Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 September	1 October >

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. Courcelles 02:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JaxEdit

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

delete, appears to be non notable software/programming. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete unsourced online editor - just another web site. noq (talk) 15:10, 28 December 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT at this time. Gong show 02:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources about the topic. Fails general notability guideline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, also, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject does not meet notability criteria. Have placed welcome note on talk page to give help, as creator's account has been dormant 2 years.—Baldy Bill (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn gwickwire | Leave a message 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Colonies

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

Seems it would be better merged into Thirteen Colonies or another article, instead of seperating them like this. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Middle Colonies" is the term of choice by historians for 100+ years. The Middle colonies are grouped together because of similarity and they differ sharply from the New England and Southern colonies in terms of culture, politics, economics & slavery. For details on this see Wayne Bodle, "Themes and Directions in Middles Colonies Historiography, 1980-1994," William and Mary Quarterly, July 1994, Vol. 51 Issue 3, pp 355-88 in JSTOR and Douglas Greenberg, "The Middle Colonies in Recent American Historiography," William and Mary Quarterly, July 1979, Vol. 36 Issue 3, pp 396-427 in JSTOR Rjensen (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides good information on an area with shared history, geography, economy, etc; Thirteen Colonies doesn't provide this information, and merging this and the comparable articles New England Colonies and Southern Colonies into Thirteen Colonies would make it very large. Having a hierarchical structure where Thirteen Colonies links to this and this links to the individual colonies allows people to explore the topic at different levels of detail. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out above, the Middle Colonies are covered as a distinct grouping in books and journals; also see this as an example of this being the topic for an entire book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn after further review by self. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn gwickwire | Leave a message 23:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Colonies

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

Duplicates an existing topic, could be merged gwickwire | Leave a message 22:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that a page has been vandalized is no reason to delete it. That would be like tearing down one's house because a passing stranger threw trash on the lawn. Anyway, the southern colonies among the Thirteen Colonies are recognized as a distinct topic of interest by scholars. See [1] for evidence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fixed the nom to take out the vandalism part, and added something I forgot about merging it into the Thirteen Colonies article. In my opinion, I feel like having a short article on the 13 colonies, then larger articles about each of the sections, is not the best way to do it. I feel that we should either make each colony have its own individual page and find more information, or include them all in one page. It seems overboard to make this many pages with only links to others (13 colonies page linking to the page on southern, etc.). gwickwire | Leave a message 23:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a notable topic. As with the Middle Colonies, this distinct grouping has coverage in reliable sources. See [2], [3], and [4] as a small set of examples. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I see the points of the persons commenting on this and the AfD for Middle Colonies. Therefore, I am withdrawing both nominations.

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double stomp

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

This subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Prod removed without substantial improvement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, no notability, no verifiability. Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to locate any sources which indicate this is a term in common usage. Zujua (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO; no coverage found in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 20:40, 2 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 5. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CU note: Unsurprisingly, the accounts ArkRe and 03SadOnions (article creator) very possibly belong to the same person, who very possibly was also the source of the extensive sock comments at original AfD and DRV. Amalthea 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough independent sources to pass the notability guidelines. The creator has been interviewed twice (by PC Powerplay and Digitally Download, which admittedly may or may not be reliable, though there's no evidence that it's self published, at least) and the game has been covered in at least two major print publications - a version was included on the cover disc of the December 2009 issue of PC Powerplay, and I also believe that the game was also briefly commented on in PC Gamer (October 2011), in an article about RPG Maker ("Level up: the best games made with RPG Maker") that listed this and a few other games - though I don't have access to this article and cannot verify this, though I remember the game's creator mentioning it in an update. There could be even more coverage to come soon, as the creator announced a sequel is on the way that is intended for commercial release, which will probably bring more attention to this game in the gaming community. Article is well written and doesn't seem to be doing any harm at the moment, so why not just wait and see what happens? ArkRe (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is that really enough to pass the WP:GNG though? To summarize your stance, you've given 2 sources that you're not sure if they are reliable sources, and one sources that gives it a passing mention. Is that really significant coverage? I'm still neutral on this one, I'm just trying to understand the argument. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was in a rush to type out my argument and I may have made some things sound ambiguous. I wasn't questioning whether PC Powerplay was reliable - it's the leading PC gaming magazine in Australia and New Zealand - I was merely saying that I personally was not sure if Digitally Downloaded is reliable. As for the mention of the game PC Gamer, unless I am mistaken (as although I don't have access to it, the RPG Maker community did a little news feature on it when the article came out as it covered quite a few notable RPGM games) it was more than a passing mention - there was a paragraph summarising the premise of each game and providing some choice comments about its gameplay. The comments I made about the game's popularity in the community and the upcoming sequel were intended to try and back up my keep !vote by pointing out that this game has somewhat of a following in the RPG Maker community, and the Notability guidelines also lists having a cult following as an indicator of notability. I'm not sure if it counts in this case, but Legionwood is indeed one of the most popular free games to come out of that community - so much so that the creator is releasing the sequel commercially and is fully supported by his fanbase. I hope this comment's made my argument a little clearer. ArkRe (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please semi-protect this AfD so as to avoid the sockpuppet problems we had with the last one.—S Marshall T/C 06:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Done. T. Canens (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2012 (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) 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After mulling it over for a while I'm inclined towards weak keep. This is very borderline on notability but for me, the PC Powerplay stuff just carries it over the bar. I mean, including it on a coverdisk plus interviewing the creator is worth something even if it isn't strictly speaking a secondary source. I can't agree with Sergecross73 that PC Powerplay is in any way unreliable and I don't believe ArkRe intended to question its reliability (unclear though his grammar might have been). Digitally Downloaded is a (very) small-press e-zine. It does have editorial oversight, from a named editor, and is editorially independent from its subject. Therefore it does not contravene anything in WP:RS. I have to say that these sources are not thrilling ones and I wouldn't personally choose to base an article on them, but I'm not seeing sufficient grounds for deletion now the article's here.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The PC Powerplay article isn't just an interview with the creator. There's also a half-page long "preview" of the game that reads much like a traditional review (I believe this is referenced in the article under "Critical Reception"). Also, when I checked on Digitally Downloaded's site, I wasn't actually able to access the "About Us" page, for some reason, hence my concerns as to its reliability. If there is clear evidence of editorial oversight however, that's enough to satisfy me that it's reliable. ArkRe (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't personally questioning PC PowerPlay's notability, I had thought ArkRe was with the way he worded that, but I now see that's not what was intended. I'm unfamiliar with the source, so if you guys think it's reliable, I'm not opposing it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 17 September 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)} 05:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article attracks problems, article details well beyond purported reliable sources, article includes non Wikipedia reliable sources. We don't need such a problem, especially one where there is not enought reilable sources to meet WP:GNG. I didn't find any reliable sources on Robert Grixti, Legionwood, or Tale of the Two Swords. (other than American LegionWood Bat Baseball League)[5] Where is the reliable source that supports the statement in the article, "This early release of the game was included on a cover disc with the December 2008 issue of Australian magazine PC Powerplay"? If no reliable source writes about such a fact, then that fact doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, even if original research shows it true, and it certainly doesn't go towards meeting WP:GNG. The things said in an interview by those connected to the topic is not independent of the topic and doesn't count towards meeting GNG either. What the interview says may count towards GNG, but that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote from me, but the passage that you quote above is indeed referenced (it was a print magazine and if you look in the reference list, it is clearly there). I don't want to take part in this AfD for fear of problems (I don't care either way what happens to the article, to be honest I havent played the game) but I thought it was fair to point out that you seemed to overlook a reference that is actually properly listed and cited. The PC Powerplay magazine itself is cited. Also, "Robert Grixti" isn't the creator of the game, the article lists "D. Robert Grixti" as the creator. Searching this (it appears the extra initial does make all the difference) does indeed bring up a considerable amount of coverage of him, mainly links to published works but nothing to do with this game. Just thought it was prudent to at least search for the creator by his proper name. Finally the detail of the article doesn't seem to go beyond reliable sources at all. The only uncited elements of the article are the gameplay and plot information, things that would be self-evident to someone who has played the game, I have never seen a Wikipedia article cite an external source to summarise the basic gameplay mechanics of an RPG for example or the basic premise of its plotline - the development and reception sections -- parts of the article that would NOT be evident from playing the game and would need to be cited -- ARE cited with external references RPGMakerMan (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And isn't "the article attracts problems" basically just amounting to an "i dont like it" argument. It isnt a good thing if the article attracts issues, but if it passes the neccesary criteria to exist then it should be considered on its own merits. RPGMakerMan (talk) 03:55, 30 September 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, Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see enough evidence of notability. Digitally Downloaded and RPGMaker.net aren't established as being reliable to support the page. PC Powerplay may have some merit, though I'm not sure of the editorial discretion used when The Bunker was opened to the community nor how significant the coverage was. The other references are first-party or do not contain significant coverage, and it's hard to say if it would meet the significant coverage threshold even if DD were considered reliable. —Ost (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced the sourcing establishes notability. For me, sourcing for notability is not simply an exercise in counting. I will not put the same weight to coverage in a small e-zine as I would for coverage in PC Powerplay. AS such, I do think that the coverage is sufficient to meet notability. - Whpq (talk) 16:31, 3 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gordon (magician)

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

Article about a published magician who does not seem to meet the qualifications for either WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:AUTHOR. Nothing directly evident on Google, GNews, etc., that would qualify for presumption of notability under WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 29 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find any online news coverage about Gordon. Only Magic Week seems to have reviewed his (self published?) book. Insufficient proof he's a notable magician or author. Sionk (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator, this gentleman doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:AUTHOR. I'm pretty sure publishing your own books by starting a publishing company meets the presumption of non-notability in WP:NBOOKS. As well, the only cite (dubious whether this is a reliable source) contains this phrase: "Hefty slices are concerned with Paul Gordon publicity…" which suggests to me why this article may have been created. Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:40, 1 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ContactDB

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

I don't really see anything that makes this company notable. The article is vaguely promotional in tone and I can't find any substantial coverage of the company. Ducknish (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:44, 29 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two references that the article currently provides never mention ContactDB and Google News found one mention here. It's not surprising that I found few results, considering that they are a mailing list company and this line of work wouldn't receive any significant news coverage or sources. To help broaden my Google News search, I added "Callbox" and "2004" but failed to find additional sources. Additionally, the article reads like an advertisement, focusing with promotional and unreferenced statements such as "The company is known to provide targeted contact databases" (known by who?). SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 1 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Madhuban 90.4 FM

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

No indication of WP:notability Volunteer run local radio station, no independent WP:reliable sources. Google not showing anything significant - lots of youtube and facebook but not much more noq (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only found one possibly reliable source, which spends about two paragraphs on the economic plight of the station. I found no RS coverage to verify "a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming". (WP:BCAST) Do you think a redirect to Mount Abu would be a better option? Braincricket (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lack of sources. SalHamton (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 October 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. This can be undeleted if suitable sources can be found. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huvrat ehl echeik

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

I'm not sure about this one, but I can't find any reliable sources to establish the existence of, or any information about, this settlement. An editor keeps reduplicating the article at various romanizations of the Arabic name, with no sources and with a number of "facts" about this supposed place that are belied by the sources cited and are unverifiable in any sources that I can find. The place is named—as Houvratt ehl echeikh and other variations of the name—on some Panoramio pages of photographs, but I can't find any reliable sources, independent of WP itself, that would allow the article to satisfy WP:V, nor can I find the place labeled on any online maps. The place may in fact exist; but without sources, there's no way to determine anything that would allow one to write a credible article about it. See also WP:ANI#Competence problem? Deor (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on ANI pointed out [6]. The Google satellite photo does show a bunch of spread-out houses there, consistent with the pictures on the ground. No idea what the name is. There is an article on it in the Arabic Wikipedia, FWTW. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mentioned the Panoramio photographs in my nomination. But they aren't reliable sources of information about a location, are they? And as I pointed out at ANI, the Arabic WP article was created by the same editor that's been posting multiple articles here. Deor (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a google satellite photo at that location. Except for not showing a name, it is reliable, I think. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the content of the article such as this one consists almost entirely of the name and location, and we cannot even verify the name, that seems highly problematic all around. we have evidence of a cluster of houses, and thats about it.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gooing to google maps and shifting the view a bit (the coords in this wiki article are off to the east), I found more pictures [7] The place is apparently also know as "EL houvra". Tijfo098 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings seem to be just outlying buildings of Guerou. Mapping in this part of Africa is extremely poor; the Google satellite view is reliable but no map overlay (ie. placenames, roads) should be trusted as a basis for an encyclopædia article and they certainly don't demonstrate notability. I would go so far as to say that the Panoramio photos were probably created by the same person who wrote the article under discussion here (compare the photo timestamps to the editor's contribs). bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that this place passes the WP:GNG or that there is any way to build it into an encyclopaedia article. To do that, we need sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikimapia the place is listed as حفرت أهل الشيـــــــــــــــخ (Coordinates: 16°49'21"N 11°46'47"W) and is distinct from the Guerou town. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; somebody on the internet has marked off a square kilometre of scrub to the east of Guerou and called it حفرت أهل الشيـــــــــــــــخ (rather than حفرة أهل الشيـــــــــــــــخ). Somebody who last logged into wikimapia at a time when محمد1992 was editing here. bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this will be my last comment, as I'm not really trying to press a deletion here (other than because there are no sources), but that marking of the supposed place on Wikimapia was definitely not there yesterday. Make of that what you will. Deor (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken about who edited Wikimapia on that [8]. It was a month ago, not a day ago. And it was edited by "wolfg"

User level: 6 Experience points: 1120756 (next level on 1500000) Rank: 277 Real name: Wolfgang Sex: male Spoken language(s): French, English, German About: An other time you found here only my love letter "remember wad ad dahab", but I will add: Please send me a message if I was wrong! S'il vous plaît envoyez-moi un message si je me trompais! المرجو ترك رسالتكم إذا كنت مخطئا! Registered since May 29, 2011

Make of that what you will. He doesn't look to me like the uncommunicative and clumsy Wikipedia editor who started this stub. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking at the wikimapia satellite photos (which are of much higher quality than google's in this case), I think Bobrayner is correct. There are (unnamed) clumps of houses from this alleged village all the way to the Guerou town proper. It's probable that the town has expanded eastward along the N3 road, in more or less haphazard fashion. It's entirely possible that the name is used by the locals (two different panoramino users posted similar names for their pictures), but I have doubts this is officially a village in Mauritania. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently "El Houvra" is a common enough name for a banlieue in Mauritania. There is another one with same name in Chinguetti [9]. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 1 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mushindo Kempo

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

This is an article with no independent sources about a made up martial art with no indications of notability. All the article says is that this art was created--I'd have put it up for CSD but I didn't think it fit any of the categories (people, organizations, etc.). Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be deleted because there is no independent verification of Mushindo Kempo other than that created by Terry Dukes/Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio, and several reliable sources suggesting that the martial art is (a) invented and (b) not notable. Wushinbo (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage by third party sources. No real evidence that is passes WP:MANOTE. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is a one line article with no independent sources. There's nothing to show notability in the article and my search didn't find anything. Mdtemp (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Ditto. No indication of any notability beyond one man's fantasy.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:21, 7 October 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 Speedy Delete G11. Anbu121 (talk me) 08:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoona

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

I am unable to comprehend what this is. Looks too much Original research and a bit promotional. Anbu121 (talk me) 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concept is new, but I don't think the page represents research at all.

I really loved the article. The concept looks new and very interesting. The page looks well written and has a lot of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttaron123 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a researcher in decision making. The idea of using crowd sourcing is new. I can add another reference for a paper tat is about to be published in December 2012. Wikipedia should be the forum for new ideas. Otherwise it will be dated. Keeney RL (2012) Value-focused brainstorming. Decision Anal. 9(4) pages TBD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.198.172 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 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 Newry#Education. There is consensus for a redirect, but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, primary schools outside of North America are usually redirected to the lowest-level locality, which in this case is Newry. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Colman's Primary School, Saval

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

Stub-sized article about small primary school with no notable feature. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Southern Education and Library Board - primary schools are not generally notable enough for a stand-alone article, and I see no evidence that this one meets the notability criteria. A redirect to the SELB would seem to be the most suitable option. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, not delete, and add the {{R from school }} template to the redirect) to Southern Education and Library Board ensuring it is listed there. Per standard practice for nn schools: (WP:OUTCOMES#Schools). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 6 October 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 Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Management in Bhagavad Gita

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

Unencyclopedic essay; an earlier prod was removed by the creator. This has the appearance of a copy&paste, but I don't think it is -- I think it was constructed by copying material from several web pages and reorganizing it -- some sentences at least are reproduced nearly verbatim though. The main point, however, is that this is not encyclopedic and can't be made encyclopedic without being rewritten from scratch. The topic may form the basis of a valid article, but it wouldn't have any resemblance to this one. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is not a close paraphrase of other sources (although one of the links didn't work for me, so I can't verify this), then it is original research. It seems to me that even if the subject were to be notable, this would need to be rewritten from scratch, as mentioned in the nomination. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can't give the reasons better that Looie496 and Phantomsteve have. I don't think it's a copy & paste, because of the statements of the author, but I do think it's NN and OR. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete copyvio. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:34, 2 October 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 Nicole Scherzinger discography#Singles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puakenikeni

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

Non-notable release per WP:NMUSIC. The only chart included (which would be the saving grace) is disallowed per WP:BADCHARTS. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC, not really notable. When searching for sources, I found one from Entertainment Weekly and another from AceShowbiz, that's all, but doesn't prove its notably though. Disallowed per WP:BADCHARTS. TBr and ley 15:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicole Scherzinger discography#Singles. Doesn't merit a standalone article, but is a potential search term that should redirect somewhere useful. --Michig (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nicole Scherzinger discography#Singles per WP:NSONGS and Michig. Cliff Smith 21:15, 6 October 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 Nicole Scherzinger discography#Singles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supervillain (song)

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

Non-notable release per WP:NMUSIC. The only chart included (which would be the saving grace) is disallowed per WP:BADCHARTS. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nicole Scherzinger discography#Singles. Doesn't merit a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nicole Scherzinger discography#Singles per WP:NSONGS. This does not warrant a stand-alone article, but is a potential search term. Cliff Smith 21:27, 6 October 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoolStreaming

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

Non-notable streaming research project, apparently based out of cse.ust.hk. All the references, in the English and Italian articles and all the references in google appear to be written by people associated with cse.ust.hk or commercial operations using this trademark. No evidence of independent coverage. Lots of the non-independent links talk about it being in 'beta' so it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, per [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and several dozens of additional sources. None of these sources is affiliated to the software's creators, and none of these sources talks about it being in 'beta'. Cavarrone (talk) 08:00, 17 September 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)} 14:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 13:51, 30 September 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 Tanka in English. The general consensus is that the sources presented in this discussion are not suitable to prove the notability of tanka prose. They either don't have significant coverage of it, don't pass WP:RS, are primary sources, or are not independent of Woodward and the other authors mentioned. There is wide agreement that the topic as it is does not warrant a stand-alone article, but it is less clear whether the page should be deleted outright. I see no clear agreement on either whether the page should be merged somewhere or deleted, or on where the best merge/redirect target would be.

I am closing as "redirect" because it seems a reasonable compromise between the desire to preserve the content expressed by the merge !voters, and the concerns expressed over the sourcing by the delete !voters. Content from the history may be merged into other articles, but extra care should be taken that any merges satisfy WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:PRIMARY. I have chosen to redirect the article to Tanka in English, as to me that seemed the most suitable of the merge targets suggested. However, this is not intended as a final decision, and editors may choose a different target if they think it is more appropriate. If there is any disagreement about the target, or if any editors think that the redirect should be deleted altogether, a new discussion can be opened at WP:RFD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanka prose

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

Article discusses an obscure neologism without citing any reliable sources. It was apparently created to promote said neologism. Does not meet WP:N. Describes an obscure modern poetry form/movement, and all the sources cited are primary sources, written by members of the small, apparently non-notable movement in question. Article itself fails to establish the notability of its subject-matter, and since it only cites primary sources is apparently original research. Appears to have been substantially edited by only one user. Said user, when repeatedly prompted, refused to cite reliable, secondary sources, but has admitted elsewhere that it is unlikely any such sources exist. I have tried extensively to discuss this issue on the article talk page with said user, but have only met with personal attacks. The minor literary movement described in the article clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability, and even the primary sources it cites are poorly-researched and make ridiculous claims that the movement has existed since eighth-century Japan. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- While only peripherally related to the above AfD nomination, I need to point out that I put a proposed deletion tag on the page yesterday, and the user responsible for the page deleted it. Said user then posted a comment [18] on the talk page, not addressing the core issue of the lack of sources, but instead attacking me personally. Said user mentioned a dispute over content, but this dispute is already over and is entirely irrelevant to the proposed deletion. It concerned this user's repeated attempts to include ridiculous theories about ancient Japanese literature in the page. Since the page is original research, and discusses a topic for which no reliable sources exist, the former dispute about content is irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is difficult for non-specialists to form a proper judgement on a literary issue such as this. Firstly it is clear that Tanka is a recognised form with plenty of reliable sources. Secondly, the references already in the article, and the existence of journals like Haibun Today make it clear that Tanka prose also exists to the extent that many learned articles can be written about it, and many pieces of it exist. Thirdly it is at once clear that both the Tanka prose article, and Tanka in English, are in need of considerable editing and wikifying. Fourthly, it is plain that there has been a dispute; please could everyone remember to remain civil. In this situation, without a great deal of study, the most I can say is that there is a prima facie case for an article on the subject; that many of the references seem to be appropriate; and that notability is at least close to being established. I would tend therefore to believe the article should be kept, though I'm happy to listen to further evidence, presented plainly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My concern is that the sources cited are not reliable, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They are not learned articles, and they discuss the term almost exclusively in relation to ancient Japanese literature, an area in which I am a specialist. The phrase "tanka prose" does not appear in any specialist literature on the subject, and I have already demonstrated how the sources cited are not reliable when it comes to Japanese literature. It appears etymologically closest to the term uta monogatari, which is why I initially moved that page there, but the user in question has insisted that it is closer to nikki bungaku. I think more evidence needs to be provided in order to justify this article's existence, and despite over three weeks of trying to locate or elicit reliable sources I have thus far been unsuccessful. It's most important, of course, to insure that no false information is put on Wikipedia, and the article in question was clearly created for that purpose [19]. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following observations are relevant to the proposed deletion of Tanka prose.

1) The article existed from 2008 until the present without significant alteration and without substantial objections being lodged toward its content or notability by anyone until done so by User Elvenscout742.

2) The article discusses a contemporary English-language literary form that is partly inspired by early Japanese literature but is independent of it; the writers of this form, by and large, are also practitioners of Tanka in English just as writers of Haibun, by and large, are also practitioners of Haiku in English.

3) Such articles as Haiku in English, Tanka in English and Haibun also discuss contemporary English-language literary forms partly inspired by Japanese literature but ultimately independent of it. Said articles cite as their sources, as does Tanka prose, items drawn predominately, if not exclusively, from the literary small press (whether print or online) and, in fact, they discuss some of the same authors as are discussed in Tanka prose. The user who has submitted this request for deletion has worked likewise on at least two of these same articles (Tanka in English and Haibun) without lodging any objection on their Talk Pages or elsewhere as to the notability of said subjects and without asserting that they represent original research; this latter circumstance suggests the application of a separate standard, by User Elvenscout742, for the article Tanka prose.

4) User Elvenscout742’s claim that the article “appears to have been substantially edited by only one user,” were it true, would be irrelevant to the issue at hand but this same user’s active editing role on the article, over the past few weeks, contradicts his own representation. To reconstruct the history of these edits, however, one would have to review the edit summaries of not only Tanka prose but of Uta monogatari as well. User Elvenscout742 redirected the original Tanka prose page to Uta monogatari on or about Sept 12 and the history of the edits for the original Tanka prose article, 2008 to present, are archived therein.

5) The judgments offered by User Elvenscout742, as regards the literary form and/or movement of Tanka prose in his proposal for deletion above, are apparently offered with bias, their goal being to discredit the article by painting the associated form/movement as “obscure,” “small,” “non-notable” and “minor.” User Elvenscout742 does not offer any insight into how he arrived at these conclusions and, indeed, elsewhere has not disguised his antipathy for the subject or for its participants. That no writer of tanka prose appears on the New York Times Bestseller List is conceded but the same might be said of English-language writers of haiku, of tanka, of haibun, of gogyoshi and, indeed, of writers of many other contemporary literary forms that have Wikipedia articles.

6) User Elvenscout742’s characterization of the term “tanka prose” as an “obscure neologism,” like his claims about the literary phenomenon it describes, reflects his personal opinion and nothing more. The term is clearly defined in the sources that the article cites and in the article in question. Critics and artists often coin new terms to discuss new literary phenomena; that a term is a “neologism” should not alone disqualify it from Wikipedia, particularly when the nomenclature, as in this case, has acceptance within the English-language tanka community. This term, which User Elvenscout742 elsewhere has described as “inherently oxymoronic,” parallels various well-known literary terms in construction, e.g., “prose poem,” “sanbunshi,” “haiku prose” or “haiku story” (see the writings of the Welsh poet Ken Jones), or “waka-prose complex” (see Jin’ichi Konishi, A History of Japanese Literature, Volume 2, p. 258). User Elvenscout742 redirected the original Tanka prose to his rewrite of the page as Uta monogatari; the same user translates “uta monogatari,” accurately enough, as “poem-tale”—an oxymoron whose construction mirrors that of “tanka prose.”

7) User Elvenscout742’s assertion that “when repeatedly prompted” this user “refused to cite reliable, secondary sources” is patently false. His request for sources touched upon that portion of the original article and of the rewrite that discussed the Japanese literary background. In the revised article here, citations from scholarly sources were provided for every summary offered of the Japanese background. However, User Elvenscout742, who admits that he has yet to consult any of these sources, promptly deleted the material in question and did so merely upon his imputing bad faith here to this user.

8) As evidence of User Elvenscout742’s idea of what it means to “request sources” from a fellow editor, I offer his entry here where he offers a laborious list of scholary and literary sources and concludes somewhat triumphantly: I have cited better-known and more widely available books written (or translated with introduction and notes) by both Konishi and McCullough, and no one has demonstrated that either of these authors have ever used the phrase "tanka prose" in their writings. Any more questions?

I offer two observations on the above. First, neither the article under discussion here nor the sources it cites claim that the term “tanka prose” was ever employed by ancient Japanese poets or by modern scholars of Japanese literature; the term refers to the contemporary English phenomena and so User Elvenscout742’s supposed debunking proves nothing, unless it can be said to demonstrate his inability or unwillingness to read with comprehension and without prejudice the subject article and its cited sources. Furthermore, while “tanka prose” may be fairly characterized as anachronistic when speaking of ancient and medieval Japanese literature, so too may such modern Japanese scholarly nomenclature as nikki bungaku or zuihitsu, concepts unknown to the early poets. Second, I wish to highlight the sneering rhetorical flourish of User Elvenscout742’s conclusion, “Any more questions?,” which is inconsistent with the civility due a fellow editor but rather carries the tone of a patrician addressing his menial. I draw attention to this because User Elvenscout742 alludes in his proposal above to the personal attacks that he believes he has been subject to.

9) User Elvenscout742, as late as Sept 26, was offering this user a compromise which would retain the current page that he now seeks to delete. In doing so, he did not raise the questions of notability or of original research that he now raises. It is fair to infer therefore, despite User Elvenscout742’s denials in his Comment above, that the fundamental problem is one regarding a dispute over content. This user on two occasions asked for time to review User Elvenscout742’s proposed compromise but, in each instance, before he could do so, User Elvenscout742 posted further demands and personal attacks.

10) The body of the article, as originally posted, numbered less than 700 words. I’ve been compelled, by User Elvenscout742’s innumerable postings on the Talk Pages of Uta monogatari and Tanka prose and by his countless edits, to devote several thousand words to this article’s defense in the past few weeks. His criticisms and objections are frequently shifting. This dialogue, if it may be so called, has been largely uninstructive and has become a hindrance to participation here nor do I believe that it represents the spirit of cooperation that is supposed to be a standard at Wikipedia.Tristan noir (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 1) That the article existed since 2008 is irrelevant, since your version of it from that time up until last month claimed to be about classical Japanese literature, and thus eluded deletion as a non-notable poetic movement for a long time. Your personal attack against me is irrelevant -- I removed your false claims to "tanka prose" existing in ancient Japan from the article, and you have tried to reinstate them several times in order to justify this article's existence.

2) Your views on what "tanka prose" means are irrelevant to this discussion, as you have thus far failed to add any reliable sources to justify the existence of the article. I have already pointed out that, unlike haibun, "tanka prose" has no Japanese equivalent and is inaccurate/oxymoronic as a term. The content of the haibun article may or may not be inappropriate, but references that justify the article's inclusion in Wikipedia do exist; such an argument has no place here, though.

3) Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for a discussion of why your above argument is invalid. The article at Tanka in English was started recently by me, mainly to keep material on modern English "tanka" from overrunning an article on Japanese literature, which it has almost nothing to do with. Haiku in English, whether or not reliable sources are already cited, has been discussed extensively in reliable, academic sources (one that happens to come to mind would be the chapter on haiku in Gideon Toury's 1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond). That Haibun is comparable to your "tanka prose" is ridiculous -- the former term has existed in Japanese academic circles for centuries, and there is no reasonable argument for the article's deletion.

4) The article, two days after you started it (during which time the only other edit was by a bot to remove a link you had inserted), was 4 paragraphs long [20]. The article immediately before I removed contentious information and moved the page was 5 paragraphs long [21]. The latter paragraph was a copyedit by one user [22]. Every other edit by a user other than you was, in terms of overall article content, minor.

5) Please refrain from making personal attacks and ad hominem arguments here. The sources you have cited are non-notable, and most of them contain ridiculous claims about ancient Japanese origin.

6) The term is a neologism. It has never appeared outside of the obscure sources you cite. You have demonstrated elsewhere that you do not understand Japanese -- the term uta monogatari is the closest Japanese equivalent to your "tanka prose", as uta is synonymous with tanka and monogatari is the most prominent classical Japanese word for a prose narrative. The fact that uta monogatari do not exclusively feature "tanka", per se, is irrelevant, as both your article and your sources include the Kojiki and the Man'yōshū under this blanket term, which is inaccurate given the content of those works (tanka is one of the numerous genres of poetry appearing in both).

7) The sources you cited were taken out of context. They do not use the phrase "tanka prose" once. I asked you several times ([23] [24] [25] [26]) to cite reliable sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose" in relation to classical Japanese literature, or refrain from discussing classical Japanese literature out-of-context. You ignored me each time, instead making repeated personal attacks, and continuing to cite irrelevant sources.

8) You used weasel words in your article, so as to very strongly imply that these reliable sources used the phrase "tanka prose" in reference to classical Japanese literature. You did this in clear violation of our previous compromise. I also need to point out here that I proposed a compromise with you so that I could clear Wikipedia of ridiculous claims about my area of expertise, and you and I could go on editing without interrupting each other. I did not, however, admit at any time that "tanka prose" merited a Wikipedia article. I just didn't want to get involved in a dispute. Your use of the word "sneering" in reference to my comment is an uncivil personal attack, and your comment is entirely irrelevant to this deletion debate. You have made similar irrelevant comments throughout our previous disputes. My criticizing your edits to an article, and pointing out specific inaccuracies in the sources you cite, are not personal attacks. Neither is my citing of valid, reliable, academic sources. Your consistently ignoring the substance of my comments to make ad hominem attacks, however, is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, and is irrelevant to the current discussion. [27] [28] [29] [30] Even if you consider my wording to be aggressive or uncivil (I have been restrained in my critiques, though, unlike you), at least I have consistently focused on article-content. Also, nikki bungaku and zuihitsu, regardless of their specific etymologies, are established terms used in hundreds or reliable sources on classical Japanese literature.

9) This is another irrelevant personal attack. As stated above, at the time I offered you the compromise (well over two weeks ago), I was not actually doing so because I believe your article has a place on Wikipedia. I was deliberately ignoring Wikipedia policy on notability and original research, so as to avoid a dispute. Your article on "tanka prose" does not belong on Wikipedia, but I wouldn't really care, if it didn't make ridiculous, bizarre claims about Japanese literature. [31]

10) Your ad hominem remark is duly noted. The overwhelmingly majority of your "thousands of words" have been irrelevant to the topic at hand, and have been based largely on ad hominem arguments and your opinion that I am uncivil. Last time you made any kind of substantial argument related to content was here, and that comment was riddled with mistakes and misrepresentations. Comments about how much personal effort one has put into an article or a debate are irrelevant, but I think it's safe to say that I have a better case than you do here, as well. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. AfD's in the end are simple, you just need ~~two~~ independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in a non-trivial manner. I went through all the sources and found the following:

Preminger, Alex and Brogan, T.V.F. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 981. I went to Amazon and did a "Look Inside" search and it came back with 0 hits for "Tanka prose". Am I missing something?
Woodward, Jeffrey, Ed. The Tanka Prose Anthology. Baltimore, MD: Modern English Tanka Press, 2008, pp. 13-14 - this is self-published on LuLu (can't link direct due to LuLu blacklist) and thus it fails WP:RS. The journal Modern English Tanka is also self-published.
"Tarlton, Charles" - published in Haibun Today which is a journal published by.. "Woodward, Jeffrey" (self-published), not a RS.
The article by "Everett, Claire" in Atlas Poetica is an interview with "Woodward, Jeffrey", who wrote the self-published material above.
"Lucky, Bob" in Atlas Poetica - Independent author, independent source (I believe). Discusses tanka prose and community in depth.
These two sources in the ref section: Santa Fe, Simply Haiku - they are both "Woodward, Jeffrey" articles. Simply Haiku is another interview with Woodward; Santa Fe is an edition with Woodward as guest editor.
Source by "Goldstein, Sanford" and "Smyth, Florida Watts". These books were published before the term Tanka prose existed or was in common use (I believe). It appears to be cites to poems the article is considering as Tanka prose, appears to be possible Original Research.
Sources by "Reichhold, Jane", "Kimmel, Larry" and "Ward, Linda Jeannette". These appear to be links to some poets but unclear if these sources use the term "Tanka prose" or more importantly establish the notability of the term with significant discussion of the term.

Based on the above, the "Lucky, Bob" Atlas Poetica article seems to be the strongest for AfD purposes. I'm concerned by the vast number of sources that come back to "Woodward, Jeffrey" in one way or another, who is a self-publisher, and the lack of academic sourcing. It has the appearance of an insular genre. That is OK but is it notable? If we discard all the Woodward-connected sources as being 1. self-published or 2. interviews (self-created content) or 3. guest editor (self-published), what is left is the "Lucky, Bob" article, which is not enough for a Keep. If however we keep some of the Woodward articles, such as the two interviews and the guest editor, it might be enough for a Weak Keep. My leaning is to Weak Delete because if you discard the Woodward-connected sources, there isn't much left, which is a sign of lack of notability beyond the publications of a single person. I did a cross-database search of over 50 commercial databases (JSTOR, newspaper archives, GALE records, etc..) and came up with 0 hits on Tanka prose. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Everett is the "Tanka Prose Editor" of Woodward's Haibun Today[32], if that means anything. Also, the publication that ran the interview in question was Atlas Poetica, which is self-published by D. Garrison. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preminger and Brogan are cited in reference to the unrelated term "prosimetra". Their not using the phrase "tanka prose" makes sense, since they also appear to predate the coining of the term. You're not missing anything. ;-)

Also, Lucky is not an independent source. Of the ten references he gives, six were written or edited by Woodward, two are interviews with Woodward, and one is written by Patricia Prime, one of the interviewers. The last one is an article in German that doesn't use the phrase "tanka prose" or the corresponding German "Tankaprosa" once. Except in the references -- because it cites the English Wikipedia article. In any case Lucky and most of his sources are published by Modern English Tanka Press, a self-published work by one D. Garrison. Even if Lucky himself is not personally linked with Woodward, he is hardly an independent source. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published? – I want to address User Green Cardamom’s comments about the article’s sources and, in particular, his/her determination that certain of the sources were “self-published.” I was surprised by this statement and so I reviewed WP:SPS to determine if “self-published,” within Wikipedia, had a meaning other than that of common acceptance. I did not find that it did, for the guideline there states: “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media ... are largely not acceptable.” The OED defines a self-published author as one who has “published their work independently and at their own expense.” If I turn to Self-publishing, I read that it “is the publication of any book or other media by the author of the work....” It would seem that WP:SPS, the OED and Self-publishing agree; all place emphasis upon an author paying to have his work published or upon an author, without intervention of a second party, printing his own work.

Green Cardamom wrote: “Woodward, Jeffrey, Ed. The Tanka Prose Anthology. Baltimore, MD: Modern English Tanka Press, 2008, pp. 13-14 - this is self-published on LuLu ...and thus it fails WP:RS. The journal Modern English Tanka is also self-published.” He/she (I’ll presume “he” for ease of future reference) is calling into question three items here: the two cited articles by Woodward and the anthology edited by the same author. He remarks that these works are “self-published on Lulu.” I’m not certain how this conclusion was arrived at but perhaps I can offer some clarifications. Lulu is a print on demand supplier, like Lightning Source, CreateSpace, Replica Books and various others. From Print on demand: (POD) “is a printing technology and business process in which new copies of a book (or other document) are not printed until an order has been received.... Many traditional small presses have replaced their traditional printing equipment with POD equipment or contract their printing out to POD service providers. Many academic publishers, including university presses, use POD services to maintain a large backlist…. Larger publishers may use POD in special circumstances, such as reprinting older titles that are out of print or for performing test marketing.” The point to be made here, however, is that use of a POD supplier cannot invariably be equated with self-publishing. Many literary, university and commercial houses now employ POD.

The Tanka Prose Anthology was published by MET Press of Baltimore. This is a small literary press owned and operated by Denis Garrison, a well-known educator and writer of haiku and tanka. The publisher is not a vanity press; his backlist includes titles by such widely-read poets as Michael McClintock, Alexis Rotella and James Tipton as well as works by professional translators of Japanese poetry (Sanford Goldstein and Amelia Fielden), and even a book by Japanese literary scholar Michael F. Marra. His list also includes various anthologies, The Tanka Prose Anthology among them. Denis Garrison was also editor and publisher of the quarterly journal Modern English Tanka (2006-2009). That journal, while printed via Lulu, was distributed, like MET books, via many channels and not solely through Lulu distribution.

The relevant point, however, is this. An author who successfully submits an essay or poem to a literary journal that is edited by a second party is not self-published unless such a journal were to stipulate that acceptance of that author’s work required payment of a fee (vanity publishing). The same can be said for a book mss. that is submitted to a small literary press; Author X, upon acceptance of his mss. by Publisher B, cannot be reasonably described as self-published unless, again, a fee is involved. Therefore, a proposal to discard, upon the grounds of self-publication, the two Woodward essays published in Modern English Tanka or the Tanka Prose Anthology as published by MET Press has no proper foundation. On the same grounds, designating the Tarlton essay or the Everett interview as self-published is objectionable; contributors to Haibun Today, Atlas Poetica or the other journals mentioned by Green Cardamom do not pay to have their works published; they submit them to a second party (editor) who is free to accept or reject the same.

I apologize for having to go on at such length about this matter. Some final minor points of clarification for Green Cardamom: 1) the citation from Preminger & Brogan is for the entry in the New Princeton to “prosimetrum,” i.e., any composition that combines prose and verse; 2) citations to Goldstein, Smyth, Reichhold, Kimmel and Ward were merely historical citations to direct the reader to earlier published examples of tanka prose; I felt it necessary to offer the references lest anyone accuse me of making up said poets and/or their writings.Tristan noir (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again I must point out to you that Goldstein and so on, just like the ancient Japanese sources you claim as "tanka prose", can only be called by that name on Wikipedia if they have been so-called in reliable secondary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response We've made progress. Tristan noir has established which sources (he believes) creates notability and which do not. An updated list follows, each source given a number.

(1) All Jeffrey Woodward sources. According to WP:NOTE: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
(2) Lucky, Bob (Editor). Atlas Poetica Special Feature: 25 Tanka Prose (July 2011) (the other Bob Lucky source is a Woodward source)
(3) Prime, Patricia. “Irresistible Constructions: a tanka prose essay,” Modern English Tanka V3, N1

Tristan noir, can you confirm? I could not find any more, most sources fall under Source (1) which is counted as a single source since they are all related to Woodward: interviews, journals, or articles by Woodward. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Confirmed, Green Cardamom, with the possible exception (or addition) of the Ingrid Kunschke item at TankaNetz. Though not cited in the article as it now stands, there are also independent book reviews of The Tanka Prose Anthology available in the English-language tanka & haiku press, e.g., one in Ribbons (the Tanka Society of America's journal), another in Simply Haiku, another, I believe, at the Haiku Oz site (Haiku Society of Australia), and perhaps others.Tristan noir (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Independent references to The Tanka Prose Anthology:

Nominated by Grace Cavalieri, host of public radio’s “The Poet and the Poem from The Library of Congress,” for Best Books for Winter Reading, 2008

Reviews of the anthology online:

1. J. Harpeng, Haiku Oz: The Australian Haiku Society (Oct. 14, 2008)

2. Robert Wilson, Simply Haiku V6, N4 (Winter 2008)

3. Jane Reichhold, Lynx XXIV:1 (Feb. 2009)

4. Ingrid Kunschke, TankaNetz (Oct. 2008)

Reviews of the anthology in print only:

5. Tony Beyer, Kokako 10 (NZ: April 2009), pp. 51-53

6. M. Kei, Ribbons: Tanka Society of America Journal V4, N4 (Winter 2008), pp. 44-47Tristan noir (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The unreliable, self-published material cited in this article having been reviewed in equally non-notable, self-published works does not prove that the subject is notable. The book itself having been nominated for an award does not make the book a reliable source of information. No one has claimed that the book itself does not exist -- I made it clear that I have read portions of it here. The problem is that the term existing in one author's works and the works of those closely attached to them, does not mean it should get its own Wikipedia article. Also, the fact that the article cited the book over two weeks before the book was published clearly indicates a conflict of interest. (The publisher's website, at /shop/jeffrey-woodward-ed/the-tanka-prose-anthology/paperback/product-3493914.html with lulu.com before it gives the date as 5 September 2008.) elvenscout742 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - those are "references" for the book. But this discussion is about Tanka prose, not The Tanka Prose Anthology (book). If you want to argue the book itself meets WP:NBOOK then you should have that discussion at WP:AFC, though I would point out that 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all blog-style self-published websites and might not be considered reliable sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Tristan, the problem with those reviews is they refer back to Woodward, they are not independently discussing tanka prose but simply review Woodward's book on it. The spirit of the Notability rule is that you need ~~two~~ multiple sources that are not from the same person, to avoid precisely this problem where a single prolific person is able to establish notability. That is why we have the rule for ~~two~~ multiple sources from different people. Those book reviews should group into Source (1) with the rest of Woodward, for notability purposes. I'll wait to hear your response before moving on, as we need to establish this concept. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Understood, Green Cardamom, and fair enough, though the independent reviews do indicate acceptance of the term “tanka prose” within the literary community in question, one point-of-contention here as is, unfortunately, the novel definition of self-publishing that seems to be a shared obsessive theme on the part of two of the participants in this discussion.Tristan noir (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response The above is a needless and irrelevant personal attack. The reviews do not show a prevalence of the phrase "tanka prose" in the literary community. At least one of them spells it "tanka-prose" (hyphenated), differing from Woodward's usage. And again, they only demonstrate the notability of the book, if even that -- they do not justify the terminology in the book. Also, no one has yet explained how the article in question cited a book by Woodward that had not been published yet. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yet another WP:SPA who, upon finally realising he has no valid argument, resorts to personal attacks. I'm shocked. It's such an original strategy - I've only seen it 148,976,254 times before! Ha ha. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respond Tristan noir. Ok I have your acceptance on that point so here is the updated list of four possible sources, ~~two~~ some number of which are needed to meet the notability guidelines:

(1) All Jeffrey Woodward sources (including book reviews). According to WP:NOTE: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
(2) Lucky, Bob (Editor). Atlas Poetica Special Feature: 25 Tanka Prose (July 2011) (the other Bob Lucky source is a Woodward source)
(3) Prime, Patricia. “Irresistible Constructions: a tanka prose essay,” Modern English Tanka V3, N1
(4) Ingrid Kunschke item at TankaNetz

According to WP:NOTE they need to be 1. "Significant coverage" 2. "Reliable" 3. "Secondary Sources" 4. "Independent of the subject" -- Can you confirm that there are no missing sources and you agree about the NOTE requirements? Basically it looks like we have a matrix of 16 decisions: 4 sources x 4 requirements. For example, referencing 4.4, it would be about Ingrid Kuschke's independence of the subject. So we can say that 4.4 is OK there is no problem there. 4.3 is OK, it is a secondary source. 4.2 - Contention since the source doesn't recognize tanka prose as a genre, just uses the words tanka and prose. 4.1 is probably OK. Would you agree with this assessment? Green Cardamom (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I understand & agree, Cardamom, about the NOTE requirements. Your assessment of the Kunschke item seems fair. You asked if there were other missing sources. I haven't been able to consult it yet but User Warden offered another source (see below), previously unknown to me, where he wrote: The paper A History of Tanka in English uses the phrase more than once, e.g. "journals devoted to tanka prose and haibun appeared in the early 21st century". That item also should be taken under consideration.Tristan noir (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's definition of a source, the publisher of a work counts as a source. By this definition, 1, 2 and 3 all coming from the same publisher (Garrison/METPress) could also affect their reliability. Prime and Woodward have clearly been in direct contact with each other on numerous occasions, given the interviews cited, and Lucky has written numerous times for this same publisher (Woodward is also his principle/only source). elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4.1 is also problematic, for the same reason as 4.2. The article discusses the genres of uta monogatari, nikki and tsukuri-monogatari (The Tale of Genji), all of which are notable, independent genres, and are discussed elsewhere on English Wikipedia. The article does not give significant coverage (any coverage, except a link to this Wikipedia article) to the tanka prose movement. Therefore, claiming the article is a discussion of "tanka prose" would be original research. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct the Contention is really centered on 4.1 .. if 4 is a reliable source or not almost doesn't matter since 4.1 is a problem. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key point to consider seems to be this: the article/argument in the article's defense has used external, apparently reliable sources, but these sources are general discussions of prosimetra, particularly classical Japanese prosimetra. They do not use the phrase "tanka prose" once, because it is a neologism apparently coined after the independent sources were published. There are, of course, hundreds of reliable sources that discuss Japanese prosimetra, such as uta monogatari and nikki, and I have pointed to them already. Discussion of these works does have a place in Wikipedia, but those places already exist in other articles. 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 and 3.3 all fail, it seems. The neologism "tanka prose" appears exclusively in a single source, being the publisher MET Press, apparently a non-academic, unreliable source that publishes through Lulu. I say they are non-academic, since they seem to routinely ignore the vast majority of Japanese scholarship. Their authors, in particular Woodward (who is still the only true source of information in the article), have a habit of making ridiculous gaffes in their discussion of "tanka prose in classical Japanese literature". I have listed just a few of them here. Keene (1999), Konishi (1993), as well as virtually all general works on classical Japanese poetry contradict Woodward and the other authors on numerous key points. The other "authors", though, all seem to get their information from Woodward. They all seem to ignore the etymology of the word tanka, which is an adjective-noun compound already, and has never been combined with other words to form longer compounds. The synonymous term uta has, but they are apparently not aware of this. There seems to be no significant editorial oversight to prevent errors such as these from creeping into MET Press's publications. MET Press only publishing through Lulu is explained by this -- it would be difficult for the works they produce to be published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, because of their tendency to make glaring errors, reliance on a single author-source (who also publishes through MET Press/Lulu) and tendency to dismiss legitimate historical scholarship in their coinage of new terms. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another point that I appear to have largely neglected up until now: Tristan noir claims that neither his article nor any of his sources claim tanka prose existed in ancient Japan. An examination of the editor's blurb for The Tanka Prose Anthology on Lulu's website clearly disproves the latter point: The Tanka Prose Anthology is vital evidence of the first flowering in English of an ancient Japanese genre [...] whether the time is contemporary and presently unfolding or archaic and retrospective, the revival of the ancient medium of tanka prose has proven equal to the immediate task. This first-of-its-kind collection draws upon the work of nineteen poets from eight different countries. The introduction offers a detailed survey of the genre’s history and of its evolving forms while an annotated bibliography directs the reader to related literature. Why is tanka prose so novel? Because it is so old. The introduction, which "offers a detailed survey of the genre's history", claims the Kojiki and the Man'yōshū as the earliest examples of tanka prose (Woodward 2008, p.10). The Kojiki is not a work of prose fiction -- it was written as a quasi-historical document/propaganda piece in favour of the imperial family's claim to absolute dominance of Japan, and quotes old folk songs from around the country to support its claims (from B.H. Chamberlain's translation of the Kojiki). The Man'yōshū, similarly, is not a unified work of prose fiction. It is a poetry anthology, containing poems composed over several centuries, and while its compilation remains mysterious, it was probably compiled by numerous people over several decades (from Keene, 1999). The original version of the article before I edited it clearly made similar claims [33], and Tristan noir's rewrite did as well [34]. The rewrite cited "McCullough" and "Konishi/Miner" to justify this, but neither of those sources use the phrase "tanka prose", because no reputable source on Japanese literature does. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without getting into a long-winded argument about self-published sources, Lulu is effectively a vanity publisher - calling it a print-on-demand publisher might still be accurate but it comes down to this; I can write a book, send it to Lulu and have it published without any further editorial oversight, fact-checking or clearance. MET Press, though it benefits from the addition of someone in the middle to "vet" content, publishes via Lulu. I accept this is not the same as someone who simply writes whatever they like and publishes it, but it is also not the same as having something published by, say, the Cambridge University Press. I don't think it "invalidates" the sources, per se, but I also think we need additional sources to help verify the claims from the notionally self-published ones.

But that's not my biggest concern - my biggest concern is that the same person is, in effect, responsible for 16 of the 19 "references" for the article. Each is either his own commentary (including in non-RS blogs) or his publication of other people's work via his "journal" (still, really, also a blog - just published as a "journal"). There also seems to be some serious WP:OWN issues coming from one particular WP:SPA (the creator of the article). Given the regularity with which that WP:SPA likes to cite the same single source over and over again (and given the remarkable similarity between the writing style of the article and that of the blogs in question), one has to conclude that there are some serious WP:COI issues that need resolving. If the two are not one in the same then I can only conclude they are very, very closely connected. This essay comes to mind, as does WP:OWNSITE.

Having done a search, the same single-origin sources keep coming up. I couldn't find a single unrelated source that gives the subject significant coverage. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep/merge There is too much emphasis in this discussion upon the title of the article, tanka prose. This is not a neologism as both of these words are well-established. It should be considered as a descriptive phrase and we should just then explore whether there is a better phrase to describe the topic. As an example, see the source Prosimetrum: Crosscultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse. This contains chapters with titles such as The Prosimetric Form in the Chinese Literary Tradition and Combinations of Poetry and Prose in Classical Japanese Narrative. The page in question is about a narrow slice of this general topic of poetry/prose combination. As the article prosimetrum is currently quite stubby, we should preserve the current content to help fertilise and develop it. When we have more content about the way that poetry and prose are combined in various literary traditions, then we will be able to assess and balance it it, per WP:UNDUE. But while we are still working with early drafts, it seems best to be tolerant of enthusiastic efforts like this. 百花齊放，百家爭鳴 — "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend." Warden (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem is entirely based in the terminology. The historically attested material (the material discussed in the McCullough article you refer to) is already discussed elsewhere. Merging this content into another article has already been attempted, but the WP:SPA involved in this dispute is intent on the use of a particular terminology, but this terminology does not appear in any reputable literature. It is also not accurate, as "tanka" refers exclusively to modern literature/a specific genre of Man'yōshū poetry. Therefore, discussion of the title is all that really matters. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title changes are made using the move function not the delete function. And I have found a counter-example to your claim that this terminology does not appear in any reputable literature. The paper A History of Tanka in English uses the phrase more than once, e.g. "journals devoted to tanka prose and haibun appeared in the early 21st century". Warden (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While that might be correct, that paper isn't a great example (in my opinion) - it's published by the same small group of people at MET Press who are responsible for almost all of the existing "references" and it cites many of those in that same small group of people. As far as I can tell, there is a small group of people (very small) who have (in essence) invented a particular style or phrase not widely recognised by others and are now citing themselves to softly WP:PROMO their idea using Wikipedia. I still think there might be some serious WP:OR going on. I don't think merging or renaming would be appropriate anyway - except for the single-origin-style references in the article, there seems to be no other sources to support the use of the term in any "widespread" sense so a merge into another article might become a WP:WEIGHT issue. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to point out again, in addition to Stalwart's remark, that many of these sources, as well as both pre-edit versions of the Wikipedia article[35][36], claim (rather sloppily) that the term encompasses almost all of ancient and medieval Japanese literature. Hundreds of reliable sources on this area do exist, and it appears none of them have ever used the term. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cite is self-published by the same individual who published most of the other sources. It is clear that the authors of most of these sources know nothing about the history of Japanese literature. Also, please examine the edit history of the page. I tried to move the article twice ([37] and [38]) to what seemed like its proper location. A merge into either uta monogatari or nikki bungaku would be fine with me, as long as no false/misleading information is placed in those articles, link overkill/advertising is kept to a minimum. But the fact is that the single-purpose account that created the page appears unwilling to settle for anything less than a full article devoted to this topic, complete with numerous links to the websites of this small group of personally-connected authors in question. In addition, no independent sources that use this terminology have shown up, and none ever will, because the term is inaccurate. Of the hundreds of reliable/independent books and journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. that discuss tanka, and also discuss combinations of tanka and prose, none have used this term. Based on the history of what has gone on on the talk pages of this article and uta monogatari, it should be obvious that both the creator of this article and the other SPA who formed a tag team have a conflict of interest. Without speculating on the real-world identity of the users in question (there is evidence in their comments on the talk pages, though), their loading the pages Tanka in English, Tanka prose and Haibun with largely irrelevant external links should make this clear. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In re User Elvenscout742’s allegation immediately above as to “the creator of this article” forming “a tag team,” I refer the other participants here to a review of the close coordination in timing, tone and content of the postings by User Elvenscout742 and User Stalwart111.Tristan noir (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response That is a personal attack and a ridiculous claim. Stalwart and I have never dealt with each other before this discussion. We just happen to both agree that the sources cited for this article are extremely shaky, and the article seems to have been created as a promotion tool. Your calling in an external WP:SPA who you clearly know in the real world, solely in order to make personal attacks against me in the previous dispute was a Wikipedia:Tag team. This is a deletion discussion. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristan noir - Wow, really? You're going to resort to sock-puppetry allegations? You do understand that regular edit-conflicts are actually an argument against sock-puppetry because the two users must be logged-in at the same time (impossible if you are editing with two accounts from the same computer). Besides the fact that accusations like that are borderline harassment, they are also not very clever without some research. For a start - I am based in Australia (and say so regularly) and I clearly do not speak Japanese (which the other user does). The tone is the same because you are obviously mistaken and we are both making that point. Another user has done the same. But if you really want to test your luck, go and open a WP:POINTY case at WP:SPI - more than happy to respond. LOL. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User: Stalwart111 and I also both have extensive edit histories, that as far as I know have never crossed over with each other, making sock-puppetry almost impossible. Also, when I accidentally posted a comment from a second account in the past[39], I immediately declared it. Both myself and Stalwart are established Wikipedians with a vested interest in not breaking those kind of rules. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publishing? Again? -- In fairness, I'd best point out that MET Press, “self-publisher” of The Tanka Prose Anthology, was also the vehicle through which Professor Michael F. Marra “self-published” his A Poetic Guide to an Ancient Capital: Aizu Yaichi and the City of Nara (2009) and Professor Sanford Goldstein (translator of Shiki, Akiko, Takuboku, and Mokichi) “self-published” his Four Decades on My Tanka Road (2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan noir (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reputable authors occasionally using self-publishing resources to publish material without the hassle of going through editors and so on, does not mean that it is not self-publishing, nor does it mean that all sources published by MET Press are reliable. The fact that you are now referring to those works here is evidence that, if anything, MET Press must have been all too happy to publish those works. Those authors' notable works all went through established, reputable publishers, many of which (universities) would be unlikely to publish original works of fiction, even by respected authors. Your appeal to authority is, however, completely irrelevant to this discussion, however. If you want to create an article on Marra or his work, go right ahead. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I said above, I don't think it "invalidates" the sources, per se, but I also think we need additional sources to help verify the claims from the notionally self-published ones. At the moment we have three "sources" that are not directly from the one single source and those aren't great. WP:SPS is pretty clear about what is appropriate and what is not. We can use self-published sources if the person publishing them is considered an expert in their field who has been cited as an expert in other independent, reliable sources. But even those are line-ball cases. The fact that the "publisher" has published works for other people is really quite irrelevant. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward clearly is not an expert on Japanese literature, at least. His academic background (according to the MET Press website) is in linguistics and political theory, and his writings have consistently contained egregious errors regarding the history of tanka. He misspelled the names of important tanka poets in ancient Japan ("Ariwara no Narihara", "Izumi Shikubu") [40], he thought the Hyakunin Isshu (a 13th century work and the most widely-studied classical poetic work in Japan) predated the Kokinshū (a tenth century work and the first imperial anthology) [41], etc., etc.. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

I took the liberty of collapsing some of the above content - especially the sections that degenerated into personal attacks. My aim was not to remove particular points or content or remove anyone's contribution to the discussion. I have tried to keep those paragraphs that provided a primary / initial opinion un-hidden. The content remains in place - it was not deleted. Be assured - closing admins will read all the content, including collapsed material. My aim, in good faith, was to focus everyone's attention on the primary issue (as summarised by Green Cardamom) - that of the sources provided in support of the article. If you feel your contribution has been unfairly or inaccurately collapsed, please either move my collapse templates or raise it with me - I will happily move them. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the collapsing as you can't be a judge in your own cause. Warden (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey I'm concerned the accusations of COI, SPA, SOCK could derail the AfD, such as a closure with "no consensus" because of unresolved disputes unrelated to AfD. I suggest ignoring accusations by the other party (beyond a single response), or opening appropriate Noticeboard reports to pursue it (COI is not inherently a bad thing, even if proven, but accusing someone of it during content disputes can be a problem). AfD is about finding ~~two~~ multiple independent reliable sources, is mostly what the closing admin will be looking for. We've identified 4 sources above and need to go through them with the 4 points of WP:NOTE including rationales for why they do or do-not comply. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I agree, and I apologize for letting the above dispute get a little out of hand. Let's focus on whether the sources are reliable. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me - the sock-puppetry rubbish is just a smoke-screen for a lack of cohesive argument anyway. Lets run through the four (or five) sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The below discussion uses a shorthand such as "4.2" which refers to Source 4 in the list below, and WP:GNG point #2 (Reliable). Thus, "Pass 4.2" is shorthand for "Ingrid Kunschke source passes WP:RS"

(1) All Jeffrey Woodward sources (including book reviews). According to WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

Even counted as one source, I can't see how these would be considered independent. They are all essentially by the same person who has, for all intents and purposes, "invented" the style in question. A good portion of them are self-published and (as I have said above), while that doesn't invalidate them, no-one seems to be able to find reliable secondary sources to back them up. On balance, I think these should be considered primary sources, at best. Fails 1.3 and 1.4 of your matrix. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex source since there is a variety of items including Woodward-self-published books, Woodward interviews published in other journals, book reviews of Woodward publications. For the purposes of notability, all of the references to 'tanka prose' are the end product of Woodward (expressed directly by him or repeated by others in credit to him or through his publishing). Woodward is not independent of tanka prose, rather central to it. Thus as a group it fails 1.4 (independence). The sources individually may pass or fail different notability criteria but too complex to untangle since they all fail 1.4. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can call a white dog black as often as you like but the dog will still be white. POD, like old-fashioned job printing, is a manufacturing process; both are for-hire contractors to commercial and small press literary houses, to institutions (universities) and self-published individuals. The test of self-publishing, as common definition and the Wikipedia guidelines agree, is whether or not the author directly pays a second party to publish his work. A book or article that is not self-published follows this pattern: Author A submits to editor/publisher B who (without a fee from the author) accepts and contracts the printing service to POD/Jobprinter C. This pattern applies to Random House, Princeton University and to MET Press (as well as its journal, Modern English Tanka). The concerted effort to marginalize the writings here discussed as self-published, despite plain evidence to the contrary, is unsettling. If you were to take this discussion outside of its present cloistered confines and place it, say, at a PEN International Congress, an Independent Book Publishers Association Conference or a Council of Literary Magazines and Presses Conference, the remarks made here with respect to self-publishing would be met with incredulity, if not open laughter.

I’ll also have to take issue with Stalwart’s assertion that the source being discussed here “invented" the style in question. We’re not dealing with a literary style, first, but with a literary form; the many practitioners of the form in question have individual styles. The larger point, however, is this silly claim that the form in question was one person’s invention. Like the somewhat desperate recitation of the mantra self-publishing, the facts are simply not in accord with Stalwart’s assertion. If Woodward invented anything, it was not a literary form but a descriptive phrase to identify it. This is clear from his “Introduction” to the Tanka Prose Anthology: “Japanese criticism, ancient and modern, offers no comprehensive term that might encompass the many forms and styles that the wedding of tanka and prose admits. Instead, the terminology employed in the scholarly literature is form-specific, addressing not the genus but the individual species…. The first problem to address in defining tanka prose…is nomenclature. Whereas Japanese waka practice and literary criticism provide no precedent, the analogy of tanka plus prose to the latter development of haibun does. The term haibun, when applied to a literary composition, most commonly signifies haiku plus prose “written in the spirit of haiku.” Haiku prose or haikai prose would be an apt English equivalent of the Japanese word, haibun. Upon the same grounds, tanka prose becomes a reasonable term to apply to literary specimens that incorporate tanka plus prose….” That the form precedes his coined term is clear from the independently published record; the article here proposed for deletion and the anthology present numerous works that pre-date the Woodward source and that were published wholly independent of him. For these reasons, I disagree with the assessment of Stalwart and Green Cardamom that this source fails 1.3 and 1.4.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That writers' clubs and the like have different standards is established, and perfectly acceptable. This website is a place for tertiary information based on prior legitimate scholarship to be posted. That MET Press is not an academic printing press is obvious. If such publishers do go through Lulu, that is also fine. But that the references you have cited all ultimately come from the same source (Woodward), who is apparently allowed to print whatever he wants through METPress/Lulu, is a serious issue for inclusion here. The quote you provide above from Woodward's book is, as I have discussed elsewhere, ridiculous and offensive. He admits to having coined the term "tanka prose" himself, unilaterally dismissing a millennium of Japanese scholarship, without providing any legitimate academic basis for his assertions. (Again, he clearly does not speak Japanese, and his only academic background appears to be in political theory and linguistics, so his unilateral assumption of the right to override all Japanese scholarship is questionable.) The quote also contradicts your earlier assertion that "tanka prose" is a translation of the old Japanese word wabun (和文, "Japanese-language writings). elvenscout742 (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if he invented the "style", the "form" or just the "phrase" to identify it (which might then be considered a neologism). What matters is that there was an element of invention by Woodward (he put the words together) which means we then need secondary sources to verify non-Woodward use of the phrase. See WP:NEO. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Lucky, Bob (Editor). Atlas Poetica Special Feature: 25 Tanka Prose (July 2011) (the other Bob Lucky source is a Woodward source)

Again, most of the sources cited for this work come directly from Wikipedia (note WP:WINARS), but more specifically are the same Woodward "references" above. Aside from the fact that copy-pasting references from WP wouldn't be considered particularly scholarly, the site in question is essentially a blog with "guest editors" comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward. For all of those reasons I contend this isn't really a reliable source. Fails 2.2 and 2.4 of your matrix. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has some independence but Lucky Bob also has connections to Woodward. According to WP:GNG (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." Concerned with reliable source it's uncertain what vetting if any was done for this paper. Since 'literary genre' is a scholarly topic we can expect to have at least some "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Fail 2.2 and 2.4 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, before being able to discuss notability, I’m called upon, by the preceding comments, to first address points of misapprehension or misrepresentation of fact. Stalwart states unequivocally that (a) the site in question is essentially a blog, and (b) that it has “guest editors” comprised mostly of the same small group of people cited by Woodward. The site, in fact, is the online home of a hardcopy journal, Atlas Poetica. The guest editors are independent of the journal proper and they edit only those special features found here. I made a quick count and found that 12 guest editors are listed there. Most can be demonstrated to have little or no connection with this first source.

Cardamom’s comments raise two other problems. He insists that literary genre is a scholarly topic which, indeed, it is. But genre is first and foremost a literary topic, like questions of literary form, and the writers of said forms, and not scholars, are the first persons to encounter this topic and to struggle with its definition. I say this to insist upon what I believe is an important point: that in discussions of living or contemporary literature, as over-and-against historical literature, those writers engaged in the form are the first witnesses and first scholars, if you will. The user who proposed the article on tanka prose for deletion consistently confounded these matters, insisting upon judging a modern English literary phenomenon by criteria drawn from Japanese scholarship. Writing communities, whether or not scholars are alive to the fact, tend to be relatively small, so much so that most parties, large and small, have some acquaintance. One might look only to the history of American poetry, for example, and review the complex of personal relationships between Ezra Pound, William Carlos Williams, Marianne Moore, and H.D. or the similar web later between members of the Beat Generation. For these reasons, it should not be surprising that writers who share common goals, such as those involved in tanka prose, may know each other just as do (and I apologize for the shocking comparison) the fellow professors of a university’s English Department. I offer these remarks to explain why I believe that Cardamom’s citation of WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP are inaccurately applied in this instance. Therefore, I dissent from the opinion of Stalwart and Cardamom above and assert that the source passes muster of 2.2 and 2.4.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan's characterization of Atlas Poetica as a journal is inaccurate. It comes from the same publisher (D. Garrison/MET Press) as all the other sources cited. This publisher has demonstrated that it has somewhat lax standards of scholarship for something claiming to be called a "journal". Woodward's writings, as well as all the other writings based solely on Woodward, demonstrate this. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Prime, Patricia. “Irresistible Constructions: a tanka prose essay,” Modern English Tanka V3, N1

The site in question is a self-published blog and the author's own introduction to the site effectively says as much (though in German - Google translate is not great but it's enough to get the gist). It's certainly not a scholarly journal in the technical form of a blog - it's a stock-standard, my-thoughts-for-the-day type blog. I would contend it probably passes 2.4 but fails 2.2 of your matrix and possibly 2.1 given the term "Tanka prose" seems to be used speculatively, in the sense that even the writer doesn't seem to accept that the term is commonplace, just that it has been used. But that part is in English (not the author's native German) so I'm hesitant to over-interpret the meaning. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more inclined to say it fails 3.4 as well. The author, Prime, has personally interviewed Woodward ~~on several occasions~~, and Modern English Tanka comes from the same publisher as all the other sources. In order for the term to be truly notable, it should probably need to have been discussed in independent works that do not come from one publisher alone. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might fail 2.4 because in the paper Patricia mentions a connection to Woodward. It also fails 2.2 since it's not academically vetted and we are dealing with a scholarly topic (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Not every source must be strictly academic but we need at least some evidence of the genre's acceptance in the academic world. 2.1 might also be a problem but I will leave that open. So fails 2.2, 2.4 and maybe 2.1-- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, above, seems to have confused the Kunschke source in German below and the Prime article in Modern English Tanka here under discussion. That is the only sense I could make of his statement that the PDF version of a printed journal (MET) was a blog. Again, we face the same misrepresentation of fact, viz., that an article by Author A accepted by Editor B is somehow self-published and thereby disqualified; that the author Prime is acquainted with the first source (Elvenscout goes so far as to claim that she has interviewed Woodward on several occasions; one occasion is cited in the references to the article; I challenge E. to offer evidence to support his hyperbole) and is thereby disqualified. And we have again what I take to be an unreasonable expectation, that is, that a literary topic’s proper authority is academic scholarship as over-and-against the writings of poets and literary critics. It should be obvious, from my remarks, that I’m in the minority and dissent from the above opinions on the issue of notability.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I apparently saw the same interview cited differently in two different places, and assumed they were two separate interviews. Prime's failure to correct Woodward's ridiculous assertion in that interview about the Hyakunin Isshu, however, might disqualify her as a reliable source on tanka history, anyway. The article claims, as does Woodward's book, to be rooted in classical Japanese literary scholarship, but the fact that no scholarly sources have shown up to support the use of the neologism "tanka prose" seems to indicate otherwise. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prime is the "Reviews Editor" of Haibun Today, of which Woodward is the "Founder & General Editor" - see the publication's Facebook page. Interviews aside, working for the same publication would not be considered "independent" by any stretch of the imagination. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This too, just in case you can't see the Facebook version. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(4) Ingrid Kunschke item at TankaNetz

Has been analysed above and I agree it probably fails 4.1 and 4.2. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed above. Fails 4.1 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The paper A History of Tanka in English uses the phrase more than once... That item also should be taken under consideration.

I hope you don't mind me including this in your matrix given the original author has contended that it should also be considered which I think is only fair (I have included it as number 5, so the matrix extends to 5.1, 5.2... etc). As I noted when this "source" was original put forward, it is published by the same people as those who publish a good number of the sources in the "Woodward" category 1. I would contend on that basis that it fails 5.4 of your matrix. I would contend it notionally fails 5.2 given it is published (via the same self-publishing house as many of Woodward sources) by the same person responsible for publishing source 2 - Lucky was writing for Kei's blog as a "guest editor". We know the author in question is a blogger who, in this instance, has turned his hand to writing a slightly-more-scholarly style of essay, published by the same group as other "sources", citing many of the same small group of "authors". On balance, I would contend it fails 5.2 and 5.4. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source has some independence but also connections to Woodward. According to WP:GNG (footnote #4): "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." It also has the same issue of reliability since this is an academic topic and there is no clear scholarly vetting process through peer review or submission to "well-regarded academic presses" (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Fails 5.2 and 5.4 -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization by Stalwart of the author of this item as a blogger who, in this instance, has turned his hand to writing a slightly-more-scholarly style of essay is deserving of contempt and has no place in this discussion. Beyond that, Stalwart chants his tired refrain (self-publishing) and spices that with further evidence of his bias by placing words like “sources” and “authors” in quotation marks. His clear attempts at character assassination are self-evident. Beyond this venom, he says nothing coherent or persuasive about notability. I offered my reasons above, under Lucky, item #2, for dissenting from Cardamom’s specific application of WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP to these items. I disagree for the same reasons here.Tristan noir (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks here. If you have a counter-argument, make it. Otherwise refrain from posting these ad hominem comments. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a vote, so your saying "I disagree" does not mean anything unless you give reasons. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here seems to be a good example of Sayre's Law. Warden (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sayre’s Law? Indeed! I protested earlier about a perceived coordination of effort by two users in this notability discussion. They promptly protested and proclaimed their innocence. It has come to my attention, however, that the same users have been conducting a parallel private communication on the subject of the article here nominated for deletion and upon their future plans for actions regarding the article and / or its sources. This material is not irrelevant to (a) demonstrating their clear bias and their coordination of activity as regards our discussion here, and (b) their possible COI with respect to the sources that support the article under discussion. Their remarks can, and should, be read at User talk:Stalwart111 here [1] [2] [3] [4] and User talk:Elvenscout742 here [5] [6] [7].Tristan noir (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently wrong with (open) discussions outside for the purpose of answering policy questions, gather information and coordinate opening new cases elsewhere. I reviewed the above conversations and it looks like normal discussion about rule application and so on, don't see malicious intent or bad faith efforts at work. If you see something specific let us know. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "private" about that conversation at all - it is in a public userspace. Not only can you see it but it is open to non-editor members of the public. Your silly suggestion is, I think, an admission on your part that you have absolutely no valid argument that the sources in question allow this subject to meet WP:GNG. Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:FOC. Besides which, if this style is not-notable enough to meet WP:GNG (I had never heard of it before) how could I (or anyone other than perhaps Woodward and his team) possibly have a COI? You should read WP:COI - that personal attack doesn't even make sense. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*~~Keep~~Merge - the term is shown to exist, but to be very thinly sourced, so I'd go for a merge to Tanka as a brief section there. ~~there do seem to be sufficient sources here~~. If we spent this much effort on the article, it'd be a WP:GA by now... Chiswick Chap (talk) ~~13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)~~ 15:27, 8 October 2012[reply]

Chiswick chap, where are you now suggesting we merge it into? I have already tried to include a small amount of the seemingly verifiable information in the article Uta monogatari, but Tristan noir insisted that this topic deserves its own article. In reality, "tanka prose" as a concept does not exist except in the unreliable sources already cited, so it can't be effectively merged into any of the other articles without introducing WP:WEIGHT issues. elvenscout742 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which ~~two~~ sources pass? We identified 5 potentials in the list above. It would be great to see your rational if you have the time, this is a complex case. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can never be a good article because it is a made-up term that is inaccurate/offensive to the academic community in question (Japanese literary scholars) and is only (will only ever be) used by a small number of non-specialists. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy that "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics.". Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not part of academia. Warden (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of the statement you quote says that article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology. Common usage does not recognize the phrase "tanka prose", and it only appears in a very small number of sources that claim to be academic journals. The fact is that no one, specialist or otherwise, favours this terminology, and the topic itself does not actually exist apart from the writings of one person and those connected to him. The article was also clearly written by someone very close to this person. This page is and always has been in blatant violation of WP:ADVERTISEMENT, as it insists on claiming that Jeffrey Woodward is essentially the only reliable source on Japanese literature (everyone else has got it wrong in their terminology) and quoting an extensive number of links to his website and the website of those linked to him. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In re Elvenscout’s statement immediately above about “sources that claim to be academic journals”: this is consistent with his misrepresentation of fact throughout his arguments on this discussion page. He has examined (or so he claims) Modern English Tanka, Atlas Poetica and the other journals cited either in the references to the article nominated for deletion or in the list of book reviews cited in this discussion. He is aware that all of these journals are independent literary journals that publish poems and essays; they are not, nor do they claim, to be academic journals associated with any foundation or institution. Furthermore, as regards “common usage,” the term “tanka prose,” in fact, is in use within the literary communities that these journals represent as was evidenced by the list of reviews, for example, selected from journals other than the aforementioned as well as by casual but frequent reference in editorial statements, announcements and so on within the said journals, including Ribbons, the official periodical of the Tanka Society of America; that the term can be employed in passing and does not require further explanation in said publications can be taken to indicate common understanding and common usage among the readers of the various publications in question. As for E.'s flimsy citation of WP:ADVERTISEMENT, it should be recognized for what it is, some not-so-subtle wikilawyering. Tristan noir (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texts should be written for everyday readers refers to the Wikipedia text, not the source text! Please read WP:RS: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. That's a direct quote. Here's another: Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources (WP:SOURCES). Tell us why this article about Japanese literature should not rely on academic scholarship again? Hey I'm easy, I don't need every source to be peer reviewed. I just need something from the academic community, anything. There is nothing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbonss website doesn't appear to use the phrase "tanka prose" with any frequency.[42] Mr. Woodward also doesn't seem to be held in particularly high regard.[43] There seems to be an assumption that just because someone (obviously not a specialist in Japanese literature) wrote a review of a book without criticizing it for the same reasons I did, does not mean that the term Tristan noir is trying to promote has any kind of wide usage. I told Tristan noir way back when this debate started that it is possible to create one's own Wiki to promote made-up literary genres, but Wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to worldCat The two key sources used are in essentially no libraries: Tanka prose anthology is in only LC and Stanford, and Atlas poetica only in LC. I therefore do not see how they canbe considered RSs. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's a mention in Asahi Shimbun September 4, 2002, "Several photographs of Shiki and his three deathbed haiku burnish this quality edition, which details his life from samurai to poet and his haiku, tanka, prose and diaries." However, that separates the terms with a comma, so that doesn't help this topic. There's a mention in Edmonton Journal September 11, 2009, "Patrick M. Pilarski launches his book of poetry, a collection of contemporary haiku, tanka, haibun, tanka prose, senryu and quatrains." So tanka prose is a real term, and being a real term rebuts the AfD argument that this only is a Wikipedia article naming issue and not a WP:GNG topic issue. Albuquerque Journal September 26, 2004 mentions "One is Gregorio's collection of tanka poems and prose about the martial art akido." which might relate the term tanka with prose. In any case, there is not enough source information independent of the topic (e.g., independent of those writing tanka prose) for a stand alone article that meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have been a bit unclear in my initial AfD posting -- this is a notability problem that is related to but separate from a previous naming dispute that took place at Talk:Uta monogatari. The term existing within the primary sources cited in the article at the moment was never really in dispute -- the problem is that it is not, at least right now, notable. So in short I agree with you, this is about notability, not naming issues. ;-) elvenscout742 (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tanka in English, as though it is clear that term is in use, its sourcing is thin. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(This is elvenscout742 on a new phone. (@@;) )Do you really think that what the tanka in English article needs now is more poorly-sourced/inaccurate/promotional material? There is nothing discussed in this article that deserves inclusion in Wikipedia, in its own article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.249.241.103 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 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 2009 Indian Premier League. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPL Franchise earnings for 2009

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

Unnecessary list that goes into more detail than is needed in an encyclopedia. A single paragraph covering the pertinent points could be included in the parent article (2009 Indian Premier League). Harrias ^talk 12:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 12:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge valuable information to 2009 Indian Premier League. Its an informative list, but as the nominator said, it is not needed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete re-written verstion. The delete votes are stale since they were cast before the article was sourced, leave given to speedily renominate if the current version is deemed deficient. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment (archaeology)

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

Nominate for deletion Has existed for six years without references. See Talk:Alignment (archaeology): relevant Wikiproject consulted two years ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Alignment). I could find no sources. That was two years ago. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Articles that have been unsourced for a very long time (since 2006) are often an indication that standards were lax back then, not that the topic is a bad one. This is a minor topic in archaeology, but it is a real one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One source has been added to the article. It needs more. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real subject, while needs work it meets minimum standards. And one source is better than it was. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ITEXISTS, the subject being "real" does not mean the article should be kept. Lack of sources means this article fails WP:N. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 08:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "It exists" is not always a reasonable argument in favour of keeping, but it isn't an argument in favour of deletion. I don't understand what your argument in favour of deletion is. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, but it's ludicrous to claim that lack of sourcing = lack of notability. They are not the same thing at all. As Andy Dingley states, sourcing standards were far laxer when this article was created. The fact it doesn't have good sources simply means nobody has yet got round to adding them, not that they don't exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ITEXISTS. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 28 September 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)} 11:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'd like to hear more about specific sources which may help to prove that this subject passes WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the article to pass WP:V, the relevant sources that have been asked for must be cited in the article. They are not. Sandstein 13:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - source found my first reaction was that this was another example of a wiki-article attempting to WP:OR a new meaning out of a commonly understood english phrase. However it appears that the term is in use in archaeological circles eg [44] - I will add this as a source to the article. diff However the definition given does not extend to the other definition given in the article, though I believe the article to be correct - I believe that the second definition given is also valid (based on having heard the term in use). I would suggest editorial oversight should leave the second definition in until it can be referenced. However some of the body text is a little to obtuse to be realistically left as is with out a single supporting reference (irrespective of whether it is right or wrong).Oranjblud (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

however there is the issue that many of the uses of the term "alignment" in archaeology fall into the scope of use of the word as a commonly understood english phrase. eg "alignment of graves" "alignment of roads" - as you can easily verify using a google book seach [45] - attempting to infer a defination from many of these sources would be WP:Synthesis or maybe represent original research..Oranjblud (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re-check I've essentially re-started the article - I would guess the deletion needs to be reconsidered.Oranjblud (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve -- The term certainly comes up in archaeology, but it may be used in several ways. It is currently a poor article, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The term certainly comes up in archaeology and it seems likely that there is enough reliable source material for a stand alone article on the topic. It makes sense that you can find burried features or structures by assuming a co-linear arrangement with external, visible landmarks or a mixture of visible landmarks and sky marks. A quick search found - Statistical Study of Lunar Alignments at the Newark Earthworks discusses the significance of archaeological objects in their alignment with moon, sun, stars, etc. Rare Animal-Shaped Mounds Discovered in Peru by MU Anthropologist mentions alignments between celestial events and religious structures. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:44, 8 October 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. Michig (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wile

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

Non-notable, self-publisher (of his own book, websites etc). Seems to be a fringe player and has no obvious coverage in mainstream news etc. In fact, the only reliable source that I can find that may refer to him is this. Sitush (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has a bunch of primary sources and wordpress blogs, but zero independent reliable sources. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. - Sudo Ghost 18:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not well enough referenced to show the required coverage. (I know it's hard luck, but plenty of self-published coverage doesn't count.) I'm slightly surprised to see this article in an "Elite Propaganda Mill" (quoted from The Daily Bell), so perhaps someone is misunderstanding our procedures on referencing as well as the powers of administrators and the general supervision by the community of all things here. Peridon (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find sufficient independent refs either. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [Embarrassing confession] I am the editor who mistakenly moved it to main-space. Please allow me to submit one quick enquiry. Would it be okay if we moved it back to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Anthony Wile or placed a {{AFC submission}} template on top of the page that will read it's a “misplaced submission” which it blatantly is, instead of deleting it? Also that way it would give us some more time to save this page (though I am unsure if this page needs saving). Should you guys disagree, I will accept the consensus.
P.S. I am relatively new at this (i.e. reviewing submissions) and it was unintentional, so please indulge my inadeptness. This query seemed incumbent upon me because I exacerbated the whole mess by moving it to namespace. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 12:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that letting this run its course will be the most efficient path. Don't worry about moving the odd weak article into the mainspace. I've done it too. (And thanks for fixing my missing word above. Appreciated.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follicle Nutrient Deficiency Syndrome (FNDS)

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

I can find no scholarly references using GScholar and even a general GSearch returns hits mostly connected to a company called Biologix Hair. My suspicion is that this is non-notable, promotional and probably medical quackery but freely admit that my experience of medical/science articles on Wikipedia is limited. Sitush (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 10:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No good independent media coverage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As '2020' says at http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthread.php?s=0a579df5f09e2ddb06a2c1a62516d1d3&p=69666#post69666 how is it that hair on top of your head gets starved of nutrients but the rest grows quite well? This isn't mentioned on quackwatch so far as I can see; if it were, that might be a sign of notability. As it is, I can't find anything either. Lack of reliable independent sources is more important here than the actual possibilities of successful treatment. The article does have very reliable independent sources, but they are about baldness, not this treatment. I would dispute the claim that this is the 'only' treatment - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002160/ lists two. One needs to be applied on a continuous basis and loss is slowed in 'many men', and a more effective one, which can have unfortunate side effects... Peridon (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like the latest in a long line of quack treatments for male pattern baldness. Peridon, you reminded me of an old joke. Barber tries to talk customer into having his hair "singed" instead of cut, saying that cutting weakens the hairs. Customer says "so how come I've been cutting my beard every day for 50 years and it grows as strongly as ever?" Barber says "Very simple explanation. You just aren't the kind of person that story was made up to tell to." --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (Sorry!)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Bakshi

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

Non-notable MD of a company. Has passing mentions in newspaper. (Previously deleted under WP:CSD#A3 and WP:CSD#A7. Recent speedy deletions declined.) ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 18:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 23 September 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, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just reading the article, I can't see what is remarkable about this person. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes no claim to notability (a man with a job) and the external links don't change that position: a sheaf of passing mentions. AllyD (talk) 22:36, 30 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan of a Fan

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

Artists prominently release mixtapes particularly in the world of R&B and Hip-Hop but there is nothing particularly notable about this one. It doesn't meet criteria for albums WP:NMUSIC or generally. Lack of independent coverage from reliably sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMUSIC. Qworty (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 15 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:40, 23 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 30 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Quinonero

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

This article is about a boxer who fails WP:NBOX and the only source is a link to his fight record. He has never fought for a major world title and is currently ranked 40th in the world. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like he has the potential to be notable, but right now that's just WP:CRYSTALBALL. He currently doesn't meet the notability requirements for boxers (WP:NBOX) and the article doesn't show significant independent coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 14:47, 17 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this he fought for the Spanish title and according to this was the European Boxing Union Cruiserweight Champion. We could do with better sources but he appears to have reached a level where he should be considered notable enough for an article. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to go with the Boxing project's criteria which says "A boxer who has fought for or held a non-major sanctioning body title is not considered notable if winning said title is the only reason for notability" and the titles you mentioned are clearly not world titles from one of the 4 major boxing organizations. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 30 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NBOX. User Michig appears to want to use his own criteria instead of the boxing project's (just like he did in the deletion discussion for Ronald Gavril). 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, did I think for myself? I do apologize. --Michig (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the boxing project's notability standards seem to be way out of step with those for other sports, where, for example we include any association football player who comes off the bench for a few minutes in a match in League Two. By any sensible standard Quinonero's position as a Spanish title challenger and holder of an EBU belt is much more notable than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are also incredibly US-centric and include nothing about amateur boxing. --Michig (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if fought at the Olympics he'd be notable as an amateur. There's also no indication he ever fought at the world championships which would help the notability claim. Michig, I have no problem with you thinking for yourself but I'm a bit sensitive as a veteran of the MMA wars where some individuals insisted that they always knew better than the project's consensus. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that boxing is a long-established mainstream sport regularly covered worldwide by general mainstream media, whereas MMA is a recently-invented entertainment mostly covered by media organisations promoting events or by dedicated fan sites. I'm a bit sensitive about this subject as a veteran of previous pointy deletion nominations of notable boxing topics by MMA fans upset that their pet fanboyism isn't considered notable by the world at large. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Please don't take that personally as I'm not accusing you of such a nomination.[reply]

I'm not offended, this isn't the first time we've disagreed. The problem with this fighter is he's never even been ranked in the top 10 of his division (boxrec has him at #43). He may get there, but right now I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON. His last fight was his first world-class opponent and he got knocked out. As for boxing's criteria being stricter than some other sports, I'd say the others are too loose. Boxing's criteria is much more in line with the martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MANOTE is clearly written with respect to the type of martial arts where everyone makes up their own style and claims notability as a champion. It is irrelevant to a centuries-old established sport that is reported on regularly in national newspapers and written about in history books. For such a sport we should get the notability standards in line with other mainstream sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys are getting off topic, although I did notice that the criteria for martial artists--WP:NBOX, WP:MANOTE, and WP:MMANOT--require more than just participating once in a game. But I think those projects are better qualified to judge notability of their sports than those saying the cricket standard should apply. Mdtemp (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to find a happy medium. Notability standards for some sports are far too lax, and for some are far too strict. In nearly all cases they seem to be heavily weighted towards Western Anglophone sportspeople. Given the lack of sense of encyclopedic notability among most of the people who weigh into any discussions about the issue I do not intend to try to change them, as I would end up banging my head against the wall. All I can do is pipe up in deletion discussions when individual project standards risk leading to perverse outcomes. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perverse is in the eye of the beholder. I agree with you that some standardization would be nice because I think setting the criteria at playing one game is ridiculous. Like you, I believe I can't change everyone, so I rely on the notability standards set by each project. Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:per Michig. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems bothered by the fact that there is no significant, non-routine coverage of this boxer. The article lists just his record and the two sources mentioned by Michig are one line mentions in articles about other boxers (and one of those fights didn't even happen). It's hard to claim notability when the subject has a lack of significant, non-routine coverage and fails to meet the notability criteria for his field. Mdtemp (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're bothered by the sparsity of sources in the article then you could improve it by using some of the sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the search links spoon-fed above by the deletion nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works if you want to be "spoon-fed" pablum. Note that Mdtemp didn't say there was no coverage he said there was "no significant, non-routine coverage." I found lots of "X is scheduled to fight Y" and "X beat Y last night" but all of that falls under WP:ROUTINE which includes as routine "sports scores", "sports matches", "press conferences", and "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events". I also think it's unreasonable to expect Mdtemp to provide sources for the article (see WP:BURDEN). I do find it interesting that this discussion has involved more time and effort than went into the one-line article (which still lacks non-routine RS). Papaursa (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. WP:NBOX is pretty clear, and it doesn't seem that Quinonero passes it despite him having an EBU title. I couldn't find any sources that would prove he passes WP:GNG, but I am only voting "weak delete" because there may be sources in Spanish. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice I think that if the person is notable someone would have made an attempt to add sources. As it stands - it should be deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment There seems to be an assumption that WP:NBOX is a binding policy rather than a guideline. The fact is that just because the boxer in question doesn't meet the very stringent requirements for him to be presumed notable, it doesn't mean he is presumed to be non-notable. The guideline says that competing for or holding a single title is not evidence of notability if it is the only factor, but it doesn't say anything about competing for one and holding another. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also feel WP:GNG and WP:RS are just suggestions? Multiple editors have pointed out the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I meant was that almost all users voting to delete the article were exclusively citing a guideline that is not, in itself, enough to justify a deletion. A lack of reliable secondary sources existing is enough to delete, but evidence should be presented that such sources are unlikely to exist (Google hits, etc.); it is not enough to just say that since the article doesn't cite sources it should be deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users Mdtemp, Mr. Stradivarius, and I all commented that we searched for additional sources and didn't find anything that satisfies WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 13 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Gavril

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

Article about a boxer who does not meet WP:NBOX. He has only 3 fights and is currently ranked 268th in his division. The only sources are a link to his fight record and two links to who is helping train him and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NBOX and there's no significant independent coverage of him. Mdtemp (talk) 14:39, 17 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that we keep articles on footballers and cricketers who made one brief appearance at professional level, it seems consistent to keep an article on a boxer who received a bronze medal at the European amateur championships and has had three professional fights. His amateur record is a better indication of notability than his pro record at this time. --Michig (talk) 07:34, 30 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. I'm not sure how notable his amateur boxing record is. According to http://amateur-boxing.strefa.pl/Championships/AAAChampionships.html the European Union championships (where he won a bronze) is different from the European Championships. Even a 3rd at the European championships would not be enough to show notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In My Zone (Rhythm & Streets)

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

Artists prominently release mixtapes particularly in the world of R&B and Hip-Hop but there is nothing particularly notable about this one. It doesn't meet criteria for albums WP:NMUSIC or generally. Lack of independent coverage from reliably sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sourcing, claim of notability, awards and charting. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:05, 28 September 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's simply nothing notable about this mixtape. Zac 09:23, 30 September 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 Demographics of the Republic of Ireland. This can be expanded into a stand-alone article again if suitable sources can be found. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Ireland

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

Not even close to being a notable subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a series of diaspora articles in Ireland. 5,000+ is a sizeable figure to have an article. Mar4d (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article to assert the notability of the subject, it is two lines in size. It is a waste of bandwidth. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge (and then delete) into Ireland#Demography or similar subpage eg Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland - "post-it note" article based on a single statistical element - please stop doing this.Oranjblud (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and then delete) into Ireland#Demography, per Oranjblud. Not notable enough for an article. Snappy (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect) to Demographics of the Republic of Ireland. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Greenberg

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

Non-notable, although there was some media attention when he was younger I believe he does not meet notability requirements per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPOSER#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists Opaqueambiguity (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- He really is quite famous, as one can see here, here, and here. Jay Greenberg in quotation marks gives me more than 75,000 hits on Google. Tillander 05:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my argument hinges on the fact that his fame seems to be from the fact that he was a talented youngster, and not that he is notable for being a composer. Sure he's been published and has records for sell on amazon, but there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people with records out and published scores who aren't on wikipedia.

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. - Not that I'm aware of

Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. - I don't think so, a ballet commissioned by the NYC Ballet is listed but is unsourced and not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Google search didn't give me too much on this piece, although it did confirm the commission. However, other than the fact that it was commissioned I didn't find anything concerning the length of it's run or any other details. If this could be fleshed out some more and shown to fulfill this one I would retract my argument.

Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. - Not that I'm aware of

Has written a composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. - Not that I'm aware of

Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music. - Definitely no.

Opaqueambiguity (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely notable, as per Tillander. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search on HighBeam brings up several articles, such as "Composer Jay Greenberg Profile" (60 minutes - 2006), "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TO RECEIVE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT OF COMPOSITION BY TEEN PRODIGY JAY GREENBERG" (US Federal News Service - 2007), "Josua Bell, violin" (Strings - 2008, states "Sony Records recently released his [Greenberg's] debut CD: Symphony No. 5, written at age 12 and recorded by the London Symphony Orchestra, and his Quintet for Strings, featuring the Juilliard Quartet and cellist Darrett Adkins."), "Kid Composer Just Lets It Flow" (AP Online - 2006), "Boy wonder" (Town & Country - 2007), "TEEN'S CONCERTO PREMIERED AT CARNEGIE HALL" (Cincinatti Post - 2007), "Backstory: The child prodigy in few of us; A symphony by a 14-year-old composer gets this writer all riled up. But what can one do but applaud?" (Christian Science Monitor - 2006). Pretty clearly notable, I'd say. --Michig (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes General Notability Guideline and notability is not temporary. The various sub-criteria such as Wikipedia:COMPOSER, are alternative criteria. They are not required if the subject already passes the General Notability Guideline. In addition to the many other articles listed above (note that the review of the premiere of his violin concerto was carried on Associated Press and appeared worldwide), there was an article about him in BBC Music Magazine [46] and a significant segment on this BBC Radio 3 program was devoted to him. His works have been recorded by a major record label and performed by notable artists. Voceditenore (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found another article on him in the NY Times. There is still another article just on him at Financial Times (paywall). Coverage twice in the NY Times, in USA Today, in FT (granted not a music-related paper, but clearly a reliable source) and mention (though not in-depth) in New Yorker enough for notability. Churn and change (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's definitely enough strong sourcing on Greenberg to keep the article. I say 'weak' only because the sourcing tends to be all about him being a young prodigy - not much in the last few years, so I do have a few doubts about notability that lasts. Nonetheless, enough sourcing from the original articles to keep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 1 October 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD A7. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evvochian Language

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

Contested prod. Non-notable Conlang. Shirt58 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Zero WP:GNG. Could perhaps have been WP:SPEEDY candidate for WP:A7, web content with no indication of importance. JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Evvochian, deleted 04:04, 17 July 2012 by Hadal (talk · contribs) as a G3/hoax. JFHJr (㊟) 05:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt because of repeated recreation. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. (Salt may prove awkward as a constructed language can mutate and repost under a variant name.) AllyD (talk) 07:38, 30 September 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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yin Zhiqun

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

I'm sorry, but where's the notability? Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks almost like a case for A7 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the current version of the article is probably a candidate for CSD A7, I tried to verify some of the statements made in an older version, to no avail. I found this, but the coverage is not significant; also this and this, but they are blogs. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. By the way, the article looks to have been copy-and-pasted. Not sure what action to take, so I tagged it. Braincricket (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 1 October 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. Michig (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation skill

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

Well, I suppose I'll bring this to AFD as well because the PROD was removed by the creator. Again, it doesn't mean inclusion guidelines. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOW. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to site. JIP | Talk 03:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this stub seems to be pure WP:HOWTO manual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 1 October 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. Michig (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Development Process

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

This article is a thinly-veiled rewrite of http://www.marketing91.com/customer-development/ As such, it is probably WP:COPYVIO. It is also most likely original research. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously lifted either from a textbook or some company's promotional materials. EEng (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like its designed to promote a website or the particular book. Delete unless unbiased references can be added and entirely rewritten to not promote certain reference. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:08, 1 October 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. Michig (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang (artist)

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

Appears to be a hoax -- but not a blatant hoax (which would have been speedy deletable). Unless someone knows something I don't about this, though, delete and bury underground until unrecognizable. --Nlu (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find anything that could substantiate this article. AllyD (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find anything that could substantiate this article. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 4 October 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 EVO 2. The redirect target can be changed to EVO Smart Console if EVO 2 doesn't survive AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EVO 2 DX

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

Page wholly fails to meet GNG. Even less so than EVO 2. Kai445 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge' - Fails the WP:GNG - Lack of third party coverage. If by chance the EVO 2 article survives it's concurrent AFD, or is merged to the original EVO Smart Console article, I guess it could be merged/mentioned in one of those articles at least. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to EVO 2. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 01:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to EVO 2, no need of a separate article. --Cavarrone (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to EVO 2, and in case it doesn't survives, then to EVO Smart Console. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:25, 7 October 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) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahsan Rahman Khan

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

Article about an entertainer of seemingly dubious notability. Current sourcing is either primary (specifically a WP:BOMBARDed interview with the subject), does not have the subject as primary topic or is a blog. BenTels (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. WP:BOMBARD hardly applies. The subject meets all of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Some news coverage may help: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those are passing mentions, except for "Heart to heart with Tahsan-Mithila", which provides a little more detail than the others. Goodvac (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Khan meets the GNG through the following significant coverage: "Taking a step aside" and "Tahsan Rahman Khan" from The Daily Star, "Tahsan: more than just a Musician…" from The Daily Sun, and "Educators with an extra excellence" from New Age. Links to some non-English coverage (Hindi newspaper and TV coverage) are listed here. Goodvac (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The best of the sources identified above show notability. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In-depth coverage in secondary sources=Notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:33, 7 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian folk/folk rock artists

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

Article provides no reasoning for why Christian folk (separate from regular folk music) is notable enough to merit its own list. The only source cited in the article does not help, as it merely discusses Christian music in general. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 27 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I clicked on five or six of the artists in the list and none are even identified as "Christian folk." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are certainly a lot of folk songs with Christian themes and there are many folk artists who are Christians, but this would need a complete rewrite to become a worthwhile list. --Michig (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original essay in list form. Undefinable genre, zero sourcing. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 7 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kandi Kid

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

Article on a non-notable social group filled with original research and awful sourcing. Googling throws up lots of blogs and the like, but nothing approaching a reliable source. J Milburn (talk) 07:02, 23 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can think of bad arguments for it being kept, like WP:ITEXISTS, there are plenty of WP:GOOGLEHITS, and WP:IKNOWIT. But like the nominator said, I can't find anything approaching a reliable source. This book about addiction treatment mentions the word, but it's WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. Braincricket (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to absence of significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 09:01, 7 October 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 low participation in the debate, undeletion of this article may be requested at any time at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Gerasimovich

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

Article for non-notable child actress. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. No non-trivial, verifiable secondary sources, which I searched for and failed to find, exist. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 23:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Had long-term recurring role (88 episodes) on All My Children, several movie roles and an upcoming role in a short film [47] Continues to make public appearances [48] [49] [50] [51]. Also had recent modelling jobs [52] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.179.41 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:36, 23 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Born April 2002, she's now ten years old. 88 episodes of All My Children (when she was 7 and 8) and 7 episodes of As the World Turns (when she was 4), coupled with her work in film might otherwise have this child meet WP:ENT despite her youth and short career, as her roles can be verified in reliable sources.[53][54] And while yes her publicist or agent has had her make public appearances, the greater issue becomes more about finding anything in depth about her with which to build an encyclopedic article. Let the article return when she actually gets some coverage... even a little. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In My Zone 2

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

Artists prominently release mixtapes particularly in the world of R&B and Hip-Hop but there is nothing particularly notable about this one. It doesn't meet criteria for albums WP:NMUSIC or generally. Lack of independent coverage from reliably sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 15 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:40, 23 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 30 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Javor

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

Way too few and minor credits for this actress to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is certainly attractive and it is a pity that she hasn't received better roles but she is not notable for Wikipedia...yet. Google News found few sources, a small mention here, another result here but the text is never properly displayed and also one mention as part of a list of actors here. I appreciate the author's efforts of adding detailed information about her but there are few significant sources. The IMDb bio wouldn't be sufficient, the TV.com biography would not be reliable as that website rarely verifies the content that is submitted and the oldvictheatre.com link is dead and despite my efforts of retrieving it at web.archive.org. It is possible that sources may be Hungarian but I doubt it considering that it seems she has firm American and British roots. To satisfy my curiosity, I searched with Google News UK but found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to have had major roles yet. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 7 October 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Anderson (iOS developer)

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

Fairly straight up autobiography but the award is probably enough to avoid a speedy. It has previously gone through PROD and was re-created by the subject. No evidence of notability that would meet the guidelines. StarM 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local paper awards only, falling far short of meeting the required depth of coverage for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only local coverage. Insufficient to merit an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 08:56, 7 October 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 Speedy delete, WP:NOTHOW, WP:SNOW, also duplicative, see Dress code. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of dress code at workplace

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

my CSD was contested, so I thought I'd bring it straight here...this article doesn't meet inclusion guidelines Go Phightins! (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugia2453 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my prod →Σ σ ς. 01:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Your CSD was contested because you tagged it as a hoax/vandalism, neither of which apply. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the idea doesn't assert any significance. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 01:08, 30 September 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 subject doesn't pass WP:FOOTY or WP:GNG, and WP:GHITS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Pressley

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that there is no fully pro league for women. This does not alter the notability guidelines in anyway. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep article says that she plays for Russian VDV, which, per the league's page, is the "highest professional women's football league in Russia". If there is no woman's pro league in the US following the disbanding of Women's Professional Soccer, does the Russian league not meet notability guidelines? StarM 01:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Delete based on clarification of guidelines below StarM 01:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The league itself meets notability guidelines does meet notability guidelines, but the women who play in it, as rule do not, unless they are notable in the general sense or have played for their country's national team. Notability requires verifiable evidience, and the claim that this league is not only pro, but fully pro as required by WP:NSPORT, is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question and being on the under 23 team doesn't meet having played for the national team? I'm not saying it does - just asking. The multitude of levels confuse me. StarM 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers who have not played for the senior national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks. Changed vote per your explanation. StarM 01:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented her country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's a professional player, that plays in Europe. She hasn't played in a fully pro league yet, because the only the existed was dissolved in the same year she have been picked. She also has notability [55]--SirEdimon (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is not a valid claim to notability, and the absence of a fully pro league does not alter the notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She have about 487,000 results (0.32 seconds) with her name.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is she's notable. "It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest". So she has notability.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:09, 7 October 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 speedy delete. G11: Blatant spam, and G12: Unambiguous copyright violations Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nakshatra MCA meet@NIT Calicut

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. COI. Fancruft. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does have references, but not formatted and cited properly. In External links, under 'Nakshatra Newsreports', there are newspaper articles covering the event. --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as purely promotional. I have no opinions on notability, but the article is 100% advertising, and probably a copyvio as much of the material appears to be snippets from either this site, or past sites set up for the event. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 3 October 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.