Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 June	22 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vaudevillains

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

Doesn't meet WP:N, external sources are either Myspace links or broken, GoogleNews isn't coming up with anything significant. Ænea ♫ ^♪ 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 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} 02:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see a criterion of WP:MUSIC that's met by this group; no reliable sources and although notability is thoroughly asserted, none seems present in Wikipedian terms. Ubelowme (talk) 14:34, 28 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)} 10:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 16:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 11 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 keep. the material seems sufficient for notability -- especially the Variety award. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Rook

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

No independent sources to establish notability. Rads more like a bio/self-promotion piece. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has greatly overstated Rook's non-notability. The name "John Rook" isn't readily searchable because it combines a common first name with a regular English word. Try searching this way. This individual has appeared in memoirs by Tommy James and Rush Limbaugh, and has been cited by magazines (eg Billboard) and awarded by industry associations. IMHO, needs improvement but meets WP:CREATIVE. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with access to these resources add them to the article so as to document the notability?Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not difficult to find sources for this person. Just click on the search links above and you'll soon find books such as This business of radio programming; Pittsburgh's Golden Age of Radio; WCFL, Chicago's voice of labor. Warden (talk) 22:23, 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) 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets notability guidelines as a notable person, who has reliable sources online about him. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major Matt Mason USA

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Neither the page nor my Google searches bring up multiple, non-trivial published works - just a few listings, reviews, mentions of releases and websites directly related to the subject. Billboard.com says he's never charted. Whouk (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 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) 01:35, 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} 02:44, 28 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, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added multiple sources just now. The subject meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1, or the general notability guideline, with coverage in such varied publications as Allmusic (a biography and a review), the Coventry Evening Telegraph, the South Bend Tribune, the Birmingham Post, the Evening Times, and the Evening Chronicle. The sources suggest he is a prominent figure in the anti-folk music genre. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per sources of excellent quality provided by Paul Erik. And more sources are available, such as reviews in Rockfeedback ([1]) and musicOMH ([2]). I don't think the subject's notability is now still questionable. Cavarrone (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The above sources demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 21:40, 11 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jepson

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

Mr Jepson is without a doubt a well-known potter, so much so that at least one of his works is in the collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum. It may be that an article for Mr Jepson may not meet general or specific criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tried hard to search but it's at best inconclusive. Google books gives results in magazines like Craft Horizons and Ceramics monthly, but they're not viewable online. There's a review of one of his DVDs in Video rating guide for libraries, Volume 5 from Lisa Forma, Rangeley Productions, AIMS Media, but again it's only snippet view. Aside from that there's some stuff in websites like Ceramic Arts Daily which I'm not sure meets WP:RS and a few brief references[3][4][5]. A thorough search of Florida newspapers might show more, but for useful info you'll have to go to print magazines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian should be enough by itself, but we also need enough coverage in reliable sources to write an article, and that's very weak right now. I found some coverage of him in old local newspapers but most of it is not very in-depth: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of what David E. found. We canpt write as good an article as we'd like, but since we can demonstrate what it is that he is notable for, it's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 28 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. Due to failing to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass Revolution

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations or the general notability guideline (contested prod). (The same also applies to Columbus Cranes, Detroit Mechanix, Indianapolis AlleyCats and Rhode Island Rampage; however I'm heeding WP:BUNDLE's advice and only nominating one for the time being.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 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} 02:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see quite enough reliable, secondary coverage to evidence notability under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 13:12, 5 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 redirect to Ancient Old Jade. consensus by now seems clear about where to redirect to DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep-Fat-Oily White Jade

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

Apparent neologism; the only sources I could find are mirrors of the single source cited by this article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be an accidental neologism for mutton fat jade, which is actually mentioned (and cited from NYT) in Jade already. There's also an article on Nephrite (sounds like kidney fat, doesn't it); and "White jade" and "Yangzhi jade" are also common terms (e.g. The Telegraph which also mentions "Mutton fat jade") so they may deserve at least their own Redirects also. The sheep/mutton fat jade has plenty of possible sources e.g. Timeless Jade, China Briefing, White Jade Carvings at British Auctions, and helpful blogs (I know) like Mutton fat white jade. Possible actions would include rename to Mutton fat jade, or redirect to one of Jade, Nephrite or for that matter Chinese jade. Yeah, it's a bit of a muddle already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Nephrite that Egyptian chick? EEng (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This kind of looks like a content fork. My accidental neologism, do you mean this may be a translation error? Roodog2k (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I do, but I wasn't going to be so unkind as to say so, given the likely input from non-native speakers. And you're probably right about the content fork. I think a set of redirects (MFJ -> Nephrite, WJ ditto) could sort this out nicely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Redirect: Rename to Mutton fat jade, which is a widely-used term, and make that a Redirect to Nephrite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:59, 6 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, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here worth saving; the topic is already well-covered in numerous articles about jade, as noted above. In particular, the contents of this article duplicates that in Ancient Old Jade (which badly needs editing, but that's not an AfD issue). No redirect is needed. -- 202.124.75.87 (talk) 12:38, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- This is a very specific noun — a definite thing. There seem to be a massive number of hits for "Sheep-Fat-Oily White Mutton Jade." It's over my head, but I'm solidly convinced that this is any encyclopedic topic, regardless of the limitations of this particular article. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Whoops, IP202 is on it, this is a fork of Ancient Old Jade, which includes a section on sheep-fat-oily white jade. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the catch, though: it didn't until this set of edits. Promotion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One editor desperately trying to introduce fringe material to wikipedia any way he can? Hands up if you've seen that pattern before...redirect this and remove the information added to Ancient Old Jade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:30, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProElite: Big Guns

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

This is a non-notable event. It has no long term significance and the sources are routine sports reporting.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Talk Page there is a tag for a previous AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProElite 1 (event). The name is slightly different so I don't know if the scope of the article is the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. This event was also known as ProElite 2, but the link on the talk page was to ProElite 1. Jakejr (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK that helps. So the consensus on ProElite 1 was Keep - is ProElite 2 less notable?Peter Rehse (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote in that AfD, but I would have voted delete on ProElite 1 as well. ProElite 3 was later deleted as non-notable. I looked at the AfD for ProElite 1 and I see that many of those who voted keep were later blocked (The Bachmann Editor Overdrive, Temporary for Bonaparte, BigzMMA), so I think this needs to be decided with a fresh look by unblocked editors. I think the issues arguing for deletion are WP:EVENT/WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Jakejr (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how this one plays out and if delete revisit ProElite 1.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This event fails both WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. This is just another fight card for a second tier MMA organization. Papaursa (talk) 20:19, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cited WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT at the previous AfD and nothing has changed. Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 25 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. v/r - T P 18:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Ponte

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

There is some debate if we should have an article on this fellow. I declined a speedy and a PROD, but given the desire for deletion I thought I'd put it up at AfD.

A news search would seem to indicate that he meets WP:N but it's not clear he meets WP:CRIME. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ponte does not meet WP:CRIME, he is only known for owning a carting company. --Vic49 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Significant coverage: NY Daily News, NY Times
- Less significant but non-trivial coverage: NY Daily News (again), Forgotten NY, CNN, NYmag.
I'd say he meets WP:N. I'm less sure of WP:CRIME. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your references same the same thing "Ponte was in the carting industry". You say he meets WP:N under what criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people)? --Vic49 (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:N simply requires multiple reliable and independent sources that have a reasonable degree of detail. That bar is easily met here. There is a significant amount of reporting on the subject (as shown above). Hobit (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ponte did own the largest carting company in NYC, which was involved in a well publicized battle with outside competitors. However, there is very little source information on Ponte's individual role in all this. He might have been a front man for someone else. Don't think he meets the notability or crime criteria. 74.69.41.13 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But he does seem to meet WP:N, yes? Hobit (talk) 01:12, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:CRIME and not notable. - DonCalo (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still vote Delete --Vic49 (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt a vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable criminal. The references cited above are quite sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with user DGG. references are sufficient and reliable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 28 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} 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgos Loizou

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY case of WP:TOOSOON as he has yet to make a 1st team apperance.Seasider91 (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – oh, those Cypriot youngsters again... no significant coverage and no appearances in a fully professional league make the article fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY respectively. – Kosm1 fent 13:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be a good goalkeeper in future but right now this article has WP:CBALL problems. --Artene50 (talk) 18:48, 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 merge to Belgian Post Group. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certipost

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Did a news search, and nothing but but press releases and trivial mentions Hu12 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N with no independent reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Belgian Post Group, of which it is a subsidiary. Not really appropriate for a separate article, but no argument is given against including some information in the main article. . DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 28 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} 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Belgian Post Group. Material is appearing in books, and there is more material in Google News archive. Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com is IMO an especially reliable source, and reports on this topic here. This article provides in-depth analysis of one of the company's products and also gives independent non-trivial attention to the company. However the current article is not useful as a standalone article. No prejudice to recreation of the standalone article when there is enough encyclopedic material to warrant a standalone article. Unscintillating (talk) 13:52, 1 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 merge to Balochistan conflict. Redirect afterwards — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nazir Ahmed Marri

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

Apparantly, this is an article about a murder victim from an incident that took place yesterday. However, I cannot fine independent, reliable sources (i.e. only news sites that contain malware and an article on the website affiliated with the group that claims the victim was affiliated with their group). There is also a potential WP:BIO1E issue here as well. Singularity42 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to merge to Balochistan conflict/Fifth Conflict -- per BIO1E. That article might need to spin off a Fifth Conflict in Balochistan sub article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:53, 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} 02:41, 28 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, BusterD (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent notability not established. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:21, 6 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see independent notability confirmed by sources. Merge to Balochistan conflict.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 13 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Lips

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

I closed the first AFD as "delete" and was about to ring this up as a G4. However, the first AFD did not have a lot of participation. One bolded "delete" !vote and one comment leaning toward deletion. I'm hoping for a stronger consensus this time. The nominator's rationale at the first AFD still stands. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBAND--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still WP:TOOSOON. They haven't quite "arrived" yet. DarkAudit (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Guardian and BBC, and mainly Chorley Guardian give us enough for a well-sourced stub, and let's face it, it's very likely that more coverage will appear to allow it to be expanded, given that Sony will be pushing them in the media when the album's close to release. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was rightly deleted in the last discussion, but that Guardian article has appeared since then and I think that's enough to tip the scales. I think the article could do with stripping down as some of the sources used are inappropriate, but I'm sure more coverage will be appear in the future. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet to release their debut album, but played regularly on a national radio station, and a few bits of independent coverage already out there. I reckon this just about meets WP:BAND now. — sparklism ^hey! 13:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sparklism; just enough coverage now to meet WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 07:16, 26 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.