Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 21

< 20 March	22 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Val d'Aran regional football team

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

Unreferenced article on an unnotable team that has played one match Stu.W UK (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some guys who all happened to be from the same part of Spain once played a match together? Nonono, definitely non-notable. Giant Snowman 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article appears to be about a team that has played only a single match, and that has done nothing of note. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football team and completely unreferenced. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Concerns were addressed with new refs. Renominate later if notability of new article is in question again. Dcoetzee 23:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back Through Time

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. this album isn't even released yet and only gets 1 gnews hit. [1]. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that these 1 gnews hit merits at least a redirect to Alestorm. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"back through time" is a common phrase and should not redirect to a band article. LibStar (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then move article to Back Through Time (album), redirect this to Alestorm and covert Back Through Time to a dab page. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 23:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The album isn't released but its notable and there are a lot of unreleased albums on wikipedia, do delete this one would be stupid --Caskaholic (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Caskaholic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has only made 2 edits outside their userspace. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:38pm • 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alestorm per Armbrust. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:38pm • 02:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References have been added. As soon as Napalm Records puts out a press release/product page and Amazon or some other notable online store lists it those will be added as well. But, if my vote fails to persuade any of you, keep in mind that this page will probably be recreated in a few months time. --Hybrid196 (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient references have been found and track listing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't explained how it meets WP:NALBUMS. The sources merely verify its existence. LibStar (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NALBUMS states 'generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label' and all of that information has been provided and sourced. I also agree with Hybrid196 that if this article is deleted it would only need to be recreated again closer to the release. Oh, and there are now 2 results for the Google News search. NRTurner (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Egyptian gods

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

There are major inaccuracies in this genealogy, but they are only symptoms of a greater problem: that the relationships between Egyptian deities were too numerous and too changeable to attempt to represent in a single chart. Just to name a few examples: at least four gods are called the father of Anubis, and four goddesses called his mother;^[1] in different sources Horus' mother may be Hathor, Nut, or Isis, and his father may be Geb or Osiris—not to mention that the child form of Horus may be the son of many more deities, including the adult form of Horus;^[2] the creation of the world was variously credited to Nun, Neith, Khnum, Atum, Ptah, Amun, Thoth, or Horus;^[3] and Thoth might be the son of Ra or the product of Set's impregnation with Horus' semen.^[4] The Egyptologist Erik Hornung put it this way: "It is evidently unnatural for Egyptian gods to be strictly defined. Their being remains a fluid state to which we are not accustomed… The combinations gods form with other gods are in many respects transitory and may be dissolved at any time."^[5]

My point is not merely that the Egyptian gods' relationships are absurdly complicated, but that the relationships between gods have symbolic significance.^[6] The gods represent forces of nature,^[7] whose interactions are complicated and shifting. Describing those interactions is not impossible, but it needs to be done in the text of the gods' individual articles and accompanied by explanation of what each relationship means. I know that Wikipedia likes to lay everything out in a neat list or table or template, but in this case that's not only infeasible, but risks misleading the reader about the very nature of the Egyptian pantheon.

^ Doxey, Denise M., "Anubis", in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001), pp. 97–98
^ Wilkinson, Richard H., The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (2003), pp. 132, 140; Watterson, Barbara, The Gods of Ancient Egypt (1984), p. 57
^ Tobin, Vincent Arieh, "Myths: Creation Myths" in Oxford Encyclopedia (2001), pp. 464–468; Dunand, Françoise, and Christiane Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt (2005), p. 63
^ Wilkinson (2003), p. 215
^ Hornung, Erik, Conceptions of God in Egypt: The One and the Many (1982), translated by John Baines, p. 99
^ Wilkinson (2003), p. 74
^ Allen, James P., Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (2000), pp. 43–44

A. Parrot (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete here, right? A. Parrot (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are quite a few problems with the page. For instance, Atum and Toth are often thought of as self-created, so that this family tree does not make sense. In some stories Atum actually created Shu and Tefnut, while here Ra is just given as a "father". And then there are the combinations: Amun-Ra, Re-Harakhty, etc which is ignored. This page gives the impression there is a real family tree, while the real development of AE religion is much more complicated and the roles that the deities had and relations with respect to one another varied over time and geographical location. None of these issues can really be solved by careful editing, so I think not having the page is better than having one that is incomplete/misleading. --AnnekeBart (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is also in violation of several guidelines? WP:RS - no (reliable) sources are given as a basis of the family tree; WP:VERIFY - related to the WP:RS we cannot verify what the tree is based on.; WP:OR or WP:SYNTH - It looks a bit like original research/synthesis, as I have never seen any family tree like this in the literature.; WP:NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE - given the different myths out there, someone seems to have picked their favorite one and presented that one without offering any explanation of the alternative versions. --AnnekeBart (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't create this family tree, but merely turned it from a template into an article. The reasons given above in support of its deletion are perfectly valid. --BomBom (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure the original creator meant well, and the illustrations are lovely, but this is pure WP:SYNTHESIS. Egypt did not have one monolithic religion (with the possible exception of the Aten in the Armana period), it was a composite of beliefs that varied by Nome (spatial area) and through time. So the 'family tree' Re->Shu+Tefnut->Geb+Nut->Isis+Osiris+Nephthys+Set is fixed apparently from the earliest. But from equally ancient times we have Re-Herakhte (Horus of the Two Horizons)->Hathor+Sekhmet (the two Eyes of Ra). Then you add in a host of other deities who are not part of this familial structure but originated in separate locations, which were either conflated (eg the conflation of Amun and Re into Amun-Ra), or were described as the spouse or offspring of another deity, whether as an honorary title or to denote some kind of adoption. The only way this tree can be constructed is by adding in all of these local myths separately - the whole construction is not supported by any reliable source that I know of.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator points out, this just isn't a good way to present this information by nature. At best it adds little to our coverage of Egyptian mythology, and at worst it's downright misleading. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Respect to the person that tried to do this. I'm abstaining. Even with fluid relationships it should be possible to create some kind of genealogical tree (or multiple trees). Although it looks like it will involve a hundred times more effort than has been put in thus far. Maybe the article should have an introduction about how difficult it is to draw up a single family tree of the Egyptian gods and include the nominator's summary in that rationale. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRespect to everyone but with regard to previous comment - it is not just a complex task it is impossible in this form. Any tree would have to take into account changes in the way the gods were perceived according to time (i.e. which period of history they relate to) and location (i.e. which cult centre is meant). There also has to be an understanding of what the Egyptians actually meant by saying one god was father of another, for instance, especially as any number of gods are called 'father of the gods' e.g. Atum, Ra, Nun, Amen and so on. For this reason I support Delete.Apepch7 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concur with Nipsonanomhmata; nice try. However, the complexity of the gods' relations and tales told different ways to serve a political purpose in the religious hierarchy of Egypt are as much a part of the history Egyptian mythology as the images themselves. It is ultimately a disservice to leave them out. Anarchangel (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a disservice, but the relationships don't have to be left out of Wikipedia; they can and should be covered in the articles on individual gods, in writing. I don't believe that they are too complicated to convey but that they are too complicated to convey graphically. A. Parrot (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2011 (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. Big Dom 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satans Trails

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

non notable, barely defined, allegedly haunted area WuhWuzDat 02:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources indication notability.--Sloane (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unconfirmed that it even exists. No Reliable Sources found under either name, Satan's Trail or Satan's Trails. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Conda

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

Non-notable local musician; article makes no assertion of notable or recognizable claim of significance beyond the subject's being "one of the fastest rising queens in the city [Perth]". Local musician, performs only in two local venues, appeared a handful of times on a local radio show -- there's just no notability to be found. No reliable sources; the article "references" are two photos (one from the subject's own facebook page) and an audio recording. The truly masochistic might enjoy the subject's cover of Talking Heads' "Psycho Killer"[2], which is only slightly less terrifying than the thought of Celine Dion attempting to cover the same song. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable as per nom, fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:N or WP:V.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. entirely non-notable. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources on the page at all, fails to establish notability. Lacks of ghits/gnews hits indicates this person is likely not notable. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Al-Arifi

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

does not meet notability threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTRESUME, there is nothing to indicate that this person is even remotely notable. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like this is just a resume for a non-notable person. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Arabic Wikipedia article for this subject links to these sources: [3][4]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur – this is simply a CV and makes no convincing argument for notability. The only "source" seems to be his own website – although I think it falls a little short of speedy delete A7, it's close. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2011 (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. Big Dom 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collective animal behavior and brain behavior

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

Nothing but a load of unreferenced, unsupported OR. No merit or uniqueness, as there are plenty of pages on collective animal behavior, consciousness, etc. It's nothing but a crappy attempt to pimp the user's poorly-thought-out idea. Mokele (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR. Topic of the article is poorly defined. Nothing here worth saving. Rnb (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incoherent, poorly defined, and unreferenced. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2011 (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. Big Dom 14:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of East London School of Law

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

Not sufficiently notable per WP:UNIGUIDE. Has been PROD'ed and then discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Subarticle_for_faculty.2Fdepartments Sitush (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A large law school (by UK standards anyhow) which is active in research. Numerous references can be found in books: [5] and the school is active in research. The article is low quality however and needs work. I should add that the quoted uniguide is not Wikipedia policy but merely a guide. This is a natural break-out article from University of East London. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - about the books, since this was not raised in the discussion linked to in the nomination. 500-odd hits for UEL per the link, 1700-odd for Cardiff Law School (picked at random, my nephew is studying chem. there), 3900-odd for Cambridge law school (my alma mater, and highly misleading because most authors will use their college name or "faculty" instead of "school"). It is the job of UK university academics to write articles and books. If they do not then the funding is cut. So, I'm not sure of the relevance of this to the debate. Is productivity the same as notability? - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that even the faculty of the UEL School of Law would claim that their school is in the same league as Cambridge law school. Notability is not a relative concept however. What the books result does show is coverage, and that this school is highly active in research. The motivations for that activity and its relative quality compared to Cambridge are of no relevance in my view.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A small law school by international standards and can be covered in the University of East London article. Mtking (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - UNIGUIDE, cited in the nomination, is a style guide for how to write articles on universities. The rationale that I would make is this: law schools, unlike the departments of a university related to fields of academic study, maintain their own admissions offices. Harvard University and the Harvard School of Law should and do have separate pages; ergo the University of East London and the University of East London School of Law should have their own pages. The size of the school is largely irrelevant, to my mind, just as the size of a high school is irrelevant to the question of whether it is regarded as a valid subject for encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to Carrite. Firstly, other stuff exists. Secondly, are you sure of your facts regarding admissions offices? The UK system is not necessarily the same as in the USA etc. There is little difference between a School and a department/faculty in most cases in the UK - it's just semantics. All UK university departments have some control over their admissions & often have endowments for the making of scholarship awards etc; equally all of them use the UCAS clearing system & all the universities (that I am aware of) have a central admissions office which is the top tier in a hierarchy of decision-making. There are exceptions, eg: London School of Economics (LSE) is a genuinely separate university institution; UEL Law is not. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misuse of the Gotcha Phrase™ "Other Stuff Exists." I am not arguing that this article should stay because the University of East London Law School is more important than Eureka HIgh School, I am making an argument based upon established precedent, which allows Wikipedia to be developed consistently. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a misuse at all, as far as I can see. You were saying that Harvard School of Law has its own article, therefore UEL should. How is that not "other stuff exists? - Sitush (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "The Times Higher Education survey ranked the school as 38th in the UK" - it is hardly Harvard. I see no evidence that this needs an article any more than the other Faculties/Schools of this university or most universities need one. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, an institution's ranking does not decide its notability. I'm not saying your argument is necessarily wrong, but the way you've said it is not a valid argument for deletion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the ranking decides its notability. I was just throwing cold water over the idea that because Harvard Law School has an article, then this one should have an article. To expand on my second sentence, the references seems to be all from the university itself or about individuals. I see no sources that are independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of the school. Much of the article is not encyclopedic and it can easily be merged into the university article. This school is just a university department or faculty. It does not stand out from the others and I would be suprised indeed if it handled its own admissions separately from the university itself. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have enough info and independence from the greater university to warrant its own article. That being said, if I'm missing something please correct me. A merge isn't totally out of the question, however. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no claim the subject fails the GNG, and no policy- or guideline-based argument for deletion. In particular, our inclusion criteria for academic institutions have no "Top 40" type criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the UNIGUIDE referred to not a guideline? I'm confused! - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "style guideline," and the section on notability is characterized as only "an essay." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. Mandsford 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Law School, like many UK Law Schools and Business Schools, seems to be simply a department or subsection of a UK University, and as such can be covered within the main university article. Should we have separate articles for every school or department in every university? If not, then delete. At the moment, the article contains a list of courses (and why even have these? Wikipedia isn't a prospectus), a small section on research which also belongs in the prospectus, and a list of 3 people only one of whom is notable enough to have their own wiki article. Reg porter (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this isn't a discussion about the quality of the article, but the notability of the subject. Secondly, this isn't a discussion about other schools/departments of UEL or any other UK universities. If other law schools or university departments can demonstrate notability in accordance with policy then there is no reason why they should not have articles, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. And even if notability could be established for every single department/school of every single university in the UK, and someone wanted to write the articles - clearly hugely unlikely - the number of additional Wikipedia articles would, in the context of Wikipedia as a whole, be miniscule, certainly well below 0.002% of all articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the school is large and the article is referenced, although could do with further work. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can we just nail this "large" thing? I do not think that it is particularly large & have given some examples somewhere (Bristol Law School is twice the size, for example). Someone else has pointed out that in international terms it is apparently small (but I've no idea where xe got that from either). The notability derives mostly from the research institute which it houses but is a separate body. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - our practice has been to have separate articles for law and medical schools and that's fine. In any case this page meets WP:GNG. If some consolidation is sought I suggest merging Centre on Human Rights in Conflict into this page. TerriersFan (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a significant law school. Dream Focus 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be plenty of significant and sourced material that can be written about this which would be too great a detail for the general UEL article. If we did sub-article naming then it would be clear that this isn't pretending to be a separate institution but just a section of a more general article that is too large for the general page. Full disclosure: I'm currently a student of a different school at UEL and have no connection with the law school. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per previously listed reasons, and in my opinion, it easily meets notability requirements and is a natural breakout article from the main UEL one. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Holidays

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

Non-notable organization. Likely pure advertisement. References don't support the article (except to verify membership in various trade organizations). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A quick Google search of this company makes it appear that the company has significantly more coverage than some other travel companies also up for deletion. Agree that the tone and referencing would need to be improved significantly. VQuakr (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did the Google search, but cannot see anything that establishes notability, particularly press coverage. Lots of listings, true, but much of that is self promotion. Seaphoto^Talk 02:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not asserted, lack of reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 20:36, 28 March 2011 (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. Big Dom 14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dippak Gupta

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

The subject is a chartered accountant who seems to have done very well in his professional examinations, but there are no sources in the article, or that I can find otherwise, indicating that he meets our inclusion guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article reads like the resume of an accomplished accountant, without any strongly stated claim for notability. I cand find no coverage about this individual -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Page reads like a resume.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Tours

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

PROD deleted. No notability, clear advertisement. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What Sofa said. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD rationale. Note that of the articles added to the article before the PROD was removed, 2 appear to be primary sources, one is a trivial mention, and one does not mention the subject at all. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability standards for companies, references check out as per VQuakr. On the page, the editor has made the WP:OSE argument, but that is not relevant; we try and fix things as we find them, and indeed the article about that travel agency is up for deletion too.Seaphoto ^Talk 02:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant advertisement. LadyofShalott 03:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Promo. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (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'm sorry but the delete !voters make a stronger case here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RiSE Microfinance

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

Questionable notability Eeekster (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not what google result gives. If you visit any developing countries, you will come to know, incredible oragnization do not have web presence. If wiki is all about re documenting what is preentin web and searchable by Google then I am sorry, you understanding of Wiki is not same as mine! 115.118.69.121 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Microfinance organizations should get space in WP. 14.96.69.251 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not just about the web, but there should be some references apart from the official website to establish notability. Will consider switching my vote to Keep, if any media coverage for this organisation can be presented.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sodabottle, Wikipedia is not about media coverage, it is about knowledge base. In this article, all the data has reference. 14.96.60.134 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about collecting verifiable knowledge from independent sources. Which this article regrettably lacks.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sodabottle, tell me which informatioon you want to verify out of that article. That article has all the reference. I still do not understand what refrence you want. Be specific and tell me which particulr information is not variable ? 14.96.118.98 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (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) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reference of Grameen Foundation news and MIX report are very valid source of information. You can't doubt on authenticity of information from these source Adi1981 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing at all to show notability through reliable sources notwithstanding the SPA claims. —SpacemanSpiff 07:51, 24 March 2011 (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. Big Dom 14:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Maloney

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

Mr. Maloney has done a lot to make other people notable, but I am not sure he meets the criteria for his own article. There are definitely "a lot" of sources in the article, but if you would please direct your attention to the content of those sources. Of the ones that are secondary, most are not about him, but about the people he represented 1 2 3. The New York Observer article 4 does focus largely on Maloney. He seems to be notable in NYC political circles, so I am not sure how much credibility to attribute to the source, because the context seems to be localized. ~~Also, I couldn't get the Jewish Observer source to load, so admittedly, that may go toward notability.~~ (I did and it doesn't. 5) A close call perhaps, but I think a discussion needs to be had. --Quinn ^➳WINDY 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added more references to the article, some of which mention Maloney more directly. Furthermore, the general picture that I got while searching for references was that he was a significant political player. I would also argue that "doing a lot to make other people notable" is exactly what a notable political consultant should be doing. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notability is not inherited but I support the addition of more articles that talk about Maloney directly. --Quinn ^➳WINDY 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This added reference is about political tactics in a GOP gubernatorial race, and ~~focused on~~ talks about criticisms of Maloney's tactics on behalf on Kent Hance's campaign. It may or may not further establish notability, but, if so, the criticisms expressed in the Victoria Advocate article are not likewise expressed in the Wikipedia article. This new reference is pretty much a rehash of exactly the same info. And here again is a mention of preceived controversial tactics employed by Maloney in the same case, and is used largely as context in an article about so called "dirty tactics" by political compaigns. So, like I said before, if these new references do establish notability (and I don't think they do) then the article is lacking a "Controversies" section, because, if he is notable, it seems to be, to some extent, for criticisms of his tactics. --Quinn ^➳WINDY 17:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2011 (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, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A recognized expert in the field of political consulting (a mover and shaker at the national level) and the subject of independent third-party coverage dropping his name in the headline — see, for example: "Mayor Hires Maloney, Political Operative, to Sleuth Hillary." Carrite (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2011 (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.

Keep Sorry to be so late to the party, but I think this one's a definite keeper. There are oppo ppl listed along with Maloney whose work is not even as notable, yet they are not contested. Let's not confuse "notability" with "notoriety." Given what oppo ppl do for a living, they often work very hard at staying off the radar, so you're not going to find as much documentation of them personally as you would for some of the campaigns they serve. ~

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outernet (megatrend)

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

Seems to be another non-notable neologism. Google search seems to only come up with some Facebook pages and a couple of German sites. Does not seem to be in common use yet and definition is still emerging/unstable. Delete. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. Don't forget to clean up the disambiguation page for "Outernet" if this ends as a delete. Carrite (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word pops up in a variety of ways, but I found no coverage of this specific "megatrend" concept in any reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Spark

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

This subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability guideline at WP:PORNBIO. He has had some interviews in subject specific webzines and blogs, but I am unconvinced that these are reliable sources and independent of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Out (magazine) is a prominent gay magazine and did an interview with him. I don't know much about TheSword.com, but they also did an interview with him (since it is an off wiki site, I'll warn of sexual pics). He is close to WP:PORNBIO #4, but not quite there yet. CTJF83 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Xtra! [6] CTJF83 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, Ok, we currently have 4 articles of good coverage, seems to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO #4 now. CTJF83 03:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Next Magazine is a rather prominent gay magazine and they published a feature article on him and his work that is posted both online and is printed in this month's print edition. Here's a link: http://www.nextmagazine.com/feature-article/erotica-vérité. Gfilmonline (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:PORNBIO LordVetinari (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I wasn't going to add anything more here but CTJF83 persuaded me otherwise. Hence, I've changed my delete to a strong delete. Basically, I believe that even with the additional refs, this subject still fails WP:PORNBIO. Reasons follow:

Criterion 1 - The subject has not won a well-known award.

Criterion 2 - The subject has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years.

Criterion 3a - As conceded here, the subject has not begun a trend in pornography.

Criterion 3b - The subject has not starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.

Criterion 3c - The subject is not a member of an industry Hall of Fame.

Criterion 4 - Has the subject been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media? Let's see:

Here, the subject is featured in a notable source which may or may not be counted as mainstream.
Here, the subject is interviewed on a notable podcast. Interestingly, there were two interviewees on that particular podcast. I think it is telling, then, that one of the interviewees was listed here almost immediately. Our subject, though, wasn't listed until a month and a half later, despite being interviewed on the same podcast.
I can't access the Swish Edition interview so cannot comment.
Here, the subject merely (possibly) confirms his identity. This source is revealing, though, for the facebook comment made by one Matt Hydeman, "had it not been for the bloggers on the gay side of Fleshbot, I'd have never known about you, Spark". Interestingly, some of the posts on that page seem to mirror this AfD discussion by questioning the subject's significance.
This source copies the six pack interview already discussed.
This source says very little of substance about the subject. It confirms his existence, his age, and where he's based. Other than repeating a few quotes, the source provides a ot of words but very little content. I do find it interesting, though, that this notable source refers to the subject's videos as a "minor viral sensation" (my emphasis). As well, it also suggests that the subject, although planning to make more videos and possibly make a feature film, has done very little other than post videos to Xtube.

Overall, I think a filmmaker (or porn actor or whatever he is) who has had only two feature articles (at least one of which was submitted under a semi-anonymous byline), who has had only one or two interviews, who does not appear to have his own website or to be promoted on an existing notable industry website, and who's web presence doesn't appear to extend further than Xtube and facebook is not a subject of such notability that he should be in an ancyclopedia. LordVetinari (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gfilmonline (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OUT maybe counted as mainstream or not mainstream? What sheltered, super conservative world does one have to live in to say such a thing I wonder.

1. I just did another Google search and he certainly seems to have found notability in my estimation. I counted 7 independent media interviews and feature articles. LV pointed to 3+ sources in this "strong delete".

2. It seems he does have a website that redirects to his facebook page. www.blacksparkandtheclouds.com I don't know much about that but it seems lots of notable people are opting to use their social network sites as opposed to something more traditional.

I'm entirely missing the point about the time frame in which the subject was listed as a part of the podcast. The "minor viral" comment seems to have been made to contrast the difference between being notable for this type of work as opposed to what happens when one uploads videos to YouTube. Apples and oranges in my opinion but one tends to read what one wants to see. If a person decides to not sign with a "porn" company then I can't imagine he would be promoted on their sites.

It looks like he took a Facebook page and some films posted to Xtube and made a serious impression on the industry so far. Anyone new have thoughts or can provide more sources? Gfilmonline (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make comments like "What sheltered, super conservative world does one have to live in to say such a thing I wonder" without doing minimal "research" Had you taken the time to visit user:LordVetinari, you would see he is in a "same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union", so clearly your allegation couldn't be more wrong. CTJF83 11:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bemused. I simply said the source may or may not be mainstream; in simple terms, I don't know whether it is or not and am leaving it up to others to decide. I'm puzzled, therefore, how a statement which is about as inoffensive as it is possible to be can translate into the views of those living in a "sheltered, super-conservative world". Like I said, I'm bemused. As for whether this subject is notable, I've stated my case and will now leave the decision up to experienced editors, whose views, I believe, hold more weight than the "estimations" of a single purpose account. LordVetinari (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No pornbio pass, no GNG pass. A few interviews in minor industry magazines doesn't add up to notability. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO,imho .--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daria McGrain

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

Non-notable comics artist. She has received, as far as I can tell, precisely zero coverage in reliable sources. There is a page on Comic Book Database here [7], but that isn't sufficient for notability. Robofish (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some mangaka with tiny notability.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find coverage in reliable sources, either. Seems like a figure with minor success in a niche genre. Rnb (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Angels

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

Also..

Codes and Messages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The End Will... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Bigger Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Golden Angels and their albums do not appear to be notable for a Wikipedia article. The article consists of miscellaneous details, which seem to be overly written and full of irrelevant detail that only a devoted fan would find worthwhile, i.e. it mentions other bands such as Angelman and Earthsaver, who are also of no importance. The article has a history section with links to album articles, which have zero notability and a full essay on their music videos, which would only interest a devotee. There are no citations for reliable sources, just a fan site and three Youtube videos. I've searched Google and cannot find anything which supports this articles existence. I suggest that this article be deleted asap.Wayne Paine (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only links given are to the band's own site and a couple of YouTubes, and I can't find any proper independent coverage. I can find no source for the "Golden Guitar" they were supposedly awarded - the only other mention I can find is a Wikipedia mirror. Regarding their albums, I can't find any sign of the label LMNtal records other than Wikipedia mirrors and only in the context of Golden Angels - and that doesn't sound like the "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" that would satisfy WP:NM. No sign that any of their singles charted anywhere. I can find some hits on the chords for their singles, like [8], but that's about all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Absolutely nothing about this band online. The videos and music are decidedly amateur and this article seems nothing more than a self-created, self-aggrandising vehicle for a band of no importance. Good luck to them, but for now, they're in no way notable. Calgarykid47 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Big Dom 23:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:04, 21 March 2011 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortora Fresh Finance

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

Article lacks third party reliable sources and does not explain the importance or significance of the subject. Only independent source is a directory listing noq (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference is not a directory listing, but an independent review from an About.com writer. I have added another reference, and expanded on the article a bit to explain the significance of the software. 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.18.82 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2011 (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, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a third independent citation. Again, this is just an independent review. I had never heard of the product, and am not sure whether reviews are sufficient to confer notability, but that is the only sort of material likely to be published about such a product. Being included in a roundup such as the MacWorld listing may confer notability more than the single product reviews. At any rate, the original reasons for nomination have been addressed. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here indicates that this personal finance software broke the kind of new ground that would give it significant effects on history, culture, or technology. It's listed on a list of similar software at Macworld; other reviews are at "ITreviews" ("owned and operated by net communities") and a review at about.com. I don't believe these things establish lasting encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The software is significant in that its data can be used interchangeably between Mac and Windows (Note: it is a native application on both platforms, not Java). The software was designed to be an alternative to complicated accounting software, allowing users to still manage their finances if they are computer novices, or cannot understand how to use other accounting software. This product is indeed just as notable as the many other software products listed on Wikipedia. It should not be penalized because it lacks the publicity or history of some other more well-known products. 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.112.240 (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 delete. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires Dawn

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

I can't find anything substantial about this game online. Non-commercial German game... appears that there isn't anything notable here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I played this some times ago. It is a well-known browser game, and has direct 300,000 Google hits, which is not very few for a browser game. It seems to have a small but mighty fanbase.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete games made with RPG Maker or similar tend not to be notable, and nothing in the article suggests this is any exception. The above claim relating to Google hits does not appear accurate, as if one examines the result there are only 500 or so unique hits, and many of those are unrelated, like an Amazon listing for some romance book called "Vampire Dawn". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2011 (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, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2011 (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. Big Dom 14:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica 2011 tour

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

Previously deleted as a prod at Metallica 2011 Tour. The concept of a 2011 tour by Metallica is a seemingly made-up concept. It is not a tour, it is several festival dates over the course of many months, it is totally misleading to even refer to it as a tour. One concert in April, five in July, one in September, that is not a tour. O Fenian (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the article doesn't make this clear, the important feature of this "tour" is that it features the "big 4" bands (ie, Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth and Anthrax) and in that capacity it's quite notable. [9] [10] [11] [12] lots more here Robman94 (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of those actually appear to be about the 2010 dates, see Thrash metal#"Big Four" Tour. I am certainly convinced by that the information should not really exist at this particular title since we could have four virtually identical articles with only the band names differing, and that if deletion cannot be agreed on it should be moved to a non-band specific article about the "tour". O Fenian (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That solution would certainly work for me. Then the new article would be about the "Big Four Tour" and could contain info about both the 2010 and 2011 dates. Such an article would also stand the test of time because, rather than publicizing an upcoming tour, it would be documenting the rare coming together of 4 big bands. Robman94 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2011 (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, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Crystal. So far there is no tour or concert. It is a possible future event. An article can be create after - if the event happens. Onthegogo (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ℥^nding·start 15:02, 27 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Watts

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:ATHLETE. He hasn't worked in a notable promotion, and just being on a reality show isn't enough to establish notability. Nikki♥311 01:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (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, 21 March 2011 (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) 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ATHLETE. LK (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Jenks24 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2011 (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 Personera. Sandstein 05:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraan Amod

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

previously closed by a non-admin when it may have been appropriate to relist a 2nd time, blatantly fails WP:BIO. the sources are mostly unreliable. hardly any coverage [13] previous keep argument relied on poor WP:GOOGLEHITS reasoning. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Personera. Not notable, but it can't hurt to keep it as a redirect. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 14 March 2011 (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, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Roscelese, I see sufficient sources to verify existence, enough for the redirect. Agree what coverage I can find doesn't rise to GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as above. (Is Personera actually notable?) Founder and CEO of a startup company. There is one significant article about him from a Reliable Source, the Mail & Guardian, but notability requires more than that. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that it is, you've got a point. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:56, 4 April 2011 (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. Big Dom 14:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akrom Yo‘ldoshev

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

According to the ~~one~~ source provided, this individual wrote a political/religious pamphlet, and was later jailed for alleged involvement in some terrorist attacks. This is very dubious as far as notability is concerned. A person identifying themself as the son of the subject of the article has posted at WP:BLPN stating that the article lacks sufficient detail to give a reasonable account of this living person's life and actions. ~~In addition, the article has remained in this stub state for several years now, without significant improvement.~~ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I was just going to boldly redirect it the group associated to him Akromiya and close this but then I read that his wife denies he has anything to do with this group but he is cited as founder in another cite he is cited as leader, what about speedily redirecting it? Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. A brief search with Google and Google Books shows multiple reliable sources that name Yo‘ldoshev as the creator of Akromiya, including scholarly research published in an established journal. Being the eponymous founder of a notable religious organization would seem to me to meet the criterion of "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The article doesn't make any contentious statements that aren't attributed, and appears to be NPOV. (However, the paragraph referring to his wife should probably be removed.) Per WP:BLPDEL, "Page deletion is normally a last resort" and it's not called for in this case. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most English-language sources seem to refer to the subject by the transliteration of the Russian form of his name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any degree on independent note worthy of a BLP, can some of these reliable citations be presented here? or even better added to the article? I also don't see that wp:anybio applies either, and comments such as there are millions of google reports are valueless without article improvement or actual presentation in the AFD of some of them that meet our WP:RS and specifically address and discuss the subject in detail. He appears a very minor figure it the truth of things, even the group appears of little true independent notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are The Washington Post, The New York Times and the New Statesman (all in the first ten news results that I linked) not independent and reliable? Or books published by M. E. Sharpe, Taylor & Francis and Columbia University Press (also in the top ten results)? Why should I have to list here what you can easily see for yourself by simply clicking on the Google News, Books and Scholar links that I have provided? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Phil, your post wasn't there when I began posting so I missed that, my reply was actually in response to Macwhiz's comment. I will have a little look at that, I appreciate you linking internally to our articles but that is valueless in assessing this issue, we have lots of articles but this is a deletion discussion about this article. If you assert you have found something WP:RS would you either add it to the BLP or actually present the actual source here for evaluation and consideration. Do you intend to add any citation or content to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to be getting the point. My first post links to several searches. The ones that you can get to by clicking on the words "news, "books" and "scholar" find many reliable sources in the first few entries found. You can read those sources just as easily by following the links that I have already provided as you could if I copied them here, but as you seem unwilling to spend the extra second or two to do that then these are the specific sources that I referred to [14][15][16][17][18][19]. They are only a small selection of the reliable sources that you can see by looking further down those search results. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to search your point Phil, add it to the article, that will impress me. I am not easily impressed by such things as google search results, show me a WP:RS that focuses on discussing the life story of this living person or two or three of them, even better add them to the article Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown you six sources, and linked to searches that find many more. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:BLPDEL, "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." Since it is clearly possible to improve this article, there is no BLP justification for deleting the article. There's a BLP report purportedly from a relative of the subject, but not from the subject themselves, essentially claiming that the sources Phil linked to above have all incorrectly linked the subject with the group named after him because he founded it and then published a book describing the group's manifesto. That's not exactly persuasive grounds for a BLP deletion. The article is otherwise neutral and factual, if in need of some rescue. Deleting it would serve no purpose; improving it is the way to go here. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - here is a link to the BLPN report, I also note that from what I read, the subject of the article is apparently currently imprisoned and attempting to get himself released and denying all involvement with founding this group. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (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, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - to the group he founded. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Phil Bridger mentioned, plus a search under the common transliteration of his name to English, "Akram Yuldashev", which shows widespread coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any intention of improving the article? It currently has a single citation.Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:BEFORE is an obligation on the nominator, Off2riorob, not those who recommend keeping an article. I expand many articles I discover at AfD, but am not obligated to do so. Take a look at this book, Islam after communism:religion and politics in Central Asia which discusses this person in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think anyone supporting to keep an article also has a duty of care to bring that article up to scratch, I have seen articles kept and citations posted on the talkpage by someone and others support and yet the article remains the same, personally I would never vote keep to a sub standard article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with you, Off2riorob, about that "duty" which appears nowhere in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, I have expanded the article, and added three sources. I selected the material and references to try to begin to present both sides of the story. I am sure that other editors can improve on my preliminary efforts here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've also added an external link to a website with lots of objective information about this person. THe comment on the BLP noticeboard said, "I am the son of the person who is being regarded in this article. I found the article too brief to give the right idea about my dad. Because it lacks in details the article falsely accuses my dad in a crimes that he has never done. I want you to take this article off of the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.87.216 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)" I believe that the article now addresses those concerns and also shows his notability.Cullen328 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator (slightly contradictory I know). Cullen328's edits address the reasons for my nomination adequately. The son of the individual (or anyone else) may still wish to raise BLP concerns with the article in its revised condition, but that can be resolved through ordinary editing. It's also difficult to question the subject's notability in the light of the links provided above. In the absence of any Delete !votes, and with my nomination withdrawn, this might as well be closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2011 (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. Redirection does not strike me as useful, but can always be done editorially. Sandstein 05:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign object (professional wrestling)

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

I PRODed this which was removed by an IP. Although the IP made good effort to add sources, they are all niche publications, and all not terribly prominent in mention (except for one source). Doesn't meet GNG. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging the relevant information to List of professional wrestling terms would be a good idea if this article is to be deleted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of professional wrestling terms. There is no sourced information to merge, and it can always be added to the glossary when sources are provided. Nikki♥311 19:52, 19 March 2011 (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, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete or weak redirect Not really a justification for a separate article since the general meaning is the same in or out of wrestling. Not sure a redirect is going to serve much purpose, but can be justified more than an article. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not enough sourcing to show this is notable enough to warrant extensive coverage outside the list of terms or general wrestling articles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:59, 4 April 2011 (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 . Marasmusine (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Decathlon

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

Couldn't find published 3rd party sources, so doesn't seem to qualify as encyclopedically notable. See also #9 at [20]. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-14t22:39z 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Scouting Magazine had a full review of the game, and although it isn't viewable, so did A+ magazine. As this is an old game that predates the popularity of the internet, I suspect there are more sources in print magazines that aren't available online. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (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, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sources seem to exist. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt as it is an old game.--Sloane (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2011 (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.

[1] Doxey, Denise M., "Anubis", in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001), pp. 97–98

[2] Wilkinson, Richard H., The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (2003), pp. 132, 140; Watterson, Barbara, The Gods of Ancient Egypt (1984), p. 57

[3] Tobin, Vincent Arieh, "Myths: Creation Myths" in Oxford Encyclopedia (2001), pp. 464–468; Dunand, Françoise, and Christiane Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt (2005), p. 63

[4] Wilkinson (2003), p. 215

[5] Hornung, Erik, Conceptions of God in Egypt: The One and the Many (1982), translated by John Baines, p. 99

[6] Wilkinson (2003), p. 74

[7] Allen, James P., Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs (2000), pp. 43–44

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]