhang

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

No explanation of importance or sources to assert notability per WP:ORG Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's a real high school, the article doesn't need to assert importance or notability so much as it needs sources to establish existence. AfD participants tend to keep all high school articles. It would also be nice if the article gave a hint as to what country the school is in (probably Pakistan). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article now fixed up. TerriersFan (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Pakistani schools because, unlike US schools, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is that all articles on verified secondary schools should be kept. Should be renamed though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good point; I'll move the page if kept. TerriersFan (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school that is proven to exist, but move to a more appropriate name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seemant Institute of Technology

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. Not even the website of Uttarakhand Technical University, of which it is supposed to be a constituent part, mentions this institute except for a job advertisement, which is the only source to even verify its existence. Huon (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Hue Sat Lum 00:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools suggests that university-level institutions are generally notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this institute is not university-level (at least I don't think it is - feel free to prove me wrong with a reliable source). Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thirdly, it fails not just the GNG but also WP:V. Huon (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also indicates that the encyclopedia should be consistent. A "B.Tech" degree would be a bachelor of technology, and all five of the majors are listed as being engineering degrees, such as "Computer science Engg". Claiming that these "might not" be university degrees is an absence of evidence fallacy, where the absence of evidence does not create proof of absence. The source claims equivalence with Bipin Chandra Tripathi Kumaon Engineering College. On the other hand, I have a problem with listing a school that offers a Computer Science degree but has yet to get a website. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be two-three sentences copied from [39], with no attempt at paraphrasing. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 8. Snotbot t • c » 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Uttarakhand Technical University. It's pretty clear the place exists, is a post-secondary school, and is up and running beginning last year.[40][41] The only question is whether it's better to have two small articles or one slightly larger one. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - independently accredited degree-awarding institution. Early days so no reason to expect good sources at this stage but no doubt they will appear over time. It is a separate question of editorial judgement whether it should be merged with Uttarakhand Technical University. TerriersFan (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Architecture of Azerbaijan. WP:OR and non-reliable sourcing. Redirecting to a viable host article after delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural school of Arran

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

The article is OR. The subject of the article does not exist: there is no architectural term called "Architectural school of Arran" and the content has been copied from scattered information already existing in various articles. Meowy 01:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed the references for the articles, and they largely consist of broken links and links which do not refer to the Architectural school of Arran. I can find no sources at all mentioning this topic, and I don't see any material in this article which can be proven to be accurate. There already exists an article architecture of Azerbaijan, which covers the region of Arran. NJ Wine (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Architecture of Azerbaijan. (For those wondering surrealistically about institutions on the Isle of Arran, the topic is Arran (Caucasus).) The A of A article is in fact unreferenced; I have no idea whether the refs here are any good but expect NJ Wine is right. At least the buildings mentioned in the article are real and notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could merge it if it was identifiable subject but it is not, pure OR. Sprutt (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Meowy, and because it is WP:OR. Do not merge. Sprutt (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the book of K. Mamedzade, published by Institute of a History of Azerbaijan Academy of Science Architectural school of Arran is mentioned:

К. М. Мамед-заде. Строительное искусство Азербайджана, Баку, 1983:

В связи с проблемами арранской архитектурной школы это сооружение представляет большой интерес. Дело в том, что памятники Аракса в основном входят в зону влияния нахичеванской архитектурной школы. Именно у 15-пролетного моста можно констатировать и влияние арранской архитектурной школы.(Page 59)

--Interfase (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Мамед-заде is no credible source (e.g. internationally recognized scientist) and is Azerbaijan's Soviet era Ziya Bunyadov-managed compromised source. Sprutt (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. M. Mamedzade is a Doctor of Architecture, very credible source. --Interfase (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three more academic sources are found by this search, so the claims that this subject does not exist are clearly refuted. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could get some experts on architectural writing here. Many of the coments on display here (and at the related [[42]]) have been dissapointing. This is the English-language wikipedia and "Architectural school" is a term used in English-language academic sources that has a specific meaning related to architecture. If that specific meaning is not met, the article should not exist, regardless of foreign-language phrases that might have a word for word translation as "architectural school". None of these alleged sources for of "architectural school of Arran" give any explanation (such as possible stylistic aspects or school of architects/ master masons, etc.) that justify an English-language useage of the term "architectural school of Arran". Meowy 16:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by the nominator. I know that the person involved in a discussion should not close it, but the problems kept in the nom have been addressed. If anyone thinks that this should be redirected, it can be discussed on the talk page. Thanks! (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 11:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¡Uno!

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

~~Article is unsourced speculation~~Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 03:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a brand new reliable source confirming the basics, clearly authorized by Green Day which appears on the MTV website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect (to Green Day page). --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Yes, the album cover is released but nothing more info is there available other then the release date. No where it is stated that which songs will be in the album so keeping a list of them can possibly "mis-leading" (I have removed the list as it was somewhat like WP:OR). It should be redirected for now and when the details are available official or via reliable sources, we can make a good article which wont have "suspected" material. →TSU ^tp* 06:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the efforts in improving make me change the vote now. It clearly passes WP:GNG with having ample of WP:RS and content. I suggest withdrawn as the concerns are fixed. →TSU ^tp* 09:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article survives AFD then it needs to be renamed according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Special_characters, The album has not been released so far, its said to be releasing in september 2012 , WP:CRYSTAL ?? --DBig Xray 10:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to go either way and say you should remove or keep it, however I would like to bring light to the Grand Theft Auto V page on Wikipedia. Almost no "real" information about the game has been officially submitted by Rockstar, however that game still has its own article. Styk0n (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Day (for now). While most of the information in the article is certainly verifiable through reliable sources, almost none of it directly pertains to ¡Uno!. The first half of the article is about the three-album project in general, and the second half is basically a description of a YouTube video. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Green Day is a very famous band, and yes, there new album is coming up. There are many sources and text. So why not let the page stay? VegetaSaiyan...going Super Saiyan 5! (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You know, for a band as big as Green Day, this article is actually very well written and not a single detail in the article is unreferenced. There's actually no absolute reason to delete this article, and unless you want to create an article for the trilogy in general (in which I highly discourage you to do so), the information about the trilogy is talking about Uno aswell. Don't forget, this is a three piece work. RazorEyeEdits (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the album is coming up surely and there are references, the article is correct, is a great stupidity to delete an article which will be newly created some months later. In Wikipedia always have been articles for coming up albums. I hate the delete obsession in some users. Sorry for my poor english, thanks for policies of Aznar and Rajoy, I have no money for learn it. tot-futbol (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We got some concrete information on this, plus why delete it if we're going to recreate it in a month or two?108.231.169.13 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article is no longer "unsourced speculation". The album has a confirmed release date, title and cover. It also contains background and recording information. Statυs (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm happy to withdraw this nomination, my initial concerns with the article have been satisfied. Whether the article's creation was appropriate at the time is another matter. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Asyraf

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

DePRODDed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern = Not a professional sportsperson or a player in a major professional league. Insufficient sources to assert notability per WP:ATHLETE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage and he has not played for or managed a fully pro team. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the head coach of the Woodlands Wellington Centre of Excellence, which is the youth academy of [[Woodlands Wellington FC. As the youth academy which produces future players for a professional S-League club, I believe there is sufficient justification for the article to remain in place. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG A head coach doesn't always needs to have a wiki article. --Artene50 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not managed any fully professional teams and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Andrews filmography

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

Wikipedia is not simply a collection of facts (WP:TRIVIA). Porn films are, as evidenced by this list, produced at such a high rate as to diminish their notability on an individual basis. Though only a WikiProject WP:P* suggests only listing films that are themselves notable. This list is just a way to try to get around that. Andrews is no more or less prolific than any other porn star and this is just listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT). Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 02:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge a trimmed version back to the existing Jessie Andrews#Filmography. I note that we DO allow longer separate lists of an actor's filmography without calling such indiscriminate or trivial lists (LISTCRUFT) or a list or repository of loosely associated topics (NOTDIRECTORY). This list is not indiscriminate nor is it a list of loosely associated topics. I believe the issue here is simply that someone is testing the waters and wishes the same sort of filmography list for this porn actress as we allow for mainstream actors. IF all the films on that list had notability enough for separate articles, a separate list might then be worth considering as a proper spin-out of the main topic. But that is not the case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. For God's sake. Every item on the list is linked to a vendor page where the item can be purchased. There's been a longstanding practice, representing an established consensus, that laundry lists of non-notable videos don't even belong in porn performer bios, let alone in independent articles. Obviously a promotional editor at work, especially given their editing history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is listcruft. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for that. The main part of the listed titles are non notable. Cavarrone (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does not quite qualify for a speedy. The list is improperly sourced, and should go for that reason perhaps, but some of them link to existing sourced articles. Those listed that are bluelinks, can be included in the article on the subject as is common practice for actors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two films might be notable out of more than a hundred… I can't see any use to this and Wikipedia is not merely a directory. One of the notations at WP:LISTCRUFT is to the effect that the list will take a disproportionate amount of effort to maintain and, since the performer in question appears to make a movie every three days or so, there would be little possibility of it ever being complete. Ubelowme (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable content not current on the actresses page, if her awards are already mentioned there, delete. The links to purchase need to be removed. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. Hipocrite (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Kamkan

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

Article about a non-notable football player. Does not pass WP:FOOTYN or WP:GNG. TonyStarks (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability through WP:GNG --Artene50 (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't even know about him. That should tell you a lot. Farine (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have not played a match for any fully professional teams and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Reyes

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

Non-notable politician; appears to be a fluff piece, possibly created by a PR firm (perhaps LBR Communications in Salt Lake City) to accompany his race for office. Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth coverage. I've been watching this for a while after seeing it on new page patrol and adding cats. I wasn't going to nominate it for myself, to give an apparently new editor time to sort their stuff out and find refs, but that doesn't appear to have happened. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for promoting one's campaign. That is all that this is. "Coverage", such as it is, is all local. DarkAudit (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article about a politician that fails WP:POLITICIAN. - Sudo Ghost 02:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about an unelected candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. We can't allow Wikipedia to become a hosting service for campaign literature posing as encyclopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all tests under WP:POLITICIAN. I'm especially concerned about #3 which requires coverage in reliable sources "independent of the subject of the article". Most of the sources seem either reprinting of press releases or (even if they cover his candidacy), don't indicate the notability of the run itself. Nevertheless, I'd also be fine with redirecting this article to one about the Attorney General race, if one such article exists. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Position which meets the primary clause of WP:Politician '1.Politicians..who have held...sub-national (statewide...).' that we have no article for, in a presumed notable election that we have no coverage of; current officeholder is not a suitable anchor, no available redirect destination. Delete at least until the election, or sufficient non-local coverage passes GNG. Created just before the election. Dru of Id (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete this article then you should delete the one on John Swallow because they basically contain the same type of information and both are running for Utah Attorney General in 2012 VaughnJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.234.63 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't looked into the details, it looks like John Swallow holds an office, whereas Sean Reyes is simply running for office, there's a difference. It isn't an WP:ALLORNOTHING situation, each article is assessed on its own merits. - Sudo Ghost 02:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the details, and the two are not comparable in the slightest. Neither Swallow's current position nor multiple campaigns for U.S. Congress would justify an article, and WP:GNG is otherwise borderline, but Swallow spent six years as a Utah state representative, a position for which Wikipedia recognizes automatic notability, and I have standardized a lot of the article's formatting. Dru of Id (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment There's an on going rewrite. Currently some of the claims fail verification, but that may be because it's in the middle of a rewrite. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of writing can create notability, where there is no notability to begin with. It might be more merciful to kill the article outright before anyone wastes more hours trying to polish what can't be polished. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No new evidence of notability emerged from the re-write. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amplify LA

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

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, no secondary sources. Just a promo piece. The article's author appears to be a single-purpose account. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please also take a look at User talk:Asadbutt5483, where the article is replicated. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 07:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, this is an example of WP:TOOSOON. I can't find any sources, so it appears to have no notability. Amplify LA ranks very low on Alexa. Roodog2k (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be of encyclopedic interest. I agree with the above comments. Zujua (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have brought out the angry bees mentioned in the prior AFD discussion. This is indeed the same article, re-posted by the same person mere days after it was deleted the last time. In fact, this was the third such re-post. The angry bees have revoked the editors' editing privilege. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tebeyasou(Ozzi Liman): Motivational and Inspirational Proverbs on the Rudiments of Wisdom for a better Youthfull Growth and Nation

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

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a self-help essay. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The entire article is an essay comprised of original research, and its content is patently unencyclopedic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete OR, essay, and otherwise useless. DarkAudit (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 04:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A significant portion of this article appears to be a pastiche of verses from the Book of Proverbs. But they seem less authoritative when they are ascribed to "'tebeyasou' born in June 1988", compared to when they were ascribed to King Solomon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay/parody Arjayay (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly just a collection of Individual Research. Achowat (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THE RUDIMENTS OF WISDOM FOR A BETTER YOUTHFUL GROWTH AND NATION; is it possible that CSD G4 (recreation of page deleted per discussion) might apply? Could an Admin look into the deleted article to see if they are "sufficiently identical"? Achowat (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per all of the above, original research. Darn near a snowball. Ubelowme (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete after multiple relists (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRows

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

I am opening this discussion in response to a request for technical help from Elbowin (talk · contribs). Rationale copied from his/her talk page is as follows: "It is about a piece of software which never went beyond beta stage and is irrelevant as such. The old discussion claims some kind of "historic" relevance, but this cannot not be taken from the article as it stands. I found this article browsing through the category:Ajax (programming) and was very dissappointed of it. Version history shows that the article is probably an orphan and no one cares about it. On the other hand, I found in category:JavaScript the article Medireview very good reading: That's how to deal with history of computing."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic is passing WP:GNG, per:

Fay, Joe (November 17, 2006). "Google draws in iRows". The Register. Retrieved June 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
O'Reilly, Dennis (August 23, 2006). Web Spreadsheets Nearly Ready for Prime Time, PC World Magazine.
Michael Arrington (2006-11-15). "Google Absorbing iRows". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2007-04-03.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big software firms acquire smaller ones, programmers change their employers. This event creates a ripple in the press. What makes this case notable? How is it reflected in the article? Elbowin (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article is non-notable yet. A suggestion of userfy has been made, but with no target. Someone may request userfication from myself or any admin (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 68

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

Two reasons for deleltion:

1. WP:CONTENT FORK from Vossloh Eurolight containing no extra information except the claimed name.
2. Incorrect information or speculation - the claimed name "Class 68" has not been confirmed. In the most recent publication I can find (Today's Railways, issue 126, June 2012), it clearlt states without ambiguity that the class number has not been undecided. I have spoken to the creator about this at User_talk:Hammersfan#BR_Class_68, they assure me that it is official, but the source stated above contradicts this. I should note that the page has been created before based on speculation. (possibly speedily deleted), and that this situation has happened before with journalistic speculation claiming that the number "class 68" had been assigned, but subsequently shown to be an invention. (this happened with British Rail Class 70 (diesel)).
:(More) To the best of my knowledge the article Vossloh Eurolight can be said to be up to date, there is no significant further information currenly available to justify a content fork - this means that the template (Template:under construction) which claims "This article or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" is essentially invalid - therefore it is not likely to stop being a content fork in the near future.
I would propose that the article be place in incubation or a user sandbox until there is sufficient extra information to justify the fork, and when the name can be confirmed by (demonstrably) reliable sources. Anyone doing this should note that some of the technical data given appears to be from the european version, and is therefor - unconfirmed for the UK version. ie is wrong. Oranjblud (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to news piece from Modern Railways confirming that DRS has registered Class 68 and reserved the series 68001-68050 with the Rolling Stock Library has been added to the article. This should be sufficient to keep this article. Hammersfan, 01/06/12, 22:08 BST

Thank you for clearing up point 2. There is still an issue with the being essentially no new information in the article, excluding the class number, which could be trivially added to the existing article. I also raised points about the data being un-verified - you have the new article - does it give technical details for the new class? (ie please add references if you have them). Also whilst here I should ask about the statement that the modifications "This primarily involved narrowing the body profile of the locomotive, allowing it to fit within the loading gauge constraints" - is that an assumption or can it be sourced? what about height? or other stuff..

(CLUE NB Height 4.2m ?!? - As a courtesy I will comment out the problematic parts rather than removing them, as some are likely to be correct.) see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_68&diff=495530784&oldid=495523727

I still think there is an issue with the article contain no verifyable information not already in the original article. (ie point 1) I'd ask that you consider placing the article in "incubation" until substantial UK specific information becomes available.Oranjblud (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The designation class 68 seems in the rail press to be highly likely to be the designation for this locomotive order. Users will search for Class 68 when looking for information about this order which has been confirmed in the press by DRS. The article contains information about this order for DRS that is largely congruent with the material in the rail press and should remain. Were the class designated otherwise then this article should redirect to a new one and it will need considerable elaboration when the locomotives are in traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinner doc (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Weighing policy AND discussion: appears as non-notable album as of yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JOURNEY OF 1000 MILES

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, is poorly written, and has an inappropriate tone. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect (musician). —Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should follow the fate of Perfect (musician). Also, I wish it would stop yelling. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the artist is unrelated to notability to one of the artist's albums. From WP:NALBUMS: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline."

Thus, in my opinion, these two AfD's should be discussed separately.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but being unfamiliar with the subject, I'd say a shared fate is appropriate in this case. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. See the AfD for the artist. The yelling is easily solved, as are the other issues (none of which are a reason for deletion). Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the artist AFD, I'm going to say keep. But, you know. Without the yelling. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— This short blurb and this review are the only sources I can find that go into any detail whatsoever about the album, and it doesn't really do much for the assertion of the album's notability. If anyone can find a reliable source or two that can show this album's notability, I'd change my mind, but so far, there's so material I can see that is deserving of its own article, rather than being incorporated into Perfect (musician).—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doan Van Chan

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

Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:BLP1E (his alleged notability stems from maybe being the oldest person in the world but probably not, thus the one event I refer to here is "getting really old" not "an individual birthday" as is sometimes claimed) and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. He seems to have had a brief burst of attention in mid-2007 for his age and nothing since (that I could uncover), meaning he lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish him from thousands of other individual claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. Canadian Paul 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and add to table at Longevity claims. He doesn't seem to meet criteria for List of the verified oldest people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only source listed doesn't demonstrate enough notability to even be mentioned on a general article on allegedly long-lived persons. DreamGuy (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being that he is Vietnamese, I can't seem to find other news articles (specifically English) supporting this article. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Junaid

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE, most of this article is not ref'd. Does not have any strong WP:RS. The Determinator p t c 23:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 15. Snotbot t • c » 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just want to add that this "reporter" has ZERO hits on GNews, the hits were mostly referring to Khawaja Junaid and a couple of other people with similar names. None referred to him. The Determinator p t c 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youth against Racism in Europe

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

It claims it is active in 16 countries, but has no useful references (the given one here is self-referential) and... well, I can't really find much dirt to make this worthy of a wiki article of its own. θvξrmagξ^spellbook 02:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find independent sources discussing Youth against Racism in Europe.[43][44]. YRE definitely meets Wikipedia's organization notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the first reference is self-referencing and therefore not ideal. I hope the referencing will be improved in time, with external references such as those listed above by NJ Wine, and the article expanded. However, I felt it was worth creating the article after finding several references to the organisation on other pages, e.g.:

YRE material is also used as a reference for the article History of Bangladeshis in the United Kingdom

Mpjd500 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, and per Mpjd500: it is sourceable, and links to other articles. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is weak here, but with the lack of anyone (apart from the nominator) arguing for deletion I can't see any other closure other than keep being possible here, with the article having already been relisted 3 times. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hiltzik

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

Subject does not appear to be notable according to WP:BIO but has merely received glancing mentions in several sources due to typical work as a publicist. —Eustress ^talk 04:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Matthew Hiltzik is more than just a publicist. I looked at the references, and this is someone who got a full page profile in the Washington Post. There was also a NY1 profile on him, and both of these are listed in the references. After reading the profile, it seems that he is more than a publicist. AEAA (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me why this particular article is tagged for possible deletion. Subject meets the WP:BIO criteria for notability, with multiple published third party stories in major media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.27 (talk • contribs)

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) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this page, as I do not see any sufficient reason to remove the page. This page follows structure and format, while referencing where needed. Matthew Hiltzik is also an executive producer, which is noted in the article. He has also worked on multiple award winning films. He does meet the criteria for notability as well. GD23 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my awareness that the article may best fit under the description at WP:GNG, which would leave the article as is. GD23 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how GNG is appeased. We're not mind readers :) —Eustress ^talk 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient national/international coverage, therefore it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. GD23 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this guy's name associated with a number of national stories in the last 24 hours. i don't think this article is a good candidate for deletion. Legacy2012 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Legacy2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Like what? Please provide concrete examples and explain which criteria of WP:BIO this individual meets? —Eustress ^talk 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope none of the comments above can be attributed to sock puppets. I am trying to assume good faith, but for editors with little or no edit history to jump into an AfD discussion is highly suspect. —Eustress ^talk 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post article is in depth enough to suggest notability, but a lot of it is name drops; unable to find any other in depth independent source to meet multiple. IMDb references and poorly formatted titles to try to influence search results are not encouraging. Dru of Id (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - I really hate to say it in light of the suspicious behavior above, but I think the fact that the guy is the focus of at least two nationally significant reliable sources (The Washington Post piece and the Variety article) that he may just squeak by the general notability guidelines. A lot of the other sources are crap/trivial and the article could use some major cleanup, but he does seem to legitimately have his hands in a lot of notable things in a notable way. DreamGuy (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the NY1 One on One piece as well. That profile articulates the notability of the subject.(GD23 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No, it really doesn't. It's not indepth. We incidentally get the biographic details of: his mother's name, his hometown, his religion (which has affected his career), and his political party (which he's professional enough to perform to high standards regardless of whether it matches his clients') [plus the private detail of having children, which I only include in a bio if a) pictured in references and unavoidable b) separately covered or independently notable c) stated no longer minors]. The rest, again, is name dropping clients and unencyclopedia detail. Dru of Id (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability goes, after looking into the NY1 profiles, there are only 30 a year that is done on the whole New York City. Therefore, that seems to be quite an accomplishment to be made. GD23 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A news agency focusing on the five burroughs doing a piece on someone from New York City is local coverage, whether they do 3 or 3000. If he were an out of state interview they did it might count for notability if it was a third source backing national coverage of The Washington Post; and Variety. Dru of Id (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NY1 + Wash Post + Producer of Paperclips = keep. Also, the mere fact that the same guy represented Hillary Clinton, Glenn Beck and Harvey Weinstein is in itself notable. -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gersh Kuntzman

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

Does not pass WP:N Hapmin (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 8. Snotbot t • c » 05:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Groupie. Merging can be done (with attribution) from history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buckle bunny

AfDs for this article:

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

Dicdef. Only one source. Last AFD was closed as "keep" with no policy-based arguments brought up. Those arguing that more sources existed never came forward to WP:PROVEIT. A search found only unreliable sources such as Urban Dictionary, or works that use the term "buckle bunny" without defining it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclop(a)edic Mcewan (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to groupie. There's nothing in this article that can't be said in one sentence in the groupie article. Buckle bunnies seem to essentially be rodeo groupies. There aren't any sources out there to show that this term is notable outside of the notability that the idea of groupies seem to have. There's enough out there to show that this term is in use, but not enough to show that this slang is exceptionally notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. The last AfD was closed as follows: "The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page." I see no indication that this was done. If, on the other hand, we are going to keep this discussion open, then I have to !vote keep subject to that same subsequent merge discussion. In addition to the scholarly article currently cited, GBooks has a feature article on this topic from a 1994 issue of Spin[45] along with a variety of other references, and GNews has a number of articles on the topic such as [46][47][48]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to "procedural close" just because merging was brought up in the last AFD. I didn't express an opinion on merging in this AFD, so any "merge" !votes from the last one are immaterial here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AFD. We also have puck bunny, etc. These are sporting event groupies and not at all mentioned in the groupie article. The groupie article is currently all about entertainers, so the point is rather than a delete, those who care should just get off their ass slap on a merge tag, and if no one complains, then do the actual work to merge the sports articles, and then create a couple redirects. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what from the previous AFD? As I said, everyone was all "But there are sources!!!" and utterly failed to prove it. Why is everyone bringing up merging when I SAID NOTHING about merging?! Moving the content to another page does nothing to fix the lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what the deletion rationale is. If it's that the article is short and has minimal sourcing, then tag it for that. If the material should be incorporated into groupie, put on a merge tag. These problems alone aren't grounds for deletion. If you are denying that such a creature exists, then here is the basic search. If you want to do the same to similar articles, then is this a co-nom with puck bunny, or are we just picking on rodeo :-) ? Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is "I don't think this is notable and couldn't find any sources on it", which is a reason for deletion. As I already said, my searches found nothing but unreliable sites such as Urban Dictionary, lyrics databases for a Brooks & Dunn song with that term in it, or just other works that used "buckle bunny" without defining it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! The google search "buckle bunny" actually gets twice as many hits as "puck bunny." Are you nominating them both for deletion? As far as sources, this appears to be a reliable one: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/buckle%2Bbunny "a woman who is a follower or devotee of rodeos and cowboys." I don't know if WiseGeek passes WP:RS, but they have a definition also. Montanabw^(talk) 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even with that search it's still only a WP:DICDEF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Groupie per Tokyogirl, along with Puck Bunny. (What? No Baseball Annie?) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous comment also no Ski bum and snow bunny has been made into an article about an actual place name! Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to groupie; there are refs indicating the term has been used, but is it really used enough to merit its own article? Is there anything special to say about them? Or are they just a type of groupie? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictdef. Mebbe try wikt:Buckle bunny. Sorry, Mbw, don't make me look at puck bunny… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's-Geek-2-Me

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

It's a new page by a semi-new user (been around since 2008 but most of his edits have been to insert himself or his work into Wikipedia), but ultimately this just fails notability guidelines. It's a page for a self-published book/comic that was recently released this year, but there's only two links in the article that ultimately show notability. I've been working on the article to make it less promotional and more encyclopedic, but I have to finally throw in the towel here. The previous edits did have more links, but none of the links are what Wikipedia would consider to be reliable sources. The sources included a link to the book's Amazon entry, a link to the author's webpage, and multiple links to a blog called TechBurger. There were also links to a few stories about Pittsburgh, but they didn't mention the webcomic or its creator. I feel a little like I'm kicking a puppy, but there's just no notability here no matter how long I try to work on this. There is a COI going on here, as the article creator is also the author of the comic book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that there's a redirect for the individual book (it'd been created at the same time as this one, but was a carbon copy of this article) that, if this is deleted, will need to be taken care of. Also, I want to also note that while there are two links to articles on this page, that's pretty much about the extent of coverage in RS for this series. There's no depth of coverage here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the above article, I agree with all the edits Tokyogirl79 has made to ensure that the article is more encyclopedic. Perhaps the following sources will help reinforce its verifiability and notability: [49], [50], [51], [52]. Thanks for listening. Fcleetus 13:32, 8 June 2012 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing is, few of these are considered reliable sources that show notability. These links ([53], [54]) are from non-notable blogs/e-zines. Things like this can be used, but only if they're by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject, the type of person that's routinely quoted in books, scholarly journals, and the like. This link ([55]) is a press release, which is considered to be a primary source, which cannot show notability. Primary sources aren't completely off limits as far as backing up minor claims, but they must be backed up with another non-primary reliable source. What this basically means is that there should already be so many other reliable sources that using primary sources wouldn't be necessary. The Patch article is good, but it really only mentions you. Now this doesn't mean it can't be worked into the article, just that it could be argued that it doesn't show notability for the comic book. It's kind of a tricky thing, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to me to be a violation too of WP:NOTPROMOTION. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam/vanity/self-promotion, and based on the pitiful Amazon sales rank of the book (686,216!) it apparently hasn't helped. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - not notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not only is this WP:ENT but it's a BLP. As such, it's unsourced - forums do not count. The actor does to appear to meet the "notable roles" requirement (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaida Parveen

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

Indian Hindi TV actress who doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ENTERTAINER requires significant roles in multiple notable productions, and she is/was in the main cast of many Indian TV-series such as Yahan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli, Jyoti (TV series), Punar Vivah. Cavarrone (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Jyoti she is the mother of the main character, in Punar Vivah the same, in Yahan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli she is the main "antagonist". Cavarrone (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I don't find that significant. TV soap's lead actor's mom's roles!! Will let others comment on that. But this does fail GNG. All the references provided currently are from a fan-chat forum. Which are completely unacceptable. But i don't wanna waste my energy telling that for Hindi TV show related articles. It goes in vein. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn....WP:ENTERTAINER does not require you are the protagonist of a production, it requires you have SIGNIFICANT ROLES: being in the main cast of a tv-series means that your role is significant... otherwise you would be just a guest-star of the series for an episode or two... why do we lose time in discussing what is obvious? if you want to say she does not pass GNG you are free to do it, but saying she does not have significant roles in her career is just wasted time. Cavarrone (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right to speech! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:NACTOR for having the lead roles in Indian TV-series Yahan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli, Jyoti (TV series), Punar Vivah --Dℬig Xray 10:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aa..Aa!! Not lead, lead's mom. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided are from a ⇒Newsgroup⇐, and the pages that have been referenced are not created by fans, and neither are they chat threads - just keep that in mind. ∗∗Pearz25 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and if you are considering this page for deletion because it has no references, I know other sites that beside India-Forums that can be used. ∗∗Pearz25 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE
"India-Forums.com is the # 1 Discussion Forums with more than 350,000 members currently (Nov, 2008) and was started in December 2003."
UNQUOTE
This is what the first line in About Us section of bold-inward-arrows-newsgroup reads. And you knowing other references doesnt help Wikipedia. If you know, add them. And read WP:Reliable Source before that. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so this article is being deleted because it has no references? Rani P23 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No! Because the subject is not notable. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted, the article is not notable according to wikipedia's notability guide, and neither are there any trustworthy sites to reference to. --यमिनी रगा (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— यमिनी रगा (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Parveen does not appear to meet WP:GNG, notwithstanding her achievements. I found only a few trivial mentions in WP:RS discussing Jyoti (TV series), and notability is not inherited. -- Trevj (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes and Villains Entertainment

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

Article about a company that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy notability in general or that specific to companies. All I was able to find was minor mentions in conjunction with work from Top Cow. Whpq (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect for now, and a mention in the Top Cow might be in order, as the two organizations do share lots of coverage.[56] I have the sense from available coverage that 'Heroes and Villains Ent' just does not quite meet WP:CORP... at this time. Considering their growing coverage, in six or 12 months this may change. So I'd also suggest it be "userfied"... returned to its author for continued work in the meantime (mostly imrpovement it its existing sourcing). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a sufficient number of reliable third party sources in my opinion. Like everything, it could use improvement, but I see no need for deletion. TDFord — TDFord (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Mentioned in good independant sources like "Comic Book Resources" and "Newsarama," seems legit and notable enough. As far as combining it with Top Cow, it does seem like they have a lot in common as far as the comic books go, but from what I could find it seems that their management portion of the company is completely seperate, and so they deserve their own article. I think it should stay, can be improved over time. FrankClinton — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankClinton (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — FrankClinton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Strauss

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

Is being the White House Radio Director notable? I was able to verify that the subject held that position here but I can't find enough to satisfy GNG. Also can't verify that he was the first White House Radio Director except from press releases by the subject. J04n(talk page) 17:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can find which isn't obviously trivial coverage or written by the subject is [57] and [58], which are behind a paywall. Article was originally written by BLCommunications (talk · contribs), which smells like a PR company. Hut 8.5 16:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP that's been unsourced since its creation nearly 5 years ago. I can't find any sources that make more than a passing reference to him, nothing that would satisfy GNG.Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven (Harold Kionka)

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

Very minor-league journalist only known for broadcasting from a single motorcycle show. Biker Biker (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP: A7. I doubt that this journalist meets the notability standards. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author has revised the article to show the subject's notability. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not The Raven nor associated with him. As the references show, he is known for more then a single motorcycle show. The references list newspaper, magazines, and books that detail other activities that he reported on in the Daytona area. What makes him unique is that he was pioneering WebTV and citizen journalism before it was mainstream. The references establish The Raven as one of the first individuals using this medium. Today it is common to get live news from the internet. But 12 years ago, argueably no one was doing it. In reference to A7, these claims are credible as supported by traditional print references. If this explanation does not prove the case, then please assist me with what you look for that would allow the deletion tag to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnetbuild (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did not expect to be saying this, but I looked at the actual references. The SFGate article is a RS for notability, and so is the Lasica book--I would not have been surprised on topics of this sort to find it self-published, but it was published by wiley and is in over 600 libraries according to WorldCat. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs some cleanup/copy-editing, but the sources appear sufficient to establish notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 4). Consensus to redirect without delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Becoming (Grey's Anatomy)

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

This article is consistent of only a plot summary. An article is not needed for this, as it is all listed at Grey's Anatomy (season 4). TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 4) as it's all plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and some WP:TRIVIA. It's been tagged for lacking notability for over a year, but while I think sources for any Grey's Anatomy episode can actually be dug up with some work, it's obvious that no-one is willing to do so. Therefore, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, let a redirect handle the situation until someone wants to work on this ep article. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have moved "(episode)" to "(Grey's Anatomy)". Also, I have fixed all codings, just in case. You can rename this discussion if you want. --George Ho (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , relying on Sgeureka's judgment that "sources for any Grey's Anatomy episode can actually be dug up with some work". That nobody has yet down the work is no reason for deletion. The criterion for keeping them is that they are sourceable. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is the best option. Delete is unnecessary, as I plan on developing quite a few Grey's episode articles, including this one, to GA, and until I get to it—there is no point in having a collection of plot summaries. I intend on finishing off the episode articles by August, so the redirect will be temporary. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. As noted, a (potentially) controversial topic in and of itself is not valid reason for deletion. The nomination rationale has appears to have been countered as well. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahbashism campaign

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

Nothing in here not already covered in Al-Ahbash article. Sourcing is lousy as well Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Ahbash article has a single line about this action in Ethiopia. I believe the expanded coverage is warranted, given the reaction of the Ethiopian population. The sourcing of the original article was dubious, but I think the sourcing of the present version appears neutral enough. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since this page is going to become (In fact, it already has just like the Al-Ahbash page) yet another tool for propaganda and bringing the "Wahabi vs. Ahbash" fight to the Wikipedia pages by the Ahbash, thus, it should be deleted. Thank you. McKhan (talk)
- Comment the controversial nature of the page, and the likelihood that POV editing will occur on it, is not a valid reason to delete it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The policy that forbids deletion on those grounds is WP:ATA#Susceptibility to policy violations. Anarchangel (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"removed an obnoxious template placed here by User:Anarchangel"--DBig Xray 21:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original text of removed templat: Substantial text was removed from this article prior to or during AfD. This notice is added to prevent misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion, compromise of the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complication of the discussion's conduct and closure. This is not an official WP notice Anarchangel (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given the current sources alone (verifiable) and considering systemic bias it should be a sizable event in Ethiopia. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take Back The News

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

A website and now defunct non-profit organization. While the group's aim was noble, I'm not finding anything that shows that they garnered any sort of recognition that would pass the GNG. During the regular searches, I found no references to the group outside of their own website. The one claim of notability the article claims is the recognition by The New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault, but I can find no reference to this elsewhere, including on the NYSCASA's own site. Rorshacma (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep At a first glance, seems to meet WP: NOTABILITY, but it is defunct. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to meet Notability, we would need to have some actual sources to verify it. I'm not finding any at all, myself. Rorshacma (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This organization performed a useful service in the past but it closed down in 2009. Of course, not all organizations lose notability just because they close down. So, the closing Admin has a difficult decision to make. This is a borderline keep or delete. --Artene50 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Where are the sources that document this useful service in the past? How can this be borderline when nobody has offered any sources? -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Yeah, that's exactly why I nominated it for deletion. The group may have had a noble purpose, and people may have been helped by it in the past. However, not a single source exists that talks about the group at all, so no matter how useful it may have been, there's no way it passes the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Change of opinion. This was a good organization and a search engine can still find it but since its now defunct, its best to remove its wikipedia entry. The key point is a search engine can still locate it. So, perhaps it doesn't need a wikipedia article of its own. --Artene50 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, as there are no reliable sources. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (This discussion is on the June 16 list, having been relisted from June 8. According to the deletion policy, "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.") I am closing this one with the same result as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2008 schedule and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule since the arguments are more or less the same. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches

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

It is a totally redundant content fork to 2010 FIFA World Cup. Every date, venue and result information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a separate article for a list of matches. Article also doesn't meed the GNG, as there are no independent coverage in reliable sources, which discuss the schedule of the World Cup. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as sub section to main article.Seasider91 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep For the same reasons mentioned at UEFA Euro 2012 schedule. --Schcambo (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no need for this fork. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First off, it irks me that 2010 FIFA World Cup is so long and full of tedious details. That's exactly why the sub-pages are important. I propose keeping the match listing because of its unified nature. The schedule itself was certainly reproduced and discussed ad nauseum by major news organizations as well. Let me pull a quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule that sums up how I feel (see the UEFA discussion for the back-and-forth dialogue on this same issue): "It is more convenient to have all the schedule in one article." User:A.h. king CaseyPenk (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CaseyPenk. Also, the AfD for UEFA Euro 2012 schedule should be closing soon, probably today, and not having this article follow its fate would be frankly ridiculous. This might have been better handled as a multiple nomination. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge/delete/whatever per much more prominently discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule. --78.35.239.12 (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwasind}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wifey's World (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wifey's World (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Protest}}<!--Relisted-->