Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 August	16 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Pickford

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

I actually think this article would normally warrant a prod/csd as there are no provided sources which are actually on Martin Pickford, however I decided to err on the side of conservative deletion/more discussion. So, my claim is this BLP is not sufficiently notable and is currently not verifiable. There are three external links, one is an aggregation of Martin's papers and the other two concern his discovery of Orrorin tugenensis, however none of these articles are actually about him. They're all about his discovery of tugenensis (which certainly meets notability and verifiability requirements - which is probably why it has its own article) and though very interesting, in its current state, I don't think it meets Wikipedia's standard for notability/verifiability. --Carbon Rodney 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a GS h-index of 27 in an average cited field passes WP:Prof#C1 by miles. I find it hard to understand the rationale for this nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's an interesting metric, how well does it apply to non-physicists? --Carbon Rodney 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These matters are discussed in policy guideline WP:Prof and its talk page. It is a good idea to familiarize oneself with the Wiki policy on a topic before jumping in with edits, particularly an AfD , that demand the attention of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, I was working under the assumption that a BLP with no citations was a worthy candidate for AfD discussion. --Carbon Rodney 02:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Before a nominator is expected to search for sources before bringing an article to AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Very well known paleontologist. Needs improved referencing but no reason to delete.There seem sources available in the google news, books and scholar links above. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Eg Brian Regal's book Human Evolution: A Guide to the Debates (see here [1] seems to have plenty on Pickford (Msrasnw (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Some other little sources to help establish notability Daily Mail, PBS, Spiegel, The Guardian (Msrasnw (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Ah ok, well if you can insert reliable sources for some of the article's claims that would be a good reason not to delete it. Currently my issue with the article is not so much whether he is a sufficiently well known palaeontologist or whether there are enough links in the article to papers he's written and more the fact that the article consists of six paragraphs of text with zero citations and only one of those paragraphs isn't about tugenensis (so the article indicates to me, that he has done one very famous thing - if he is famous for more, I'd love to see a paragraph about it but at the moment it looks like the only reason this article exists is because his tugenensis find is so notable that some of its notability has spilt onto him). --Carbon Rodney 00:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF, after Msrasnw's improvements make this look more like a biography, and less like a "controversy" content-fork of Orrorin. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 16 August 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas_Tuttebury

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

super short Ldorfman (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no valid argument for deletion has been made. Please see WP:STUB. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub but it has references. I'm not sure we'll be able to expand an article on someone from the 15th century by much. Comment: Has a large number of links to it due to template:Deans of Wells. RJFJR (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I just noticed: the article was created today. RJFJR (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a well-referenced article. Brevity is not a valid deletion criterion. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (moved here from Talk page, by Smalljim) When I started editing Wikipedia, I recall reading that deletionists should wait when a short article appeared as some editors build their articles between saves. Bashereyre (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite what he hints at, Bashereyre's editing record shows that he's far more interested in achieving a high article creation count than in expanding any of the thousands of stubs he's produced. It's only when they're threatened with deletion that he takes any significant action to build on them. However, a couple of previous AfDs suggested that the consensus view is that these stubs are a net benefit to WP, or at least do no harm. —SMALL JIM 11:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia precedent seems to hold that the Deans of Wells are noteworthy. The article has plenty of references. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Well referenced. We have list articles on most Deans and Archdeacons of the Church of England and its pre-reformation predecessor. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from talk pageBoth Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae^[1] and The History of Buckingham^[2] have him dying in 1402 whilst possessed of the Archdeaconship of Buckingham. Either these two sources are erroneous or we need to take a closer look at the sources that have him acting after this date. I also note the source we give for the 1410 date of the end of his tenure as Dean of Wells actually has him as Dean only in the year 1400.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Le Neve, John (1854). Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Vol. 2. p. 69. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
^ Willis, Browne (1755). The history and antiquities of the town, hundred, and deanry of Buckingham. Vol. 2. p. 74. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Could this be two separate people?Bashereyre Bashereyre (talk) 16:34, 21 August 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) 03:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Dezer

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

Article about a Miami business man who does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Main source in the article is his corporate resume. GNews and GBooks turn up passing mentions of his name, but nothing in-depth is directly evident. BenTels (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May be notable because Mitt Romney utilizes such technology.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The proposed tower would consist of units of up to 4,000 square feet, with a pool on each balcony and an elevator that would transport the owner's car directly next to their unit." A resort with a car sorting elevator system. That's notable for it's extreme pointlessness and impracticality Keep per WP:OMGWTF? --MoonLichen (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is notable, the main newspaper of Miami is the Miami Herald who has a private archive, which makes lots of Miami related people difficult to source. At Miami Herald Archives, a search brings up 81 articles relating to him. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=MH%7C&p_product=MH&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_site=miami&s_trackval=MH&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_search-0=gil%20AND%20dezer&s_dispstring=%22gil%20dezer%22%20AND%20date(all)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no In addition there is a google suggested search of "gil dezer wiki" when you search his name, proving that people are seeking information and affirming his notability.(.EricJason (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2012

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 29 August 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, WP:NPASR. Der yck C. 16:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Assembly of God

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

It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CSD#A7. This article is about a non-notable worship centre. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Seems like advertisement to me.
Relevant Policies and Guidelines:

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES ← Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.
WP:NOTABILITY
WP:VERIFIABILITY Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Definitely seems to qualify as a "mega-church" -- staff of 63, 4000 attending on a weekend, 13 services per weekend. Not sure where wikipedia is on these kinds of things. Obviously small run-of-the-mill churches don't qualify, but at some level, I would expect to see an article on large churches. How large is the question -- 3k? 5k? 10k? I'm not sure. --Lquilter (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of size, according to notability criterion an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Notability is neither inherent nor inherited. I tried but could not find independent reliable secondary sources (in English). Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 10:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, size is definitely relevant (see WP:NONPROFIT) but we need sources regardless, of course. However, the church is in Singapore, so I imagine we might try to seek someone able to look in the relevant non-English sources. Unless I missed it and you were able to do that? --Lquilter (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't search non-English sources. But I understand that it's important. Let's see if someone comes up with an independent reliable source. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 13:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- if the content is true, this must be a significnat church. However, it may not be an English-medium church, and accordingly, a dearth of English language sources would not be unexpected. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:27, 19 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:13, 22 August 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 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 11. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Rogers

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

Does not meet notability criteria per WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 11, where his candidacy is already appropriately mentioned, restore and expand if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN the individual lacks suitable notability now, this may have changed by November and therefore United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 11 is the best target for this article for now. Valenciano (talk) 20:50, 15 August 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 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2012#District 19. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Schreibman

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. 17:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 17:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2012#District 19 where his candidacy is already appropriately mentioned, restore and expand if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2012#District 19 per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E. Does not meet criteria for stand-alone article. Location (talk) 03:53, 20 August 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. Speedy Delete as Copyvio (G12) Alexf^(talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suitest

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

Non-notable software package; fails GNG, as there are no reliable sources that I can find Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my findings don't differ from those of Dialectric. BTW, the article is a copy-paste of the GitHub page of the project. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:00, 16 August 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Maloney

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

Not a notable sports team MathewTownsend (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think you'll find them in Football League One which is in this list making them notable and him with it as he has made his pro-debut.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 17:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 17:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination appears to be on the basis that Jack Maloney is a non-notable sports team?? Assuming that he meant Jack Maloney plays for a non-notable team, that is, frankly, utterly ludicrous. Two years ago, Portsmouth were in the Premier League, the most-watched league in the world in the most popular spectator sport on the planet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this chap has made his professional sports debut, meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting, to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This player is clearly worthy of being on wiki and with the amount of people who have shown interest in editing this page, it will soon be up to wiki's standard. Kudosn (User talk:Kudosn)
Comment - WP:NFOOTBALL actually states that anyone who has appeared in a fully professional league is presumed to be notable. While Portsmouth plays in a fully professional league, Maloney appears to not have played in a league match. He has appeared in a League Cup match between two fully professional teams, but NFOOTBALL does not mention cup matches (although the essay WP:FOOTYN does appear to include cup matches).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because the Football League Cup is a competition restricted to members of the Football League, a fully professional league, appearances in it have for as long as I can remember counted as passing WP:NFOOTBALL and that guideline's predecessors. Mr Maloney played in a Football League Cup tie for a high-profile third-tier club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't wildly disagree that Maloney is probably notable (although the fact that Pompey have just signed 10 players on one month contracts [2] may reduce the chances of Maloney playing more matches in the near future). Perhaps someone needs to clarify NFOOTBALL about matches between fully professional teams in cup competions.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played a fully professional league game. Cup games are not league games. Also there are not enough articles references to suggest he is notable.Simione001 (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Struway2 - League Cup games count towards meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. — sparklism ^hey! 12:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he has not played in a league match, appearances in the League Cup are considered sufficient in passing WP:NFOOTBALL, as it only permits teams from the Football League, which is fully professional. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:54, 21 August 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) 03:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Craighead

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO -- there are a few news hits, but nothing at all where she is the main focus (mostly it's about how she got a kiss from a Clinton on her birthday). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. working for someone notable doesn't make you notable. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 3 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom with unanimous keep !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mather House (Case Western Reserve University)

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

Non-notable college building. No real indication of notability; the only reference is to a university sources. There's apparently nothing that makes this building any different from any of the millions of college buildings in the world. GrapedApe (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't tell for certain because the records haven't been digitized, but it's probably in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing property in the Flora Stone Mather College Historic District. It was designed by Abram Garfield, who I'm surprised to find doesn't have an article. - Eureka Lott 13:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now added that university page link and a bit more to the article; more detail should be available in the off-line NRHP nomination document for the district. Thanks Eureka Lott for figuring that out. Abram Garfield architect article also now started. Seems like a pretty major work of the architect, it seems notable from documents already available or to be available. I think i created it as a stub long ago, just as part of a small tug-of-war with Harvard's Mather House dorm residents who believed theirs (Mather House (Harvard University) to be the center of the universe :) , when there are multiple others at Mather House disambiguation. But this one at Case Western Reserve is in fact individually wikipedia-notable. --do ncr am 16:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom, as contributing property to Flora Stone Mather College Historic District. Though, for the future, unless it is expanded, it probably should be merged into that article.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence or argument for notability, and as there are multiple non-notable Braden Awards, it's not clear what a good redirect, if any, would be. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Braden Award

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

Non-notable college award. No real indication of no real indication of notability, no effort to provide sources to prove notability per WP:GNG. I don't even think that it has any notable recipients (not that notable recipients makes it a notable award, WP:INHERIT, but the lack of notable recipients seems to indicate lack of notability.) Notability in questions since April 2012, without resolution. GrapedApe (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The CWRU navbox lists it under traditions, so perhaps the lead should be summarized and redirected to Case Western Reserve University#Traditions? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:21, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weatherhead School of Management. I was about to suggest a merge and redirect, however, the fact that it is one of 16 awards granted by that department leads me to believe that it isn't particularly notable as awards go.[3] Redirect because they are cheap and it is a plausible search term. Location (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, not sure how useful the redirect would be since the title of the award is "Andrew D. Braden Award for Excellence in Auditing and Financial Reporting Studies" and there appear to be a couple of other Braden Awards. Location (talk) 15:32, 22 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Accounting Today April 2, 2007 mentions "James G. Castellano, chairman of RubinBrown LLP, St. Louis, has received the Braden Award from Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead Department of Accountancy." GlobeNewswire November 24, 2008 press release mentions "Mr. Bible is also the first-ever preparer recipient of the Andrew Braden Award from Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management." That's about the only reliable source info out there. Not enought for an article on the topic per WP:GNG. There are other Braden Awards: Wichita Symphony Orchestra has a "Robert G. Braden Award".[4]. There is a "The "Ned Braden" award.[5], and The Margie Braden Award.[6]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not a notable award. Redirect not warranted. Location (talk) 12:58, 7 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 no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Relays

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

College tradition, limited to a single campus, no real indication of notability, no effort to provide sources to prove notability per WP:GNG. Article is just a description of the race and a list of past winners, nothing of real encyclopedic value. Notability questioned since March 2009, without resolution.GrapedApe (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 16:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As is, I agree that the article needs a lot of work, but I do find this to be encyclopedic material on par with Little 500. While most of the coverage does appear to be from sites affiliated with Case Western, an argument could be made that it passes WP:GNG through a few mentions in independent reliable sources (e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). Alternatively, this could be merged with something like Case Western Reserve University traditions in a format similar to Carnegie Mellon University traditions or Dartmouth College traditions. Location (talk) 16:06, 22 August 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) 03:37, 29 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Ritchie

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

This page is a bibliography of a living person. It contains personal information whic is not available publicly.

I am the person who this article about and I wish it to be deleted. ~~annabelclair~~ I understand the article to be created by youths aged under 15 years. The article also contains factual errors and ought to be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelclair (talk • contribs)

Delete - Not notable per WP:ATHLETE#High school and pre-high school athletes, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Lone boatman (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oops, I somehow missed the part about her being a rower for NZ in the World Rowing Championships (now linked in the article). If that can be referenced, then she would certainly meet the threshold of notability in WP:ATHLETE. Lone boatman (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The concerns brought forth by the nominator are editorial matters and not valid reasons to delete the article. I see no glaring BLP issues in the article, but if there is unsourced, factually incorrect information in the article, then the offending content should be removed, not the entire article. As far as I can tell this individual competed in the officially recognized world championship of her sport, which qualifies her for inclusion under WP:ATH. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 15:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETEthe article contravenes W:BLP . Very limited regard to the subjects privacy or families privacy and no source to back up the source of personal information. regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must be consideredt. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelclair (talk • contribs) 15 August 2012

I struck and indented your vote. You nominated the article for deletion, so your nomination is your vote. City Of Silver 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Regard for the subject's privacy" does not mean the subject can request deletion because he or she does not want to be represented on Wikipedia. Your username suggests you are the subject of the article. Feel free to remove any information which is "not available publicly"; I don't see anything that obviously fits that definition, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It looks like some of it may have been removed already, although I'm really not sure what information you considered potentially harmful here. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think she fails WP:ATHLETE as she has not participated at an Olympics, there aren't specific Rowing criteria and there isn't really enough in the article to meet GNG. Not sure if competing in the World Championships is enough, or does it have to be the olympics? We may need some rowing topic experts here. Mattlore (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:ATHLETE requires that an individual "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" (emphasis added). I'm pretty sure that competing in the World Rowing Championships is considered "highest level" in this sport. That being said, notability is still borderline at best as far as WP:GNG is concerned, so I think we should be able to take the subject's wishes into account here. I have provided Annabelclair (talk · contribs) instructions on how to contact the Foundation to verify that she is indeed Annabel Ritchie and not an impostor. If a member of the OTRS team comes here to say that she has done so, then I will switch my !vote to delete. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:ATHLETE because she has competed at International Rowing Events. Has sufficient media coverage from reliable sources - her concerns with any inaccuracy could be easily addressed by editing the article. A quick Google search seems to verify the information in the article as it presently stands. There does not seem to be anything that is not already in the public arena. NealeFamily (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

""Annabelclair"" here - I contacted the details that KuyaBriBri gave me. They said it has to go thru this process to have it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelclair (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marginal notability + subject's wishes pushes this into delete territory. First Light (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep I suppose that NealeFamily is correct with his assessment of WP:ATHLETE; I almost wonder if maybe this article and any others on rowers could be merged into a List of notable competitive rowers or something. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ritchie has competed as a rower at the top level of her sport (World Championships) as confirmed here from the 1999 World Championships. Per WP:BLP, we can remove the unsourced material, and if applicable, Wikipedia:Revision deletion might be applicable, but none of those are reasons for deletion of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:44, 20 August 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) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nicholls

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

This article reads like an advertisement. A search of the Internet for more information suggests strongly that the subject is not notable in the sense of Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Having searched for spelling variations, I have noticed that our similarly-titled articles Steve Nichols and Stephen Nichols are also poorly-sourced, so to anyone searching, please keep a note of any sources you come across related to them as well as him.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much better third-party verifiability of noteworthiness comes up - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search has found numerous sources that were not originally in the article. High Beam comes up short but a search of Google for "Steve Nicholls social media" brings up sources such as Industry Week and CNN news. There are many Steve Nicholls out there so you need to narrow your search by putting more than just his name in the search. --Morning277 (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Morning277 is the original creator and sole-author of this article. Perhaps it would be helpful to explain how you came across Mr. Nicholls and made the decision to make a biography about him, so that we might better understand the claim of notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I did not realize who recommended the deletion. Regardless, I believe that the article does meet notability guidelines. I came across the article Here after looking up books on social media. I came across his book, then him, then Wiki. Was surprised as I thought the original article was good but it was denied due to lack of sources as the only ones it contained were self published I believe. I am writing from my phone so when I get to a computer I will do more research and hopefully come up with more reliable sources. Also, as you say it is written like an ad, any suggestions on how to make it read less like an ad would be appreciated. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Note I found the CNN link. It's a blog post. Nothing wrong with that, but does little in my view to help establish notability. We need independent third party references about Mr. Nicholls to help with that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citations - I agree that there must be independent and reliable sources to support notability. I found additional sources that I believe count towards notability. There is one of him giving an interview on Money Sense Radio where he is cited as a "pioneer in social media for business."[13] He is also featured in Industry News Weekly.[14] The Courier Journal quotes him in an article (this is borderline passing mention but I believe that it would help establish notability).[15] Here is an article in Tech Journal that quotes him.[16] There is one from Philly.com but it is a reprint of the St.Louse dispatch (not to be used as an additional source but I believe it lends more credibility to the St. Louis Dispatch article that is cited by Carrite below.[17]--Morning277 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the Courier Journal cited by Carrite so I believe the St. Louis Dispatch could be counted as an additional source. --Morning277 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 16:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wikify ~~Delete~~ The book might squeak by wp:notability but this is not an article on the book I saw no suitable coverage on the individual. The writing looks like a pure advertisement/resume. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my recommendation from "delete" to "keep and wikify" due to additional sourcing which has been added. I'll try to wikify the wording a bit. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked wording a bit North8000 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the article.--Morning277 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cited as an expert on Social Media in This Piece from the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I have added additional sources that were found online including the Huffington Post, the Courier Journal, etc. Not sure what additional is needed to show his notability.--Morning277 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Things he has written and quotes by him are not the same as coverage of him. I don't see enough independent RSs with enough depth of coverage to meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Novaseminary (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional, an advertisement rather than a biography. The Courier-Journal article quotes him as an expert but says nothing about him. The other references fail to establish his notability, whether using WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG as the standard. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 15:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sound very self-promotional; plus the subject fails WP: BIO and is therefore non-notable. Electric Catfish 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TThe book is self-published, by a vanity publisher called Bookinars, [18] that specializes in works intended to increase business revenue. The book is listed by worldcat as being in a total of 5 libraries only. As n author, he is therefore totally non-notable. Being cited as an expert in local or regional papers is a very insecure basis for importance--it really just means the article is likely to be PR-based. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 22 August 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) 16:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP Gallery

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

Not notable. Pure advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability, zero enclyclopedic content. The content and its manner of wording is pure advertisement. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Exemplifies WP:COI or at least WP:ADVERT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 August 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 Theory of tides. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic theory of tides

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

Content fork redundant with tides and theory of tides, poorly written and sourced. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~/merge Pure duplication/content fork under a dubious name. Looks like this might have briefly been considered a "theory" in 1775, but is now just basic accepted tidal info. I saw no sourcing to indicate that anything by this name or content exists as an identifiable entity. Zero indication of wp:notability given for this term. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) modified North8000 (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "theory" in naming a scientific theory in no way indicates that it is speculative; in fact, the obvious merge/redirect target would be Theory of tides. I have the impression that there is referenced material here about the experimental confirmation of the accuracy of Laplace's simplified model that is not represented elsewhere, in which case deletion cannot be recommended, but I haven't looked at this in detail for lack of time. --Lambiam 08:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All true. But I think that this article is still a wreck and a duplication and is titled with an obscure little-used term that does not satisfy wp:notability. I guess that points to a merge.North8000 (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Theory of tides. Google book and scholar search show enough hits on "dynamic theory of tides" to establish that this is a reasonable search term. --Lambiam 10:48, 17 August 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) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grace (Singapore Chinese Christian) Church

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

It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CSD#A7. This article is about a non-notable worship centre. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Seems like advertisement to me.
Relevant Policies and Guidelines:

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES ← Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.
WP:NOTABILITY
WP:VERIFIABILITY Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 16:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I declined the speedy deletion placed on the article, I don't think this church meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I can't find any online or news sources. It's possible that sources do exist, but are in Chinese (since services are held in Cantonese and Mandarin). If anyone can find sufficient sources, I'll change my comments here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1300 members (as stated in the article) is large for a church, but not notably large -- there are no doubt thousands or more of similarly sized churches in the world. It also has a reasonably long history, although not always under this name -- length of existence is another consideration under WP:NONPROFIT. But it's not particularly long in terms of churches and religious organizations. None of the other facts specified in the article suggest notability under WP:NONPROFIT. So, I would say non-notable. --Lquilter (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- This potentially a well-written objective article free of advertising, but it lacks references. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 19 August 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) 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatjon Tafaj

(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. Contest rationale was based on the age of the article, which has not bearing on notability whatsoever. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – every single one of them fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY due to minimal media coverage and zero appearances in a fully professional league. – Kosm1 fent 10:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is first division Albanian league not professional? --Mr. Mario (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professional? Yes. But claims that it is fully professional, as required by WP:NSPORT, have not been supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the real challenge is to find whether the league is professional or not. UEFA website says nothing. --Mr. Mario (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 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. Although the case for notability is weak here, I don't think it's weak enough for me to disregard the arguments of the keep voters. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prill

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The article is very promotional in tone. All of the sources are local coverage from the Bad Axe paper, self-promoting quotes from others on the National Grandparents' Day website, or trivial (a two-sentence review on his single, a couple brief blurbs in the Detroit Free Press — "Disc of the week" is definitely trivial). A search on Google News found nothing that wasn't from the Bad Axe paper, and Google Books gave nothing. This article has a lot of words, but says very little about what makes Prill notable. Having a lot of famous people give you lip service is not notability. Even his official song for Grandparents' Day is barely an assertation, as I can't find any secondary sources to verify it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article was successfully deleted in 2009, and was re-created in 2011. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Artene50 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAVOTE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See 'if the nominator clearly expresses your opinion on the matter, making you parrot their statement instead of just saying 'per nom' is needless bureaucracy'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - This person passes WP:BASIC per the following reliable secondary sources (they were found in the article): [19], [20], [21]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part about "All of the sources are local coverage from the Bad Axe paper"? You can't build an article entirely on local sources. I've been in the Oscoda paper several times; does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement Gets a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. Note that the so called "National Grandparents' Day website" is his own personal website. Winning one of one years National Grandparents' Day council's songwriting is not a major a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. This is a topic that is already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia and has reliable sourcing. Thus there is no case here for deletion of the redirect, and no case is being made that there is objectionable material in the edit history that requires deletion. I agree that the article has promotional tone, but so too does the article here and here. IMO the attention given to Prill by Stabenow and Seeger contributes to wp:notability. The Carter picture, comment, and signature is interesting; it doesn't in prose show that Carter knew anything about Prill except his first name; yet attention goes from the former president to Prill's connection to National Grandparent's Day. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really think having famous people kiss your ass = notability? WP:NOTINHERITED. All they did was pimp him out. They are not reviewers. Every argument you've made so far is "He's notable because he has a tangential tie to another notable thing", "What about X?", and your "already covered elsewhere"/"has reliable sourcing" comment is immaterial. This has nothing to do with National Grandparents Day's notability; it has to do with his notability. Just because the holiday is notable, doesn't mean he is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reliably sourced, the so called "National Grandparents' Day website" is Prill's own personal website, not an independent reliable source. The only reason that this info exists here in three different places is because one person decided to spam the same cruft into three different places. He claims to have the "official" song but who makes it official? the National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista, California. Who are they? What makes what they say official for a public holiday? Was the song official for only the year in which he won the contest then official goes on to the next winner? We don't know cause it's a minor contest reliable sources don't seem to be covering and the only info we are getting is coming from Prill himself. This article should be deleted and this self serving spam removed from other locations. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The National Grandparents Day Council, "Who are they?" "The National Council of Grandparents Day (National Grandparents Day Council) is a nonprofit corporation established by descendants of Marian M. McQuade, founder of National Grandparents Day." ref. The article also gives attention to Johnny Prill. Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:45, 1 August 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, Wifione ^Message 04:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The promotional tone of this article makes it suspect, but the bottom line is this guy is not notable enough. The bulk of the sources are gleaned from "nationalgrandparentsday.com" a place I don't think is verifiable enough. Interestingly, that article on WP was/is edited by the same person who created this guy's. The other sources are local newspapers. Nothing substantial, national or distinguished. That's not enough for him to pass WP:GNG no way, no how.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Muldoon is an example of an article sourced with two "local" sources; where one book had an ISBN not listed at Worldcat; and about the other book an editor posted, "To the best of my knowledge the book was merely printed locally, not published.". The newspaper in the current discussion is available worldwide on the www. As for the Stabenow reference, it is a picture of a letter from a senator. It is either reliable or it is a forgery. Is somebody that has attracted attention for volunteering in nursing homes and has attracted attention from politicians, writers, and musicians for promoting grandparents, going to resort to a forgery that is easily tested by writing to the Senator's office? I think not. I also note that the previous post has overlooked an international source I provided on 31 July in my previous post. WP:GNG only requires two "good" articles to establish wp:notability, a benchmark which is surpassed here. Unscintillating (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the Governor kissing your ass = notability? No. That's called riding coattails. Also, the availability of the sources is immaterial to notability. Whether they're only available locally or online has no bearing on notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, for someone who is quite active on AfD, you should know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is, I don't care if Bobo Smith has an article and his sources haven't been updated at all since his proud grandmother created it. All I care about, Sir, is if this guy has some independent, verfiable sources. And it has come to my attention that this "www.nationalgrandparentsday" is his site. So not a source that is strong, if even valid. And the bulk of the references link to this promotional site. As for the picture, again, it is great for Bobo to have a picture of him, say, shaking hands with Bill Clinton. But while Clinton is notable, Bobo is not. Same applies to Mr. Prill, who does not pass WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the concern represented by the copyright on the grandparents website when I stated, "IMO the attention given to Prill by Stabenow and Seeger contributes to wp:notability." There is an argument to be made that the ~~Clinton~~ Carter picture could have been routinely obtained, and therefore shows no wp:notability, but I don't see how the Stabenow and Seeger pictures can exist without the politician and the singer directly attending to Prill, i.e., the pictures reliably show that Prill is "attracting attention" from the "world-at-large". I think it is reasonable to believe that Prill posted the two pictures. I see nothing wrong with a source providing evidence of wp:notability, it makes our job as editors easier when sources provide such. The promotional tone is a different problem, promotional tone is a content issue. wp:notability as per WP:N is not a function of the content of Wikipedia articles. To run through the main points again, the National Grandparents Day is nationally recognized by congress, and Prill is a prominent part of this story. As such there is no case for deletion of the redirect. Nor is there any case being made for deleting the edit history (the promotional tone can be fixed with ordinary editing). If there is no case to delete the redirect, and no case to delete the edit history, there is no case for deletion<full stop> Further, a variety of secondary sources in the article, and more found for this AfD, support the position that WP:GNG and WP:N are satisfied. Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Sir, please see comments above in regards to photo by "ten pound hammer."Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a prominent part of the day. There may be an argument that he is a prominent part of the story of the self created council, but I don't consider that to be so. But not of the day. The song might be the official song of the council as mentioned in your link to the story about the council but that gives it no other status. The passing mention in that article is trivial coverage. The. Ouncil itself gets hardly any coverage And prill is only a trivial part of that so to leap to call him a prominent part of a related story is wrong. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:DUE prominence is defined not by Wikipedia editors but by reliable sources. And trivial coverage is something like a listing in a phone book. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have not given him prominence, just passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Highbeam preview of a 2004 article about Prill in the Polish-American Journal and here is an amusing music review in the lasvegasmercury that is comparable to the review already cited in the article from the Las Vegas Weekly. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First one still looks like run of the mill PR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{ec} Please state your evidence. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[22]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Sir, username "duffbeer: makes a good point, the mention in the sources are topical. The "review" you listed (second source) is merely a capsule. I do understand you are invested in preserving this article, but I don't see him as a lynchpin of the day. From your argument, it would see Prill is. But indeed, Prill is a pawn. The picture you mentioned doesn't fit WP:GNG per my Bill Clinton argument in previous comments.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE is a policy that says prominence is determined by sources, duff is using a definition of prominence that bases prominence on his/her personal opinion. As per the text at the start of every AfD edit, "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". Being a linchpin is not what WP:N is about, see the lead of WP:N. See also WP:Redirects for deletion. I mentioned three pictures, two of the three IMO clearly show attention being given directly to Prill, which as per the nutshell of WP:N goes to notability. Each non-trivial source contributes to wp:notability, some more than others. We have singers; politicians; four different newspapers in Huron, Detroit, and Las Vegas; an independent council in California; a foreign language article; the list goes on. As per the nutshell of WP:N, the "world-at-large" has given Prill "sufficiently significant attention". Even if you argue against "sufficiently", you still have no theoretical case for deletion, so none of the delete !votes are making policy-based arguments. As per recent analysis such non-policy delete !votes might be rehabilitated with partial weight as "redirect or merge somewhere" !votes. But if there are no editors arguing for redirect or merge, there is no place to assign these !votes but with the "keep" !votes. This is the point at which a closing administrator may restore the standing of the delete !votes to declare that there was no consensus at the AfD, but this type of close encourages the cycle of unnecessary AfD nominations and non-policy-based Delete !votes to continue. There are other possibilities, but the best long-term result for the community here is a close as "Keep". Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not basing it on my opionon of prominece. I'm basing it on what independent reliable sources have written, or rather in this case not written. If the pictures you are refering to are the ones on his site then they are not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 20 August 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: To give more time to comment on the new sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep On the minus side, about 10 of the "references" are NationalGrandparentsDay.com which is his OWN web site. On the plus side, regarding real-world notability, if the claims are true, some major folks have recorded songs written by him and has received some reviews. Also there are 4 sources which appear wp:notability-suitable. Two are too hard for anyone to quickly check (old and off-line) and two are on-line and look suitable. The wording style is not too promotional, but the choice of material to cover is. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In terms of the "sources" listed, I agree the bulk of them listed are from his own website. By default I consider this promotional! Moreover, local newspapers are not considered "independent" by Wikipedia. Also, this [23] is a capsule. Not extensive coverage. Merely passing mention. Despite the multitude of "sources" listed, not one confirms notability. And, for the record, Sir, I do see "duffbeer" as having a point here. The impetus of this article was to promote this subject, and this "day" and unfortunately this makes the notability factor a hard sell. The lack of independent sources and appropriate coverage just seal the deal for a delete.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you overall, but where did you hear "local newspapers are not considered "independent" by Wikipedia."? North8000 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this [24] a straight-foward layout of what is independent, and what isn't. What we have for Prill isn't much in the way of the former. One of the many reasons this guy is not notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 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) 16:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team UNO

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

Pure Original Research claiming about a new game created today. PROD was removed by the author. I am expecting a Speedy delete. Anbu121 (talk me) 09:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a friend that edited the page and has stopped and will not be editing anymore. It is an original idea that came from uno just a variation and thought i would share our new game - Author --Buttersully (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 16:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia is not a place for things a group of friends made up one day. Rorshacma (talk) 22:53, 15 August 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) 16:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Chill

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Chill

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

A non-notable edition of the Now series in the UK. These typically receive no significant coverage in reliable sources, although they tend to sell well due to heavy promotion and the long-term popularity of the series. Popularity as indicated by sales charts doesn't equate to notability if there's no coverage. Redirects have been reverted and the author fails to discuss. At the least, this one is just too soon with nothing more than a track list. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found for this future release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time. I'm also not opposed to redirecting this to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. Gongshow ^Talk 19:58, 8 August 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 15 August 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. In contrast to the two previous relists, I see that The Bushranger's comment, when combined with Pepper's evidence and the speedy-keep of Raka, Tibet quoted in the nomination, constitute an adequate consensus that Bamê is a real, verifiable, populated locality, and its article should therefore be kept. Der yck C. 16:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bamê

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see below Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raka,_Tibet. 2011wp (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer, populated places that can be verified through reliable sources are always notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A possible match to Bamê is the village of Bamei (巴美村) in Deqen County, Yunnan, at 28°50′37″N 98°40′37″E / 28.84361°N 98.67694°E / 28.84361; 98.67694 along the Yunnan–Tibet AR border. GotR ^Talk 18:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Near the coords GotR supplied: Bing Maps says "Bamê", Google Maps says "Bameicun", OSM says "Bame". Falling rain has a page for Bame, including coords, weather, and elevation. However, Google images for Bameicun shows a lot more promising results than Bame, China.

Per above, "Bamei" (according to Fallingrain) is at 30°29′15″N 101°28′38″E / 30.48750°N 101.47722°E, while Bame is at 28°50′0″N 98°40′0″E / 28.83333°N 98.66667°E. From that, I'd say Bamei is not the same as Bame/Bamê. From that, I'm inclined to say keep. "Pepper" @ 12:51, 9 August 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:14, 22 August 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. Permission given for speedy renomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meny Hoffman

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable businessman. Even the sources of the article are quoting him rather than being about him. There's nothing about him. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this page is considered for deletion. In actuality, Meny Hoffman is a well known businessman and some of the references that he was quoted in were garnered because he is a well-known figure, specifically within the marketing industry. Additionally, he was a keynote speaker at Infusioncon (an industry event) for a crowd of over 3,000 people, and was on a speaker roster with notable marketing leaders like Gary Vaynerchuk and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakewood363 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 August 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everything referenced in here is verifiable and it would appear that he is somebody who is very much recognized within the marketing industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.124.218 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushma Pandey

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable writer. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references in the article are links to articles the subject has written ather than to WP:RS articles about the subject. No other suitable references found, so fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 21:33, 8 August 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Simply fails WP:GNG. Not even a single reliable source to assert and establish notability of the subject under discussion. — Bill william compton^Talk 23:41, 15 August 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) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Francis

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find indications of notability outside of the pictorials listed here, and some primary source websites Shadowjams (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage if you ask your mother to disable parental controls. Periglio (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lolz Shadowjams (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Unless the article can be expanded to show she is notable. At present clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 11 August 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 15 August 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) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real United Football Club

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

PROD contested by article creator; original rationale was "No evidence of notability, local amateur sports club" - this concern remains. Giant Snowman 08:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There are no sources and more important no indication of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – hurts my eyes. No evidence of notability as well, fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I find a good rule of thumb is any football club article that includes the word "we" is ripe for deletion. Keresaspa (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable club, and even if they were the article is of such shocking quality that I would still nominate it for deletion and suggest it be started again from scratch...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central Midlands Football League Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A poor quality article of a club that clearly fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:44, 20 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stiletto Spy School

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

Blatant, uncontroversial WP:Promo, written by a self-declared WP:COI editor User:Eclipsed, sourced by PR-fed "news feeds" and media-invite driven PR events. This is simply a two-store local business which spent money on ongoing PR services, and requested, and expected, a Wikipedia article. All refs are puff pieces, and were instigated by PR; text about the company itself is substantially the same text in all refs. None were organic ("I saw an ad and went", or "My neighbor went and told me about it") - no refs describe any reason for writing about the business. None constitute an investigation, a review, comparison with any other such studios, analysis, survey, or other research. No refs cite any other sources. None were written by experts, or anyone qualified to judge the quality of the training given, or the claims made about the instructors employed. Example: MSNBC's video shows an obvious promo filming setup - studio setting with company logo prominently displayed the entire time. The Psychology Today article was written by a self-declared PR person. The Fox News piece included a former CIA operations officer, but he had nothing good or bad to say about the school itself, other than "If you know 'just enough about everything', you know just enough to get into a world of hurt." The timing of the sources appears deliberate, resembling PR release timing. This is, indirectly, gaming Wikipedia's "sources over time" requirement in GNG. Article was PRODed. User:Silver seren deleted the PROD an hour later without disclosing it on the talk page with ({{Old prod full}}) per WP:DEPROD (step 3). The deletion edit summary was "The article is clearly notable, per the GNG and the numerous high quality sources". No, not per WP:GNG, or per WP:CORP, or per WP:SCHOOL. Sources aren't independent, if they are prompted by PR. Only two sources could have been high quality, but in this case, are not.

There may be pro-PR-based article POV. User:Silver seren praised Eclipsed's authorship of multiple business article stubs here:

"One of the best examples, I think, of a paid editor (I know this is about PR specifically, but it's related) becoming a volunteer and then also helping to serve the overall company article issue is User:Eclipsed. He's been diligently working in his Requested articles workspace on creating stubs for requested company and business articles. ..." -- User:Silver seren "

May be mergeable into a larger article about spy "schools". Lexein (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the hell is with the personal attacks on me and Eclipsed? This is not promotional at all and Eclipsed is not a COI editor for this subject. Just because he has a COI on something else doesn't mean you can then say he has a COI on all company articles. He's been working on the backlogged company AfC requests all on his own because he wants to help out. Furthermore, your "analysis" of the sources is all opinion with no proof whatsoever. The refs are all months apart, meaning that they weren't in response to a single event. Here's coverage of it in Het Laatste Nieuws and here's coverage in Le Figaro, as additional sources to what's already in the article. I don't know what your problem is with me or Eclipsed, Lexein, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It's notable, period. Silver seren^C 09:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nothing personal. No attack intended. I disagree with direct paid editing (via Talk ok), and I think COI editors should only create articles through AfC, when there is even a hint of a conflict. A history of paid editing tinges everything with conflict. I took note of your enthusiastic support of this COI editor, because that, and this article, changes the nature of this encyclopedia, steering it toward being PR, a directory, things that it is WP:NOT intended to be.

That an editor declares COI does not grant license to create articles about small businesses based on puff sources, and it doesn't matter what country publishes the puff piece, it's puff, and PR. I don't dispute that the business exists (it does), just that it meets standalone notability (it doesn't). Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY, or a WP:PROMO venue; here, I apply WP:DUCK. Nearly identical text in puff pieces, one written by a PR person = PR-driven. Independent and reliable sources provide substantial discussion supporting the importance of the topic, but none of the sources used or in Talk do that. "It was fun and empowering, said the customer standing there" does not a notable business make. I am skeptical of these sources, their timing, who triggered them, who sponsored them for the reasons stated. If there were any substantive professional sources: doctor, sports psychologist, training expert, espionage expert, weapons expert, martial arts expert, business expert (analyst at the Wall Street Journal), anyone, I might not have put this up for AfD. But, bluntly, this article would not have survived AfC, so why should it now survive AfD?

What would you have me strike through? I will consider it.

May be mergeable into a larger article about spy schools.--Lexein (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:GNG per:

Daily News article
Today (NBC News/MSN) article
Le Figaro article
Het Laatste Nieuws article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All nearly identical puff pieces. None demonstrate importance. The LeFigaro article seems a bit plagiarized from the NY Daily News - not a good source. The Het Laatste Nieuws article is just another regurgitation, not an original article, and not a good source. We have a responsibility as editors to spot PR splashes and set them aside. Some press releases, and PR-driven news placements in a larger article can be tolerated, but not every single one. --Lexein (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep Sources establish wp:notability, probably genuine coverage because it is inherently novel & interesting to many. I consider them to be typical coverage, not "puff" pieces. Based on my superficial read of the above and the situation, high concerns about past and future exploiting / gaming of the system to do promotional work, but the system is the system unless we change it. So far it has been just a dry enclyclopedic stub but I suppose it has a high risk of being turned into a full blown promotional piece if it survives. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 16:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 15 August 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) 03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Wala

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

I found this page at the end of the backlog of WP:NPP and tried to source it. The page claims that Muhammad Wala is in Chiniot District. However, the government of Pakistan thinks that in Chiniot district there are only Jan Muhammad Wala (which is likely mentioned in the article as Than Muhammad Wala), and Khan Muhammad Wala, which already has an article. Given that all info is unsourced and thus not credible, that coordinates do not lead to any locality called Muhammad Wala, and that the author is indeffed, I believe this article contains no useful information and should be deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:14, 22 August 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) 03:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apart from the factual doubts raised in the nomination, this article seems to be largely a vehicle for self-promotion by Usman Nadeem, now indef-blocked as MaanRoy (talk · contribs) and again as Mannadeem (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 31 August 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 Guardians of Ga'Hoole. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'hoole: The Burning

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any indication that this book meets WP:NBOOKS criteria. Doubtful the book can surpass a plot summary. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I doubt I'll find enough to warrant keeping the article, but this might potentially be useful as a redirect. However, since the title of the series is also in the name, I'm wondering if a redirect would be too redundant...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: This is actually mostly copyvio from the GoG wiki, so I'm going to tag it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing this out! I just have a nagging feeling of the possibility that Wikia may have copyvioed us, not the other way around. ~~In any case, I endorse the CSD and will look into this possibility~~. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GASP! We didn't copy Wikia, Wikia copied us! Here is the alleged material being added to Wikia on 24 June 2011 [25] and here is the material being added to Wikipedia at 15 March 2011 [26]. I happen to have an account at Wikia and will notify them immediately. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Say it isn't so! LOL, I didn't even think of checking the date on the other article since I'm so used to people pasting stuff from other sites here. It's kind of novel to have it the other way around!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/weak redirect to the series. I'm not entirely sure that the title as listed would be that great of a redirect term, but since redirects are cheap it wouldn't really hurt anything to have the title redirect to the series page. I found only two sources for the article, one that mentioned that the book had been declined for a school district due to it potentially not meeting guidelines and a review by kidreads.com. There's an AudioFile review out there, but I can't actually find the review on the AudioFile site. I say that we put what we can in the main article and just redirect or delete this entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted, but a redirect would be better than deletion, as the article has existed for a few years and there is an obvious target; it would also allow the history to be retained from which the content could possibly be used. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should Soft Delete this one if no one objects in the next listing period. There is a weak, weak consensus for redirecting, and I think a closure from silence maybe performed on this one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. This "no 3rd relist" rule has not been followed. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:54, 15 August 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) 15:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grove's Law

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

This seems to be something that one guy just decided one day was to be called "Grove's Law." There seem to be no shortage of people claiming that some random thing that Andy Grove said is called "Grove's Law." The problem is that these things are all different from each other. There is no support in reliable third party sources that the claims made in this article are true. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a random thought by even a notable person is not notable itself: see WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed there is no shortage of laws. I found a third. None appear to have become notable. I added the one he created himself to the Quotes section of the Andrew Grove article as this was the only one that was verifiable. --Kvng (talk) 03:34, 14 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Even the article says that there is no single law identified by the term. Would make a good paragraph in the Grove article. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Andy Grove. Ambiguous and non-notable. If it is lucky, it just might warrant a brief comment at the Andy Grove article. Dolphin (t) 12:58, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Nazikian

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largely promotional biography of a non-notable entrepreneur; an examination of the article edit history (and history of its creator) reveals a possible COI. Zaldax (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a rather obvious keep. Hathatehat (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ChinICT - My only interest in this article was due to Nazikian's ownership of the Argentine winery Lu di Franco but that winery is very non-notable and by itself wouldn't even pass WP:GNG much less WP:WINERY. Admittedly, I am not the most familiar with the tech industry but it seems like the company Nazikian founded, ChinICT, is notable even if Nazikian, himself, is not. If this was the reverse with a winery (with the winery notable but the owner not), over at WP:WINE we would merge the relevant, unbias and sourced content of the owner bio's over to the winery page and either delete or redirect the owner's page. As far as I can tell reading about Franck Nazikian in the English sources and what little I can glean from Google translate on the Chinese page, this seems like the best course. The ChinICT only needs a little about his tech experience and work with conference while other details (like his largely non-notable winery) can be deleted. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept. Indeed: 1) All references to the Lu di Franco Winery and Mr. Nazikian's activities in the wine business have been removed - including related categories. 2) Also, only highly reputable references about Mr. Nazikian's achievements as an entrepreneur have been kept (including Forbes, TechCrunch, China Daily, Les Echos, China Central Television, United Nations, Fortune Magazine); these references clearly establish Mr. Nazikian as a notable entrepreneur. 3) At last, Mr. Nazikian's Chinese name - 方克纳 - has been added for further references about him in Chinese on Google or on Chinese's largest search engine - baidu.com ; as a matter of facts, basic research about Mr. Nazikian on Google or on Baidu - in English or in Chinese - return an outstanding number of reliable references that also clearly establish him as a notable entrepreneur. For these 3 reasons this article should not be considered for deletion anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngoldberg5 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like an obvious keep to me. Davidw895 —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based upon my own experience in tech business, a quick search on the Internet, as well as the checking of the references provided in this article, it is my opinion that this article should be kept as is now. JamesFarrow2005 —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 22 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Environmental Group

I myself have created this article of a local environmental organization. However, I recently received an e-mail from the organization, requesting me to delete the page as it violated their policy or something related to that. I request whoever concerned to delete this article as soon as possible. Gautham Manoj Pillai (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the author has asked for it and will get him in trouble with the organisation Seasider91 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the message seriously. I am a member of the organization, and they have sent me a direct e-mail asking me to delete it. I created the article. I'm new to Wikipedia (not more than 8-9 months) and I request someone to make the process clear to me.--Gautham Manoj Pillai (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be a G7 case. However, assuming it's not WP:COPYVIO, if you're not employed by the organisation I'm not sure how they could "get you in troble" for writing about them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reliable sources are available and the article does not seem a copyvio; I might have missed some link on the primary site or other site while checking this. Therefore relisting for a last look by editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as demonstrated by Northamerica1000, whose work has made the G7 argument more difficult. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so you can explain to whoever contacted you that you made a good-faith attempt to have the article deleted, but others found it noteworthy enough for coverage. Whether an organization wants to be represented on Wikipedia has absolutely no bearing on whether it will be or not; just ask the scores of non-notable companies who have seen their promotional articles deleted. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 8 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:01, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Pendergarst

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

Nominated for deletion because does not meet WP:NMMA and does not appear to otherwise meet WP:GNG. Should be noted that death was covered by ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/8184080/heavyweight-sherman-pendergarst-45-dies-cancer). RonSigPi (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage. ESPN. It seems we'll be seeing more of him.Hathatehat (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He has two fights for top tier organizations, so he's just short of the WP:MMANOT guidelines, but there does seem to be some significant coverage of him, both from ESPN and from the Baltimore Sun, so I'd say he borderline passes WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 14:29, 9 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Continuing to fight/perform while battling cancer adds substance to the article that is now historical. Another secondary reliable source at QuadCityTimes even though it adds no new information. I (and/or others) will flesh the article out a bit with info from the obit in the Baltimore Sun and add sources in the next few days. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 14:34, 20 August 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) 15:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Lucio Nascimento

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No fights for a first or second tier MMA organization. Subject also lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fights, even if against notable opponents, do not show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Jakejr (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fighter has fought a number of notable fighters, one of which is a world champion in a major MMA promotion, also has had 2 fights in the past 6 months. Sepulwiki (talk), 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I was actually surprised to see that he has an ESPN profile, but that was the only non-MMA source I could find. He does have fights against notable opponents, but notability is not inherited, and he definitely fails WP:MMANOT since he has no fights for top tier promotions. CaSJer (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no fights for any major MMA organization so he fails WP:MMANOT. The fact that he fought someone in a minor bout 3+ years ago who's now notable does not make him notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 17:53, 13 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails all notability criteria with no fights for even a second tier MMA organization. The fact that he's had 2 fights in the last 6 months does not make him notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:31, 17 August 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) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkel Guldbæk

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has no fights for even a second tier MMA organization (failing WP:MMANOT) and his kickboxing record doesn't have anything to show he meets the kickboxing notability criteria at WP:KICK or the martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet any notability criteria and also lacks signficiant independent coverage. Mdtemp (talk) 18:28, 13 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As previously stated, he has no fights for a notable MMA promotion and no significant independent coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 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) 15:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Cheng (fighter)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has no fights for a top tier MMA organization, thus failing WP:MMANOT, and all coverage of him falls in the routine sports coverage category. Jakejr (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable fighter for a notable promotion. Reached finals of a big tournament to crown new champion before being injured. Pound4Pound (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also pointing out MMANOT is an unreliable guideline to use as a base for deletion. Too many problems relating to the page to use as a notability policy to delete pages on. Pound4Pound (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Striking comments due to user now indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it mirrors WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts for fighters and the fighters' criteria has generally been well accepted as consensus at multiple discussions. The disagreements have come over the notability of individual events but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Jakejr (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even not taking into account WP:MMANOT, he has no fights against notable fighters and no fights in notable events. I also haven't been able to find any information about him from a non-MMA source, so I don't think you can say he passes WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Warriors is a notable promotion, even with the poor information on MMANOT they at least got that bit right with them. And again to mention he reached the finals of the CWFC Middleweight Tournament to crown a new middleweight champion but getting injured, so I can only imagine he will received a title shot once he is healthy. But that aside, I will look for page relating to him outside of MMA to add to the page and will mention on this AfD what I put on for people to back over the page and make necessary adjustments to their votes. Will take some time but considering this AfD hasn't been going on for long now I got some time to work. Pound4Pound (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He still has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. Jakejr (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, can you really rely on MMANOT to determine a notable MMA promotions position between top and second tier? Cage Warriors have gone on leaps and bounds in improvements since the start of the year, getting a TV deal with Sky Sports, ESPN (for worldwide viewing), bringing in attention from mainstream sources, being one of only a very small number of MMA promotions in general to take their events abroad, the level of talent they got on their shows, I generally believe MMANOT needs improvements all round, not just on events like you say. Recently I made the notable promotions section abit clearer to read between the active and defunct promotions, but so much more needs to be done with it. For a start it is out of date in terms of promotions it doesn't cover in either section so I may start off by being WP:BOLD and add the 5 promotions I mentioned in a different AfD just to get the ball rolling. Second I feel that some second tier promotions have earned the right to be push up to top tier, both active active and defunct. This would be a beginning at least to finally fixing some of the issues that the guideline presents. Pound4Pound (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of blocked user BigzMMA because he always believed that consensus didn't matter because his judgment was superior to everyone else's. It's OK to be bold, but overriding consensus opinions simply because you disagree with them is not. Jakejr (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No fights for a top tier organization means he fails WP:MMANOT and he's not even won a championship of a second tier organization. Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 13 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have pointed out, he fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts and all of the references are merely fight results. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 18 August 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) 00:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Touati

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography about an MMA instructor whose chief claim to fame seems to be he studied under Royce Gracie, but notability is not inherited. His tournament record does not meet the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE and the IBJJF website does not show he was ever a competitor at a major championship. The sources are either of questionable reliability (BJJ heroes), not independent, or routine sports reporting. Jakejr (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Subject doesn't meet martial arts notability criteria and lacks significant independent coverage to show he meets GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:30, 13 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an autobiography about someone who doesn't meet any notability criteria--MMANOT, MANOTE, or GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 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) 15:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo Promotion Foundation

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

The article lacks any independent sources and gives no reason why its subject is notable. The article reads like a press release. Jakejr (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was some discussion about this on the Martial Arts Project Talk page and the article Talk Page itself. Basically a national organization for Taekwondo is not notable with the possible exception of it's country of origin. Alos the training centre under construction would be notable. I say weak because there is not much in the article and the organization is too new.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the article and the discussions mentioned by Peter and I still don't see why this organization is notable. I don't think this is notable any more than every karate organization in Japan is automatically notable. The article is tagged for a lot of problems. I agree with Jakejr that it reads like a press release (or ad) and doesn't show notability. Mdtemp (talk) 18:37, 13 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I revisited this and ended up changing my vote to delete from keep (see above). I understand now that this is not an umbrella for Taekwondo such as World Taekwondo Federation or the International Taekwon-Do Federation but some sort of government body with no clear connection to either. It's only claim to notability would occur once the park is constructed and significant events were held.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said at WT:WPMA I don't see anything that shows this is a notable organization. The article fails to show notability and needs better sources. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 17 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Group 1965

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been unable to find reliable sources on this group. Had a lot of content, but I've removed it as promotional, barely sourced, and closely paraphrased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been able to find this rather interesting analysis of the group. The group has also had exhibitions in Europe funded by the Japan Foundation (a semi-independent branch of the Japanese government) that did have some press coverage (for instance, here and here). I have the feeling more can be found. Michitaro (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe merge The first version was a copy vio (deleted) and last year I tried to find info for this with very little luck. Note that there isn't even a mention of the group in the BLP Oscar Oiwa, a member. Maybe some of the info can be merged into his article, although a redirect doesn't make sense because he is only one member of the group. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would not make sense since this is a group. Also, my sense of the Japanese art scene is that Makoto Aida is the most famous of these artists. I checked one of the Japanese article databases and found several more articles on them in Tokyojin (a major monthly magazine) (座談会昭和40年会の東京, 23(10)通号258 / 2008.9 /　/ p.120～126), Bijitsu techō (the main art journal in Japan) (Document 昭和40年会in大阪+名古屋ツアー-いったいなにが平成の世を生きる彼らをこんなにも魅力的にしているのか, 52(794) / 2000.10 /　/ p.160～166), and LR (昭和40年会緊急シンポジウム-おまえの何が現代美術(アート)なのか, 通号17 / 2000.1 /　/ p.22～45). The weight of coverage seems to point towards keeping it. Michitaro (talk) 23:56, 9 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any evidence of in-depth third-party coverage to verify notability or justify a self-standing Wikipedia article. --DAJF (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional weak keep. By the looks of it, the magazine mentions look quite promising, but without being able to see them, I can't say whether they are actual coverage or just mentions. But with the large number of mentions, I'll assume that they are indeed about the group and thus, it would be the coverage required to pass WP:N. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Beyond the articles I found above, I found some additional articles in Aera (昭和４０年生まれの展覧会, 1996.7.22 p. 73) and in the Asahi Shinbun (アートの中で過ごす夜　触って寝そべり鑑賞, 2005.11.11, Evening ed. p. 7; タカの絵、対比の妙, morning ed. p. 33). I believe there is enough coverage here to satisfy criterion 3 of WP:ARTIST. Michitaro (talk) 03:05, 22 August 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) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never Fade Away (Web series)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability established through the topical notability guidelines for films or general notability guidelines which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:39, 1 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With several notable actors, including an Emmy nominated one, I'm rather surprised that there hasn't been at least some coverage of this webseries. However, I searched pretty extensively, and haven't found anything that wasn't first party. With some notable people involved, there's some potential that this can meet notability in the future, but at this point, I'm just not finding the sources. Perhaps it can be userfied until then, at the very least. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 8 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:55, 15 August 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) 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit Bali

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

WP:Speculation. The circuit is only proposed. Connection to other categories is only rumoured and the circuits name appears to have been invented by the article author. Falcadore (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The circuits' name has NOT been invented, as I have read in an outside source that this will be the circuits' name. TollHRT52 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2012 (AEST)

"I have read in an outside source" really is not good enough. The name isn't in the only sourced in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Build it, and we will come. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, even the circuit's name is not sourced. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:28, 16 August 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Agriculture, University of Osijek

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable academic unit. No independent refs. No claim of notability PROD removed by creator without comment, concern was "Non-notable academic grouping. No independent refs. Reasonably recent foundation. No claim to notability. No interwiki link." Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Osijek maybe is not notable faculty in Europe, but it is notable in Croatia. For you it is not notable, because you do not live in Croatia. It is only Faculty of Agriculture in Croatia outside of Zagreb, where exist Faculty of Agronomy. That is reason I removed template about proposed deletion of article. Independent references are unnecessarily, because those references, which are from official website of Faculty, only show history of Faculty and departments of Faculty, as it is, for example, in articles Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb or Academy of Dramatic Art, University of Zagreb, where are listed references only from offical website of some faculty, as it is in article Faculty of Agriculture, University of Osijek. For the time being, there is no interwiki links because I first wanted to write article about Faculty on English Wikipedia, then in other Wikipedias, for example Croatian Wikipedia etc. --Ivan OS 11:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Can you perhaps provide more sources? Ones not related to the faculty itself? They don't have to be in English... -- BenTels (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever way the AfD goes, I'd like to second the comment that the sources don't have to be in English. The claims in the article need to be in English, but not the sources supporting them. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:ORG#Local_units_of_larger_organizations: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." and Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges: "If an institution's faculties, constituent academic colleges, or academic departments are especially notable or significant they may have their own dedicated article... In general these organizations are not notable". Is there clear evidence of this Faculty's notability in its own right? AllyD (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the faculty is simply the local mainstream tertiary education unit and as such is inherently notable. If it was some random private visoka škola founded two years ago, then it would be reasonable to ponder, but this isn't such a case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things are notable if there are sources, I looked for sources and couldn't find any (but I only speak English). If you're aware of sources, I'd encourage you to add them. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can check e.g. the lookup of the local name "Poljoprivredni fakultet u Osijeku" at the University of Zagreb journal collection website, or look it up at the Croatian scientific bibliography website. Looking up the other derivations of their name will also yield more hits, such as "Poljoprivredni fakultet Osijek", "Poljoprivredni fakultet Sveučilišta u Osijeku", "Poljoprivredni fakultet Sveučilišta J. J. Strossmayera u Osijeku". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:40, 3 August 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) 15:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - locally notable faculties are ipso facto not notable. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if their scientific output is not demonstrably different to other faculties in the same country? When are they notable, then? What exact agricultural achievement does such a faculty have to partake in to be notable in your opinion? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, seriously, they easily pass WP:GNG as a national mainstream entity, when e.g. the prime minister comes to open their new building worth 26 million Euro, the national mainstream newspaper doesn't start explaining where it's at - it's at the Faculty of Agriculture in Osijek. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationally or internationally known faculties or school are notable, but that's not what was argued, supra, by User:Joy. I am glad to change my mind, when given clear and convincing evidence otherwise. 22:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed a nationally known faculty. Perhaps some context is in order - the Croatian public universities often don't function the same way as e.g. American ones - the faculties often look effectively like small universities in their own right. Their status is something of a regional monopoly - for example if you're from central Croatia and want to study medicine, your first choice is the School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, no question about it. Likewise for Split, Rijeka and Osijek, the other three regional centers. Agriculture is an even more straightforward example - if you're from Slavonia, it's fair to say that this faculty is the first choice, because the only remaining choice is the faculty in Zagreb. All those Google hits, they're neither fake nor a fluke - they do demonstrate general notability. Finally, if a young person like Matej Bagarić can have an article here (NB: nothing personal against him, I picked that article basically at random, I literally never heard of that person until today), why can't an older well-known institution that gathers numerous people who don't have worse results in their respective fields? It wouldn't make sense to exclude the latter but not the former. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:08, 10 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see strong evidences of notability for this local faculty. A couple of sentences could be eventually merged with the parent article, University of Osijek. Cavarrone (talk) 19:16, 21 August 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) 16:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Berry

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for entertainers or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Sources provided and/or found are limited to primary sources and/or indicate a limited background in commercial work or uncredited background/extra casting. Can anyone else find anything that could establish notability here? Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 15:45, 1 August 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) 15:28, 8 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:51, 15 August 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) 03:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ezio Testa

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E. The only reliable secondary sources I've found on this fellow appear to relate to a UN procurement scandal, see [28]. The article was fairly promotional and unsourced as I found it [29], I've done some cleanup, but still don't see sourceability that really reaches WP:GNG. To the extent that it could be rewritten based on secondary sources, it would end up having to focus on the scandal, which would get us back to WP:BLP1E.

Note that I have also listed IHC Services for discussion and possible deletion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:46, 8 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:50, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:19, 22 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard Film Company

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:CORP. I can't find any significant coverage about the company in independent, reliable sources. The references that are in the article are about members of staff or their work, but not about the company. If no one has taken notice of the company, then we shouldn't have an article about it. SmartSE (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically a set of resumes and list of awards at this time. -- :- ) Don 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The significant proportion of this article is mini-biographies of the firm's employees (often in a chatty, twee, non-encyclopaedic tone, but that's a question of style and taste rather than AfD). Some are referenced (usually to one or more production credits), some aren't, all take this article under WP:BLP requirements, currently being failed by the article. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unusually for an article about a media company, this didn't contain a link to the company's website. However on locating it, the biography texts that were the substantial part of the article were the same texts found there. I've deleted these as WP:COPYVIO, and added the company site as an External link. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything to establish this firm as notable in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lists awards won by productions with which individuals on its roster have been associated, but unless the company itself was the determining factor in these successes, this would be only a claim of inherited notability. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 11 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:49, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.

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) 03:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IHC Services

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable corporation. There is a bit of secondary coverage for this firm, however, what I found relates to a UN procurement scandal, and WP:CORP notes: "There is a possibility that an organization that is generally not notable will have a number of references if they have engaged in illegal acts, or it is alleged that they have engaged in illegal acts. Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline." as such, I don't see reliable, secondary sources (excluding those excluded by the clause above) that evidence notability.

As background, I further recommend reading the 2007 comments on Talk page.

Note :I have also listed former CEO Ezio Testa for discussion and possible deletion. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 15:54, 8 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:49, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:17, 22 August 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. Petersfield and Bishop's Waltham do not qualify as major cities, and without reliable sources showing that their individual services pass the GNG they cannot be kept. If anyone wants to try a merge I can provide some of the content, but I don't think its necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Notable - Not currently sourced - Google Keyword Tool reveals that this Term has never been searched for - Web Hits for the Article show very little activity (89 views in July) - Only 12 bus routes shown - I've moved it onto Wikia which is more designed for these pages - Covered by List of bus routes in Hampshire - Wikipedia is not a travel guide or directory Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like with the other bus list afds, this is a perfectly valid standalone list of routes of a major bus system in a ~~major~~ city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a cities and that is very encyclopedic. I see "WP is not a directory" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This isn't a "repositories of loosely associated topics" or anything of the like and this list is very discriminate. The exact wikipedia article title page not being the best search term is not a basis for deleting an article. A g-search for "petersfield bus routes" or "Bishop's Waltham bus routes" brings up this page.--Oakshade (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Edit: City's not major, but still a city. --Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "cities" but these are small towns not cities.--Charles (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider 13,000+ a city, with a combination of the two over 20,000. Certainly "small town" would be inaccurate. --Oakshade (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no combined population. The two places are far apart and other than both being in Hampshire have little in common. If you looked at the details before posting a kneejerk cut and paste response to the deletion proposal you would not get into this muddle.--Charles (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What major city? Petersfield is a country town of 13,000 people and Bishop's Waltham a small town with half that number. The two places are a long way apart and I can see no logical reason for lumping them together. These routes are not part of the infrastructure of a city but non-notable rural services connecting towns and villages. There are unlikely to be independently published reliable secondary sources that discuss these routes as a group to establish notability as a stand-alone list per WP:Notability#Common cicumstances. The article fails WP:N, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL at the least. As the nominator says, the material is now on Wikia for anyone who really wants to see it and that is a more appropriate place for it.--Charles (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of bus routes in Hampshire: The charts in this article as well as all others on that list are not very long. All can easily be merged into one article. Currently, List of bus routes in Hampshire is useless because it duplicates Template:Lists of bus routes in Hampshire. If a merge is not performed, either the article or template should be deleted. The Legendary Rangr (talk) 22:17, 8 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:48, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wilby and Charles. There's not any notability or sourcing here. Lists of things that "Exist" is a project for Somone else not for an encyclopaedia, an encyclopaedia should be explaining why these things exist with reference to research conducted independently - that doesn't happen here and I don't see that it can be achieved with available information on these routes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Lists of bus routes are quite common on Wikipedia and useful. The only problem with the article is that it lacks citations, but this could easily be fixed. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 21:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only citations likely to be available here will be primary source bus company websites and will do nothing to establish notability. Useful for whom? Someone wanting to catch a bus? Wikipedia is not where people should be coming to look for travel info.--Charles (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of bus routes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 29 August 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) 16:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Laode Abdul Hasan

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

Unsourced biography of a living person, not notable, cannot find reliable sources jfd34 (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable commentor on a non-notable forum. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability, no credible claim to importance in the article. Rather promotional in tone as well. --bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
snowball delete ; no evidence of notablility. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; will provide more reliable citation, Gogo Dodo, Orangemike, Bonadea, Staszek Lem, doesnt really know for sure Indonesian people Dark star in ocean (talk) 08:20, 22 August 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) 03:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard Vulnerability Analysis

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

Unestablished notability as a distinct topic. May be too jargon-y. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. Perhaps merging is worthwhile, but it's needless as an individual article. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be appropriate for a standalone article due to lack of sourcing. Could be merged/redirected to Emergency management. --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 12 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:46, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:20, 22 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punkreas

AfDs for this article:

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

After extensive searching, it appears that the subject of this article is non-notable. (The album links — and sheer volume of releases — should not be taken as indicative of notability either; they, too, suffer from a dearth of references and a lack of notability.) Qwerty Binary (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article remains, I suggest that the releases perhaps be merged into a discography section or page or be listed, with a reference to the record label's site (which, hopefully, provides information about the year of release, the track listing, etc.). --Qwerty Binary (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, how did you do your searches? I know there are some false positives, at any rate these are a little portion of what I found at Google News archives: MTV, Il Giornale), Varese News, Musical News, La Repubblica, Milano Today, Il Corriere della Sera, Varese News again, La Stampa, Rockol, MB News, L'eco di Bergamo, Sky, Rockol again, TeleSanterno, La Stampa again, La Repubblica again. The Corriere della Sera defines the band as "the symbol of Italian punk music of the last 20 years" ([30]). Not to mention they have also multiple book sources, including an encyclopedia, Dizionario completo della Canzone Italiana by Enrico Deregibus.Cavarrone (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that the article "Punkreas" is by and large a translation of the "Punkreas" article on the Italian localisation of Wikipedia. As it hasn't made too much of an international impact, I think that is where I take issue with the article; other things can be worked on. As for searching, I did what most would do, and that includes using those nifty quotation marks in those Google searches. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:MUSIC especially points 1 and 7 - notability isn't confined by national borders, they're clearly notable in Italy given the sources turned up by Cavarrone above (which should be included, especially the quote from Corriere della Sera). The article needs translating by an English speaker, but otherwise I'm not seeing any issue here. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: noted. I thought notability wasn't confined by geography but more so by culture at large (mostly language). It's good to know this, though! Cheers! --Qwerty Binary (talk) 06:04, 11 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:46, 15 August 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 prejudice against speedy renomination. -Scottywong | speak _ 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topsy Turvy Tales

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

Lack of notability; puffery. Other than the fact that, if the page survives, it'll need some work, while it can be verified that there is such a word titled Topsy Turvy Tales, the page contains an inordinate number of other references (including, at one time, a link to Facebook) and fails to establish notability. Qwerty Binary (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really did try hard to find sources for this, as there were some shorts made from the stories, but there's really nothing out there. There's no reviews or coverage of this book in sources that would be considered independent and reliable. As far as the shorts go, I can see where it screened at as many film festivals that the author could get them into, but I can't see where it won any awards at any of those festivals. Other than a very short review that a director posted on one of the film festival websites (which makes it pretty close to a primary source), there wasn't any coverage of either short film. Neither film achieved any sort of notability that would cause the book to pass WP:NBOOK based on that. The shorts just aren't notable on their own accord and notability is not inherited by having notable actors narrate. There's just no notability here, although it did motivate me to add the film short to Nighy's filmography to make it more complete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:20, 9 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:45, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep since the series now has a couple of reviewers, one in a reliable source; the other is shaky, a strictly on-line Journal of Arts and Culture (I added a Reception section just now). Quite a few reviews in blogs, too (but not reliable sources). I suggest letting this article remain for now to see if more interest is shown in the relatively new books. If not, the article can be deleted later. Yes, the inclusionist on my left shoulder got the better of the deletionist on my right this time (still haven't determined which is the devil and which the angel). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 19:40, 25 August 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) 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Rey

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

At first sight this looks to be a valid article, but the references are all primary sources except one minor appearance on a TV show. IMDB, never a reliable source, shows that she was a voice of a dog in a minor production. The article appears to be intended to create notability for this singer rather than demonstrate notability. Wikipedia may not be used in this manner. If she gains notability then an article may remain here, otherwise not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Google and Google News searches turned up no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Any mention is trivial, routine, tangential. This appears to be yet another promotional article created by editors connected in some way with her husband and his business. A similar article on a person associated with her husband was found to be based on fabricated biographical data. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with her husbands business partner this is all fakery. noclador (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if the term "fakery" above was intended to indicate that it's promotional or a set of falsehoods... The facts are actually accurate, but it's poorly referenced by external, reliable sources, so I would expect it will be deleted. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the "fakery" is probably misapplied to this article. ~~but on her husband's article, some account apparently diliberately conflated two people of the same name and claimed the other's achievments as part of their own.~~ lets try again. the same editor who created much of this article's fluffy contents was found to have, apparently purposefully, conflated her ~~husband's~~ fiance's business partner with another person of the same name and claimed the other's achievements.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated this article substantively - and while it won't be nominated for FA any time soon, it's a whole lot better documented than it was when I started. There's no shortage of self-promotion from the subject of this article, her "husband" and the record company, but I believe I've found enough sources to back up most of the info there. Some of it, such as the fact that she was the lead singer of an all-girl rock band in the 80s is impossible to find a source on, though it's in her bio. It is my understanding that they are not yet married, but I don't have any source refuting it and all the interviews they do say that they're married, so I've left it that way. Do with it what you will... Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just came across the AfD to which TRPOD was speaking and as I mentioned, no shortage of self-promotion going on by the record company! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with changes I've made (as noted above), I believe someone who has released 3 songs which have hit the top 20 on a Billboard chart and is noted as someone to watch passes WP:GNG. The content about her background activities is allowable by WP:SELFPUB. It appears that this AfD may have been added due to a halo effect because of the "business partner" mentioned by the nom and supported by others and while I'm the first to acknowledge that notability cannot be inherited, neither can "lack of notability". "Beverly Hills Chihuahua", is described above as a "minor production" though it was produced by Disney with a budget of $20m and total gross of $143m, included Drew Barrymore, Jamie Lee Curtis and George Lopez, so I disagree with that characterization. I imagine that if someone footnoted one of those stars with a reference to that film, there may be no objection to its use as a "minor production". I believe this article now passes muster and should be kept. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - it appears that before she adopted the professional name of "Margo Rey", she did musicals such as Loesser's "Señor Discretion Himself" and the stage version of "Selena Forever" under her birth name "Margo Reymundo" for which there are what appear to be numerous although brief (seemingly positive) reviews behind paywalls. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

- my 'keep' is 'weak', because conflating two individuals with a similar name is what was behind the "fakery" of the other article. do we know for certain that "Margo Rey" and "Margo Reymundo" are the same person? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 15 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I meant by my comment about the halo effect. It seems as though there is a concern that the same people wrote the article just because these two happen to now be in business together, which is merely a suspicion, not based on any evidence yet offered. The question should be do we know for certain that the same people were involved in writing the two articles? Instead, I believe it's rather easy to connect Margo Rey and Margo Reymundo (name similarity aside), by looking at Reymundo's 2004 website and Rey's current website. Unless we believe there was some plot in 2004 to create a website so that in 2012 Wikipedia readers could be tricked, I think the photographic evidence supports that they're the same person. Further, one of the citations in the article (see last 3 paragraphs) tells the story of how Ron White met Margo Rey, through her brother, Alex Reymundo. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 10:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its not "merely a suspicion" that the articles were edited by the same people, the edit history shows (showed before the other was deleted) that they were edited by the same accounts. It was following the edit histories that led to this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I truly do not wish to become pedantic (though sometimes I simply cannot help myself), but in the interest of accuracy, I want to point out that no such mention of the other article or it's edit history was made by the nominator, nor did the nominator explain how or why xhe came to the conclusion, so I'm unsure of whether that's what led to this article or not. The first mention of the other article was by Dominus Vobisdu in support of deletion. Given all that, if you're aware of some information that's not included in the nomination as to how the nominator arrived at this article, I'm happy to take your word for it as I cannot see the edit history for the deleted article. In any case, how they came to the article is irrelevant, because even if they were edited by the same people - which could easily raise suspicion and cause investigation of another article - the article is no longer in the same condition it was when the nomination was made. The keep or delete decision should be made based not on what the article was at the time of nomination, but rather on what it is today. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

responded on talk. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice to more genuine, independent WP:RS being added from established media). Blogs, listings, and reviews on theatre ticketing sites are not reliable. Interviews are not reliable because the content is supplied by the subject. This only leaves on source [31] which alone does not amount to significant in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've re-examined the article and still find it lacking in reliable independent sources. Except for the Vegas Sun article, which is light on information about Rey and is actually just an extended concert announcement, the rest are trivial, routine or tangential mentions in blogs and the like. My own searches turned up nothing substantial in independent sources. The publicity material originating from her husband's company seems to be puffery. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: You don't find Billboard to be a reliable source? Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, yes. But it contributes little information and little notability. She had two songs that made it into the top-twenty on the list for "adult contemporary", a relatively minor list. If she made it onto the overall list, or the major lists for pop, rock, etc., I would be more impressed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it helpful if there was greater consistency in your comments. First you state there's only one reliable source and relegate all other noted sources as "trivial, routine or tangential mentions in blogs and the like". And I have to admit, I'm not even sure what you mean by "routine". When someone reviews a performance in a newspaper it is neither puffery nor a concert notification. It does, however stand as verification that the individual does, in fact, perform to paying crowds. When asked, you acknowledge that there is actually more than one reliable source, though apparently Billboard didn't count in the first comment because, by your assessment, it's only a "minor" list. Please help me find the WP guideline or policy that indicates which Billboard charts are notable and which are not. Also, I'd like some help in understanding which policy says that only those songs which achieve a certain ranking on those notable charts count. I understand that the Adult Contemporary doesn't "impress" you, but it might interest you to know that the current Adult Contemporary chart includes songs by Kelly Clarkson, Train, Adele (2 songs), Katy Perry, Colbie Caillat and One Direction, none of which I can imagine are "trivial", regardless of your personal assessment. The lists focus on the formats used by radio stations. To dismiss AC would be something akin to dismissing the "Classical" list because it's not Top 40 - there are hundreds of AC radio stations, serving millions of listeners, so I think it's as notable as any other format. Further, someone who has had 3 songs at a "significant" (deliberately avoiding a specific number) level a Billboard chart seems clearly notable. Lastly, I completely understand (and support!) your reaction to her business partner's article. You'll note that I made no effort to defend that article, because there were zero RS. This is not the same. This article should be evaluated on its own and leave the aura of how it got to be here in the first place behind. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:31, 22 August 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 University of Arizona. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Wildcat

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

A non-profit organization run by students at the University of Arizona. While they have been a recognized club at the college for a good long time, and they certainly are a noble cause, they do not appear to pass the notability requirements for groups and organizations. I am unable to find any reliable third party sources discussing the organization, and any hits I have found are either first party (ie, the official site) or referring not to this group, but to a battle during the Civil War that has no relation. Rorshacma (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up Comment - I have managed to find one news article about the organization that was not just a UofA college paper here, however not only is it a singular source, and thus does not fulfil the requirements of multiple sources, but it is a from a paper that only services the Tuscon region, making it purely local coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Wildcat certainly has more local relevance (Tucson, AZ) than national. Over the years, the organization has been covered by local media, both newspaper and radio. I agree that this coverage is tough to find online - with the exception of that provided by the U of A student newspaper (arguably the most relevant for this organization). The radio coverage and much of the newspaper coverage since 1965 would be in archives that are not easily accessed online. Assume for a moment that Camp Wildcat was covered well by current, local, online sources (there aren't many in this small market). Would it still fail the notability requirements if there is no national coverage? Thanks. --Kevinjscott (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, Wikipedia's policies on the Notability of Organizations states that for non-commercial organizations, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.", so I'm not sure if the local coverage you are speaking of would be enough. Likewise, while I did see the U of A student newspaper's articles on the club, my feeling was that the officially sanctioned U of A newspaper writing about an officially sanctioned U of A organization not only was purely local, but could almost be considered a first party source. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 9 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not sufficiently explained or established in article.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found references: Arizona Daily Star October 22, 2005, U-WIRE August 25, 2006, US Federal News April 30, 2008, U-WIRE June 11, 2008. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those links aren't sufficient: they're all from local press, and 3 are from local student press. See Rorshacma's comment above about notability of organisations. More seriously, the link text doesn't reflect the actual sources: I assume this is a mistake and not an attempt to mislead us. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 30 August 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, Wily D 08:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Arizona. Not independently notable; sources are all local. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Colapeninsula - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't understand your "keep" !vote; Colapeninsula !voted to merge. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Arizona#Student life; does not appear to have achieved significant coverage from independent sources as required for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no content worth merging besides the name on a list of student organizations. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 7 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) 03:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and Run (game)

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

A somewhat short lived board game that doesn't seem to have ever garnered any notability. Only two sources are present on the page as it is, and one of them is the defunct official site. The other gives no notable coverage, and merely lists the stats of the game. I did a pretty extensive search, and I was unable to find a single source speaking of the game. The information present on BoardGameGeek mentions several other names and publishers associated with the game, so I tried looking for sources for these varients, also with no success. With no sources, this does not pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard title to search for, so there may well be reliable sources I'm missing. But it's BGG ranking and the like indicate it's probably not a notable game. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find this review but the site is minor and it's unclear what editorial oversight is made on submissions. In any case, a single review from a minor web site is far below the coverage needed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 14 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:40, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:22, 22 August 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) 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Nuccio

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

Nuccio does not WP:CRIME. Vic49 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. Not notable, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources. - DonCalo (talk) 01:37, 11 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CRIME and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There are a bunch (more than a page) of google books search results.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 19 August 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, Electric Catfish 20:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRIME on both counts. #1: "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities". Not true. #2: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." Not true. The article's lone reference mentions him only in parentheses as an aside. Of the 12 GBook hits: #1, #7, #8, #10, and #12 are not the subject of this article; #2 and #6 only includes his name in a list of other names; #3, #4, #5, #9, and #11 are fleeting mentions in primary source material. Furthermore, the arrests, trials, and convictions of many people are reported in newspapers worldwide and the consensus of Wikipedians, through the development of WP:CRIME, is that they are not all deserving of articles. For that reason, WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS trump WP:GNG. Location (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicago Outfit, with no prejudice against a re-creation of an expanded and better referenced article. Cavarrone (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with a redirect. Location (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: General non-notablity. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 04:01, 26 August 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) 03:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Hosseini Hafshejani

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

Recreation of an article that previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is a member of the Iran national futsal team.--saeedparva 10:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Source? – Kosm1 fent 07:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. As a futsal-player he fails WP:NSPORTS, as he hasn't "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.". Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- he is Champion in the AFC Futsal Club Championship with Foolad Mahan (2010) and Giti Pasand (2012) and he is Champion in the Iranian Futsal Super League whit Foolad Mahan (2008-09 , 2009-10)--saeedparva 07:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But has he participated in the FIFA Futsal World Cup? Mentoz86 (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Might play in the FIFA Futsal World Cup 2012. It is the best goalkeeper in Iran.--saeedparva 07:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation is never grounds for notability. If he plays he may be notable, but not until then. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:53, 14 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:37, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 1062

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

Doens't meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will point out that it is a High proper-motion Star and at apmag 13 is easily visible to amateur telescopes. How close to the Sun does a star need to be to be notable? -- Kheider (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I've found is that nearby stars tend to receive more studies just because they are easier to study. I'd say that if it is on the RECONS nearest 100 list, then it probably satisfies WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But proper motion is a function of distance and speed. -- Kheider (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do not have to delete because of NASTRO, and this star does occur in several important lists due to it being close to the sun and having very high proper motion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Fuchs and Jahreiß (1998) list this as one of a handful of nearby halo subdwarf stars. That might make it marginally notable. It was one of the first three M-type subdwarfs detected by Kuiper in 1940. I'm still not convinced it satisfies WP:GNG though. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simbad gives a lot of references studying this object. However, I did not go through them to see if they had significant commentary. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comment, in case this gets deleted, maybe the author would be interested in creating an article on the Luyten Half-Second Catalogue which we currently lack. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced through several of them, but didn't see any dedicated commentary. Mostly the star appears in a table of data. However, there are some sources to which I don't have access (with Elsevier/Wiley paywalls). Regards, RJH (talk) 20:52, 9 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:37, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it were inside or near our solar system, there would be no argument. Just because you have a myopic view of the universe doesn't mean knowledge should be destroyed. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And if it were inside or near our solar system, it's importance would be amplified by a factor of about 25 bazillion, seeing it would have religious significance, have cults and religions associated with it, it would affect seasons, tides, and many other things, and would have been main subject of innumerable papers, received a few dedicated space probes and generally be on par with our Sun. The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This nomination is very vague, and equates to this topic qualifying for deletion based upon anything on the entire Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) page. See also: WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which point(s) of WP:NASTCRIT does this topic fail? Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - Simply due to the vagueness of the nomination. Which point(s) of WP:NASTCRIT does this topic fail? Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well right out it fails criteria 1 2 and 4. Criteria 3 (non-trivial coverage with significant commentary) is what's under debate here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Keep(see below) NASTRO first:

NASTRCRIT#1. No doubt, fail. Next one.

NASTRCRIT#2. Messier, Caldwell, NGC: fail. Hold on, though. Listed in a "selective" database for academic journals - ARICNS ARI Data Base for Nearby Stars, Table:Proper Motion: Stars with very large proper motion. That's Pass x 2. And it's mentioned where it belongs, right within the References. Both lists are selective. WP:WHACK! to the "it fails criterion #2" claim.

Mmm, no. Fail. ARICNS is not a catalog of high historical importance. It's a database, period. "Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS or 2dFGRS isn't enough for notability." I would include ARICNS among this group. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from NASTCRIT#2:

"The object is listed in catalogs of interest to amateur astronomers (i.e. Messier catalogue, Caldwell catalogue), or a catalog of high historical importance (i.e. New General Catalogue). This is the equivalent of being listed in a "selective" database for academic journals."

Yes, it is a database (what's up, do you think that "Real astronomers turn pages"? (; A computers is one of an astronomer's most powerful tools, the others being this one and that one ;), but it's selective (nearby stars). The other source (Table: proper motion) is selective, too. More so, both criteria (nearby (~50LY), very high proper motion) are non-trivial.

Inverted exclamation mark. Pass. Exclamation mark. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NASTRCRIT#3. Disputed...

NASTRCRIT#4. No mentions of discovery, but it looks recent --> fail. However, the date of discovery should be mentioned. Stating the year would not constitute WP:UNDUE imo.

"And if it were inside or near our solar system, it's importance would be amplified by a factor of about 25 bazillion" Oh My LOL. If it were inside the solar system, mankind wouldn't exist, so it would be notable, no shit Sherlock. Neither would WP or this deletion discussion.

Additional comment: Its high proper motion makes it notable. Using the 1-in-sixty rule, the star moves at a tangential velocity of 16 parsec (=52 light years) * 3 / (3600*60) = .0007 light years per year (mental back-of-envelope calculation), or ~210km/s, which is about the escape velocity of our galaxy, and just short of being considered a hyper-velocity star. And in an astronomical scale (fixed stars, oh the irony), GJ1062 is near our solar system (compare 52 light years to 4 of Proxima, and to the radius of the Milky way which is ~50,000). So I claim that GJ1062 is a special star, one which does get a lot of its notability from a fact not covered in NASTCRIT. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a high proper motion object makes it more likely to be interesting to an astronomer. In this instance, the fact that it has not attracted much more than cursory interest from the people who study these objects does not lend it much weight in terms of Wikipedia notability. The fact that it is a halo star is not by itself particularly notable; it's one among billions. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: There have been many comments on this one, including 'pure' comments, keeps, leaning keeps, but no Deletes. Right now, I can only see one of two outcomes: Keep, or merge into Luyten Half-Second Catalogue...

It's not a policy, but the article is 'cheap'. It's not one of these annoying minefield articles about nibbedy-gibbedy 2012 election campaign bits, (of which 90% deserve to be nuked from orbit, and the percentage would be higher if nukes were cheap...) but a bit of verifiable, scientific information. Let's add to the information (for example where the star is coming from -- my money would be on a GC, or how and when it was discovered), rather than undoing the information. Whether the article is kept or merged into a broader topic, the info shouldn't be deleted. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep: Given that it is high speed star with a large proper-motion, I see no problem with keeping the article. I see no reason to flirt with Wikipedia:I just don't like it. -- Kheider (talk) 14:28, 24 August 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) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney's tax returns

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

Clear WP:POVFORK per the rationale given at page creation, which was: "split from Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 to prevent WP:UNDUE issues prior to expansion" Topic not sufficiently notable for standalone article. This article doesn't avoid an UNDUE problem; it creates one. Belchfire-TALK 07:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious POV fork. Truthsort (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said on the talk page, this is just a POV fork suitable for burying information about Romney's tax returns. Oh, the irony! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. At only 268 words after two weeks of existence, there's clearly no need for a split-out article on this. It can be handled within Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, moving this text there. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There were good reasons to create a separate article on this subject. When it was in the main article about his campaign it was obvious that a detailed factual article about his taxes was out of place. That it has not been worked on, and has gotten worse rather than better is not a reason to delete it but to improve it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stubs should not remain - this is more silly season stuff. Collect (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it might be POV and is not working. Kafka1115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Not enough notability to support a stand-alone article. Merge content into parent article, delete/re-direct/whatever the present article-link. The only reason anyone is interested in this subject is because Romney is running for the US Presidency, so in my opinion this article should be subsumed into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, not notable. Hot Stop 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Merge Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)~~'[reply]
Keep - The article has developed substantially since this started, and now has compelling and useful information for readers. Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some, Delete the rest. It can always be re-started if and when size considerations warrant. Delete. The subject is adequately covered by this new section in the main article about U.S. tax returns. This article up for deletion is primarily an attack article; for example, you'll find accusations against Romney in the lead by the Democratic governor of Maryland, but nothing about those accusations in the article about the governor. The same was true about the accusations by Harry Reid, until I inserted the material in Reid's article (while toning it down and focussing on what Reid said).108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Mutter, mutter, mutter... Carrite (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially the same problem as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech. I'll be a bit upset if this is deleted and that survives, however. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Per nom. & others, a POVFORK. Does not warrant a standalone article, but is a notable issue in the Romney 2012 campaign.--JayJasper (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 38 news articles; whether one believes that any of them have significant coverage about the specific subject is debatable. Same can be said if someone creates an article on Obama's college transcripts. Although there are over 1 million regular google hits about the subject, not all are reliable sources, and against it is debatable of those that do fall under RS whether there is enough significant coverage about the subject. There should be an attempt to improve the article before bringing up the article to AfD, to at least support that the subject passes notability guidelines. I would support a merge & redirect at this point to an appropriate article (there are multiple notable subjects if a merge were to occur), however if it can be shown that the subject is clearly independently notable in and of itself I can be persuaded to change my opinion to KEEP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No. We shouldn't have standalone articles on every campaign attack vector. To the extent this is actually a notable factor in the election, it should be covered in 2012 Presidential election. Ideally, we'd write this stuff after the election, both because it removes the political motivation for editing, and because we'll have a clearer idea of its actual lasting impact, if any. MastCell ^Talk 08:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech‎ should be deleted: it's a POV fork given undue weight by receiving its own article. It should be mentioned as necessary in the campaign article. I'm ambivalent about the need for a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles like this are an embarrassment to the project. Using POV forks to push a political agenda on Wikipedia is not, and never will be acceptable. (despite the fact that it's done blatantly and constantly) Trusilver 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unacceptable POV forking of content, placing way too much emphasis on a run-of-the-mill electioneering dispute between camps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a bad POV fork in my opinion, as stated above. It does not need a standalone. A wild Rattata (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (hoping for a WP:BOBSLED). Notability is established by the fact that it was rated by PolitiFact.com and is likely to be revisited and rehashed and reexamined for the duration of the campaign. It was also widely reported in the mainstream press. There are reasonable arguments above, saying that we don't want to have an article on every half-baked, debunked accusation that comes out of either political camp. That said, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories exists on wikipedia because it is notable, not because it is true. Maybe we need an article on half baked political accusations in the 2012 POTUS campaign. Then, after the election we can trim out all the WP:RECENTISM. PS, I like that the article name is NPOV, not "Mitt Romney doesn't pay his taxes." Peace, MPS (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any reason why this is being called a POV fork - it's just the plain simple facts. Romney talks about his tax returns all the time - generally saying that he is not going to release them. Actually, I do object to folks who are very active on the page and on the talk page removing material from the article, and now saying the article should be merged because it is too short. Shame! Smallbones (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at some point, we have to come to consensus on what individual incidents or issues are notable enough for entry into the project as a separate article. I don't think we are yet at a consensus. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could do worse than mimicking Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. These individual controversies may pass WP:GNG on a superficial level but have a high susceptibility to hijacking and no real WP:PERSISTENCE. Not that there wouldn't be battles over what to include there, but we'd at least corral off the fighting and minimize AfD's resemblance to Bush v. Gore. --BDD (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious POV as stated by others and agree the article should be deleted, not merged. Its WP:Undue weight to a non-notable topic and should not have have its own article and should not be merged as that would also be undue weight. It has a brief mention on the campaign page and that's more than enough to cover it. Its also WP:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a newpaper.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand how WP:UNDUE works. It's not an excuse to merely delete information from Wikipedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to something like "tax return controversy"; while the individual tax returns are not themselves important, the controversy over not releasing them is. The rational for it being a POV fork doesn't hold up since it's not exclusively criticism (ie people are defending him not releasing them). The issue has become substantive enough for there to be polls on it and we can easily keep this article while including a smaller section in the campaign article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no controversy, its fabricated, non-substantive, and petty. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The POV fork still holds. It should be deleted. There could be a neutral article on the subject of presidential tax returns in general and the relevant content could be moved there.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While there's an impulse to delete does no one notice that there is significant coverage of the issue? Whatever you think of the issue, there is in fact a huge controversy that made major political leaders respond and was wide enough to have multiple public opinion polls about it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. No need for stub stand-alone, one of many minor attack issues in political campaign. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. Also Wikipedia is not a newspaper. B-watchmework (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article has been considerably expanded during the past 24 hours. Whether that should affect the outcome of this AfD is another question.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's just a fulfillment of the prediction I made when I wrote the deletion nomination. Belchfire-TALK 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have added a neutral section about this, at the article on tax returns.[32]108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful and redirect to the subject's article. This is a likely search term on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this clearly passes WP:GNG. It's been front page news since at least December, 2011. On all the nightly news shows (including Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and multiple stories on the BBC, going back to January with a recent spurt), not to mention the NYTimes, Washington Post, LATimes, Business Week, Forbes, New Yorker. Several million search results on Google. If you think it is a POV fork, you need to improve it, adding sourced content, not removing content as was done before. Smallbones (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that this article is being used to bury details that ought to be in the main article. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose the article being put in as a full section in the "campaign" article, but it has to go somewhere. The switching places, then deleting material, inserting some truly irrelevant material on Donald Trump, deleting the 2 sentence reference in the campaign article, etc. does make this article look like there is a case of political sharp elbows going around. But it's an election year, and trying to sort out people's motives is not worthwhile IMHO. Smallbones (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material in this article does have to go somewhere at Wikipedia. But not even Harry Reid's accusations regarding the tax returns are allowed in the Harry Reid article.[33] Why dump it all on Romney, and none of it on Reid? There is further material about the history of releasing tax returns here (doubtless it too will be deleted in due course, since it isn't dumped on the Romney articles). This subject warrants a paragraph at the Romney 2012 campaign article. Bottom line, this article now up for deletion is not NPOV, and it's redundant (if the info were put where it belongs).108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but POV and "redundant" are not reasons to delete. This is a major issue in the Presidential campaign, with the Republicans saying that it is the only Democratic issue. This material will certainly be permanently used on Wikipedia, even if 10 weeks from now, folks start asking themselves "Why didn't Romney just release some more of his tax returns and get an extra 1% of the vote?". Students in tax classes will be reviewing the only available tax return from a private equity multimillionaire. Or people will be wondering why a sitting president doesn't release his current tax returns, as every president has since Carter. In short, somebody in a US presidential campaign seems to be telling a whooper here, and it is very likely to come out who, sooner or later. It would be nice to have the original notable material included in Wikipedia. Smallbones (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, discredited accusations against a public figure, like the accusations made by Harry Reid, belong in the article of the person making the accusation. I tried to do so, and tried to link to the Reid article from the 2012 Romney campaign article, but was repeatedly reverted. This article about Romney's tax returns is a POV fork, and that's plenty of reason to delete it.108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Michelle Obama's arms passed WP:GNG too. Passing GNG doesn't automatically make something encyclopedic or appropriate. Trusilver 16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did she have sharp elbows? Smallbones (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear POVFORK. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. This article can be re-visited after the election when there is more perspective about the importance of this issue. Letting partisans hijack our encyclopedia to promote their political feuds is certainly something we should stop right now. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My reason for originally splitting this off from the original article was to prevent that article from being overwhelmed by WP:UNDUE issues, per WP:PRESERVE.[34] Such a split is entirely permissible per WP:CFORK: "as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Sure enough, I made a wise decision. We could merge everything back, but I won't stand for deletionists arguing Undue should that occur, per WP:ENC. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As to keep it from overwhelming the MR page. 216.81.94.71 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 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. Being bold and closing this one myself. Could even be a speedy. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Barrel Riddim

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

Non-notable riddim. No mentions in reliable sources. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 05:55, 22 August 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) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Go! Riddim

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

Non-notable riddim. No mentions in reliable sources as far as I can see. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added sources if the Administrators had let me. However, I was blocked before I had the chance to add references. As per my unblock, I'm barred from editing these articles, according to official Wikipedia policies. Perhaps if the administrators let me insert references to save the article, I think that would be fair. --Funky Buraz (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, you can list the references here and one of us can sort through them and add them to the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 16:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:21, 22 August 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) 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Unfortunately fails WP:SOURCES for inclusion here. Also, no significant singles, chart positions, or sales notations so WP:NN and does not meet WP:MUSIC. Яεñ99 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 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) 16:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The obsidian wall

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

Article about a self-published e-book. Wiki article was written by the author. Promotional in nature. Qualifies for deletion under WP:SNOW. Man way 06:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any sources on Google News or Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I removed much of the promotional language, and cut the article in size by more than half. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are zero reliable sources for this book. A search for the title and author brings up a paltry 68 hits, most of which are merchant sites, this Wikipedia article, and mentions of the AfD. No notability here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I know we've all stated that we need to have a speedy category for books that don't appear to be notable- anyone know where to go to start working on this?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But of course - that would be WT:CSD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although you will need to search the archives - it has come up before a few times. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good luck to the author with the book and everything, but the work fails WP:N, to say nothing of WP:CONFLICT and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 15 August 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 A10 by Jimfbleak. NAC—S Marshall T/C 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Matthew Yvorik

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

The only ghits for this author are two recently created Wikipedia articles by the same author. Nothing else, nor in Gbooks nor Gscholar. Possible hoax. Recommend delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:45, 15 August 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) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huskies (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND. No significant coverage in any reliable source. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the band does not yet meet the requirements of notability expected of bands and musicians. While they do seem to have had some airtime on radio, it was only regional, and thus does not count towards the notability requirements. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 22 August 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) 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major label, no significant chart position/singles, no significant album charting or sales, no awards, etc - falls under WP:NN and fails WP:MUSICBIO / WP:BAND / WP:MUSIC Яεñ99 (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like WP:Fancruft. The only sources in the page are from YouTube and Facebook. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:39, 1 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Soccer Manager

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

I can't find any sources that would indicate this game passes WP:WEB. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to have an article for an obscure (not notable) defunct game. --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:25, 15 August 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) 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 16:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be an article on an obscure game which closed down last year. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:18, 22 August 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Ganendra

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very messy article, edited almost exclusively by one editor. Possible COI. The few sources that aren't 404 only seem to mention him in passing. Little to no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 8 August 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 ☯

KEEP: Article has been edited to read better. Note all independent and credible references. Contribs☽ 03:58, 15 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [35], [36], [37]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the article is supported by numerous independent references including the Wall Street Journal. The work done by this personality is valuable and would be referenced regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alotofeffort (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the coverage is mostly local, there is enough of it to pass the GNG. The Steve

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 Operation Homefront#Military Child of the Year Award. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Goetz

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject fails WP:ONEEVENT. Zaldax (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I didn't just A7 this; it's pretty likely this is just a vanity bio, especially given the nature of subsequent edits. Any chance of a SNOW close? Zaldax (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In general we treat significant awards as evidence of notability. Given that the award was given by the first lady and there is a fair bit of coverage, she appears to be notable. Not sure if ONEEVENT applies to an award... Hobit (talk) 00:48, 15 August 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☽ 03:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Operation Homefront#Military Child of the Year Award. The award doesn't seem to be all that significant, and it doesn't inherit notability by being awarded by the First Lady. I'm sure she must give out lots of awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the redirect is a fine idea unless some other sources pop up. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 15 August 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) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OOoCon

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

Recommending deletion, as subject lacks significant coverage from reliable third party publications. No matches on Google News Archives or other suitable aggregators that I could find. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 8 August 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☽ 03:55, 15 August 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) 16:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Berman

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass the general notability guideline. Only primary sources available. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 8 August 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☽ 03:54, 15 August 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) 16:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Showmedo

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion by 108.45.142.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for the following reason: "Non-notable organization. Links in bottom are a mixture of blogs, "we publish anything" web magazines, and brief lip service in very very specialized Python-dedicated areas". Note: the IP user later added a PROD tag (as they were unable to create the discussion - I've taken it back to the deletion nomination but not contesting the PROD. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 8 August 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☽ 03:53, 15 August 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) 03:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Haberman

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable reporter. There's a lot of stuff by her, but nothing about her. Clearly a wedding announcement doesn't create notability. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 8 August 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☽ 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seconded Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Toasty (talk) 14:34, 15 August 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) 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WAND Pepsi Sports Challenge

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a notable event to me. AutomaticStrikeout 01:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I'm relatively new here so I guess I probably should have written the article in sandbox with all the references and everything before putting it up. I disagree that this article isn't noteworthy. The pepsi sports challenge is a very popular television segment in Central Illinois featured on network tv. I feel if the For the Love of Ray J (season 2) can have an article, so can the WAND Pepsi Challenge. See http://www.wandtv.com/category/205568/s to learn more about it. Again thanks for yoru feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmoff1 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this is for, to determine if it should be included or not. If you wish to cast a vote to keep this article, just add the word keep in bold text before your above comment. AutomaticStrikeout 03:54, 8 August 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, Wifione ^Message 02:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, the existence of other article that may or may not seem more notable has no purchase on this AfD. Saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS won't save an article because all that might mean is that the other article just hasn't been merged, deleted, or redirected yet. Where this event (the Pepsi Challenge) suffers is that it's really not covered by any reliable sources other than the channel that puts on the event. This coverage can't be used to show notability because it's considered to be a primary source. It just can't show notability. Because of this, the event just isn't notable enough to have it's own page. The only thing I might suggest is that it gets a very, very brief mention in the WAND article and this page redirect to there.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver pipes

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

Moved to wikiversity as requested at: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Beaver_pipes SajjadF (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of references. It easily passes GNG. Why shouldn't it be an article at Wikipedia? Also, I see the entry at wikiversity, but where was it "requested"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic topic, meets GNG. The piece has some stylistic problems which need remedy, but that's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a bit like copyvio, but I can't find it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with ample reliable sources. Electric Catfish 15:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UncleG found Flow device. This could merge into that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Flow device And I think a sub-section under Beaver Dam is also needed with a link to the main article Flow device is also warranted. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:44, 24 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:35, 29 August 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) 00:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Malayan

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

I am unable to find any external sources verifying the existence of this language. Google search for "Greater Malayan" brings up this article and some results about a deer. The three-letter language code does not exist in the ISO databases, and it's the same one that was used in a previous article, Asyiengarian language, which was written by the same author and which was deleted as a hoax (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asyiengarian language).. ... discospinster _talk 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support to delete as the claim is not supported by any reliable sources. The terms used in Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu also did not exist and I never heared such name (in Malay). I suspect the author is using sock puppet to bloster his claims. Yosri (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I do not know nearly enough about the subject to tell if this is a hoax or perhaps original research. What I do know is that the cites provided are totally inadequate to validate anything said in it. It could be the original editor is totally genuine, and this is a specialised subject with few sources available, but I'm afraid Wikipedia needs verifiablity for the article to remain. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and probably MADEUP. Angr (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unquestionably a hoax. None of the "principles" of this language have productive Google searches. The "Karaka Principle" is an especially transparent hoax; the Malay language (an Austronesian language) is in no way "derived from Sanskrit" (an Indo-European language). Furthermore, the list of ISO 639 codes shows that the wia code claimed for this language is in fact unassigned. Furthermore, the content of this article, including these nonsense principles, has appeared in Wikipedia before at the hands of the same author, when he attempted to introduce a section on the equally fictional Asiangarian language into the Malay language article (see diff). So far as I can determine, no contributions of this editor have been constructive or factual. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant hoax. Regarding Sanskrit, Malay and some related languages do have Sanskrit loan words (Javanese in particular is swimming with them) but the languages are not "based" in Sanskrit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same nonsense as last time, and block editor if he does it again. (I'd already warned him about hoaxing, and this time added {{uw-hoax}}.) — kwami (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of night

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor charting in a major mainstream chart- I couldn't see them listed in the you tube chart either. Likely auto biography too. The-Pope (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 16:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 16:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 August 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) 00:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, fails WP:BAND. References from social media and other unreliable sources. WWGB (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage or other evidence that this group meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 16:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 27 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled Delay

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

Article on proposed programming technique not yet in use and therefore non-notable. The last sentence is the give-away. (And that the article on it has, a/c Google scholar, been cited so far by one person only [38] DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is not about a programming technique but about a new AQM algorithm. Article cited for it was published in ACM Queue and reprinted in CACM (which is peer reviewed), both extremely reliable sources for computing science and software engineering (and on the force of those two facts meets WP:NSOFT -- reliable sourcing, totally new technology means significant). The algorithm discussed has been implemented and is available for all to use and report upon (and has been picked up by early adopters). And I just came across a nice little remark that CoDel has been integrated into the Linux kernel mainline already, so if that isn't use I don't know what is... -- BenTels (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra comment: Aside from the above, the nominator has completely misread that last sentence. It doesn't say that CoDel is not in use (as in not implemented); it says that CoDel is in use and its behavior is being observed in actual use to see if it lives up to expectations. -- BenTels (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"not yet in use and therefore non-notable."

So that's a whole bunch of pruning needed to NASA then!

keep This is a solid technique and article about it. It appears encyclopedic. At least one author is well-known. The question reduces to "Does it meet WP:N?" There are sources. Some are SPS, some not. Even though some of these SPS author publications are going out through erudite channels like the ACM and MIT. So N now seems to reduce to, "Do we consider Jim Gettys to be a RS on this topic?" I'd have to say yes, so keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two more reliable sources to the article (there are at least three now). These were not hard to find - you just need to search for "CoDel". --Kvng (talk) 14:24, 16 August 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) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Speak Dictionary

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable, non-notable booklet included with a DVD box set. I would nominate for Speedy Deletion, but A7 policy doesn't appear to cover unremarkable books(?) Zaldax (talk) 01:29, 8 August 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) 01:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial in-universe element Cambalachero (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacking notability. Cavarrone (talk) 09:01, 21 August 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 Example (musician). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution of Man

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. Album by a notable band, except that it hasn't been released yet, which makes this article violate WP:CRYSTAL. No non-primary sources used in the article. Delete without prejudice against recreation (perhaps even an undeletion) once the critical reviews start coming in. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet notable, or Redirect to the article on the band. That way the content and history will be preserved in case this becomes notable after it is relased and critical reviews are available. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 11 August 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) 01:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect target should, of course, be Human evolution. Someone who types "The Evolution of Man" into the search box would be looking for that, not an article about some recording artist or other. When the album is released, the corresponding article should be called The Evolution of Man (Album).—S Marshall T/C 07:15, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Great White of Wildwood NJ

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

This stub about a Rollercoaster does not appear to meet WP:N, and lacks context as well. I suggest merging the name into a List of Rides at Morey's Piers, and deleting the article. Zaldax (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Zaldax (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. The sources mentioned are not reliable. -- Luke (Talk) 03:16, 8 August 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) 00:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Rename. With all due respect, rcdb.com references are considered to be reliable and independent sources. The article could use a bit a clean-up, and it definitely needs to be renamed ~~(over an old expired prod at Great White (roller coaster))~~, but there are plenty of sources in the Google News archive and in Google Books. example that it took me 30 seconds to find IronGargoyle (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is kept and re-named, it should be renamed to The Great White (Morey's Piers). There is already a coaster named The Great White at Sea World San Antonio. "The" is included in the name on its park listing (although not on the rcdb.com listing). IronGargoyle (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Appears to just meet WP:GNG. Source examples include:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a large wooden rollercoaster this is a landmark and the object of published coverage. Article needs to be retitled Great White (rollercoaster) or some such. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural listing from a recently closed deletion review. The userspace draft under review was considered substantially different than previously deleted versions (to avoid CSD G4 and allow unprotection), but there were still substantial concerns expressed in the DRV over the quality of sourcing (e.g., trivial mentions, non-independence) and the notability. As this is a procedural listing, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film I'm still not seeing any good sources in this iteration of the article, which remains 60% of a long plot summary already concisely described in the redirect target proposed in one paragraph. The best source is the USPTO filing, and even that really can't tell us anything except it has its LoC filing. TVBytheNumbers has been a questionable source for television and ratings articles in the past because of site staff synthesis of ratings, the iTunes link shouldn't be there (WP:ADVERT), source #7 from Animation World describes "big ratings" but doesn't give the actual numbers, and #4 is an unfiltered Cartoon Network press release which cannot be counted on for neutrality. Credits cites are WP:OR. We have given more than enough time (three years) for this to develop into at least a good stub and it can't get there with these sources. Per the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eds are Coming, the Eds are Coming (an hour-long episode of this series), a short plot summary in the "List of" article should suffice for most general readers. Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per improved sourcing since last AFD, or at least redirect and protect again... but this time to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film just as this was similarly redirected after AFD #2. Please see the recent DRV, the result there being to allow the redirect to be unprotected and the article returned to AFD for new consideration. My opinion is that notability enough for a separate article is still pretty thin, but I wil grant that it is better than last time this was here. As the original redirect target has been removed through editing and no longer exists, this new redirect option makes sense to me if not kept. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be used?: Link. Though I don't get how these ratings work. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No... as it tells us at the top of the article that it is a press release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't see why it should be deleted. Highly sourced information here. See deletion review. TBran dl ey 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deleted in previous AfD as unsourced, now this concern was adressed... and the article looks quite fine for a keep, IMHO. Cavarrone (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No good reason to delete this; it's informative and like many entries it will be updated and improved. Keep this please.Gamnos (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The Reception section material sourced from TV by the Numbers—all but the first sentence—is a nearly word-for-word copy of the original, a clear violation of WP:COPYVIO. A redirect would also be okay, so long as any Reception material incorporated into the destination article undergoes heavy trimming and extensive rephrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio of a single sentence should carry a deletion? I think it is an easily addressable problem, and you yourself could fix the sentence so to make it more different from the original (sadly I cannot as I am not English native and the final result would be surely poor). Cavarrone (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was the entire section except for the first short sentence, which was from two different sources that I didn't check. Or, to put it another way, this is about a third of the non-plot material in the article, which was already (as noted by others) plot-heavy. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is not one sentence but two sentences... that does not change the point that this issue is easily fixable by everyone that is enough confident in English to slighty change the construction/wording of these two sentences. Cavarrone (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your attitude toward copyvio is a bit too cavalier. And, I've just discovered, it's worse than I thought: the bulk of the first paragraph of Production has some nearly identical phrases to the ToonZone source. That leaves precious little that isn't either Plot or close paraphrase. As such, I'm changing my Delete to Strong Delete. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This article isn't ready yet, but that can be changed. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 22:49, 21 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hungarians

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

No non-trivial sources found. All I could find on Google News was "The Well Hungarians are performing tonight at such and such" or false positives. They have charted on New Music Weekly and Music Row, but I can't find any verifiable way to check the chart positions, thus making that assertation of notability useless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verging on weak keep. The NMW award doesn't hurt, and there's an 817 word article in the Belleville News-Democrat" - though what it says I'm not sure - but I couldn't find much else. It's a bit thin for a keep unless anyone can find anything else.--Michig (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is local in origin. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:10, 9 August 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) 00:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added sources. In addition to significant local coverage in a reliable source, the Belleville News-Democrat, there is a national award from New Music Weekly, and international coverage in the UK country music magazine Maverick. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 15 August 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) 00:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the New Music Weekly 2006 Country Band of the Year award establishes notability, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi International

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

Does not appear to be a notable subject, few references containing encyclopedic info about it. Secret of success (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall beg to differ from your point of view. The hotel is really notable and I think one should not really judge it based on the reviews given by the people. It is indeed a heritage hotel and preserves memories of very ancient times and is quite reputed. If a person comes here, and doesn't finds the food good that doesn't mean that the hotel is crap and is non notable. :P Thanks (VIVEK RAI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.246.22 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:15, 12 August 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) 00:21, 15 August 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) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like advertising to me. The only referenced statement is not about the hotel. --regentspark (comment) 17:51, 27 August 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approximation for Mathematical constants

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

This article does not have any point because all of the articles that it is expanding on already have approximations listed on the page itself. Toasty (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I second Toasty's comment, this article does not have any significant point. tausif(talk) 15:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ... but is that enough? Bearian (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't examined the articles of each of the numbers this one approximates, but if it really is as redundant as you say, then you might be able to speedy delete it with criterion A10. CtP (t • c) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please: One should not simply _vote_ on these AfD pages. One should present one's arguments. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arbitrary sig(nificant)dig(its) approximationCurb Chain (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every of the numbers included has its own article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mere tabulation is.....well OK, "tabulation" is not in all cases "mere". But maybe _this_ instance of tabulation is "mere" tabulation. I think "mere" (as opposed to other kinds of) tabulation has its place on the internet and maybe even within Wikipedia. But I have qualms about this article. It seems as if maybe a Wikipedia article should not be _only_ tabulation, and this one probably is. I think a good example of "tabulation" that is not _only_ tabulation, that deserves its place within Wikipedia, is a section of the article titled Initial-stress-derived noun. (Full disclosure: I created the initial draft of that article in about 2003 or 2004, or whenever it was.) I wonder if there's a place for an article with links to sections of other articles that have these long decimal expansions. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a format acceptable for Wikipedia, and does not actually present any encyclopedic content about approximation, despite its name. Maybe, this fits to Wikibooks? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant; approximations appear at the articles on these numbers. -- 202.124.73.158 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is even vuagely edifying. I don't see how to guarantee that these are in any way accurate. Most any arbitrary-precision software can print these out for you in a jiffy, and if you can do that, why is this article needed? That's what OEIS is for. linas (talk) 01:45, 20 August 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.

[1] Le Neve, John (1854). Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Vol. 2. p. 69. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[2] Willis, Browne (1755). The history and antiquities of the town, hundred, and deanry of Buckingham. Vol. 2. p. 74. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[1]

[2]