Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 3

< 2 September	4 September >

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 Speedy delete as vandalism, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Iran 2

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

We already have an article called Road signs in Iran. The user created Road signs in Iran 2 and has started adding factual errors. Why are there signs in English when they use Arabic characters in Iran? The same user created an article called Road signs in Prazil. Firstly, Prazil is not a country and secondly, the user added Polish signs. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Creator seems to be simply vandalizing: [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Drmies (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorado Records

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

Delete − The subject of this article does not seem to meed WP:ORG. A Google search only returns self-published websites and MySpace pages. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be websites that are both notable mentions and third-party, anything I search brings me to something else with the name Dorado. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John ‘The One’ Maguire

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

MMA fighter ~~with only two professional fights.~~ Fails WP:MMANOT, ~~WP:ATHLETE~~ and WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that his record is 15-3-0 according to Sherdog. He has no fights with top-tier promotions and he likely does not pass GNG, but it does seem at least that he is a professional fighter. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the fight record in the article and skimmed through the Google search results. I neglected to verify the fight record with Sherdog (or pay attention to the infobox). I've adjusted my nom reasoning. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no fights for a major promotion he fails to meet the MMA fighter criteria at WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can people give out clear reasons hopefully with some evidence before marking keep or delete. Thats not the purpose of AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsyntheticx (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juts

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

Neologism, which happens to be what Wikipedia is not for. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not what WP is for. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain and Expand. See examples of neologism with prominent placement in WP. (teh, et al.) --Nathandrobinson (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathan Robinson is creator of the term and of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nathan Robinson is creator of the term and of the article."—correct. This is now clarified in the article as a disclaimer. --Nathandrobinson (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article may certainly be deleted, but trying to understand the inclusion of some neologism and not others. Also true that the term is most certainly not is widespread use, but exists in a small sector nonetheless. --Nathandrobinson (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neologisms are definitely part of Wikipedia. However, they have to be supported by reliable sources, like teh is through scholarly work such as this. Moogwrench (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly delete - per WP:NOT, as in Wikipedia is not about collecting non-notable additions to the Internet slang-verse. Moogwrench (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly retain and expand - a neologism is not borne only of Internet slang. Shakespeare, Marlowe, and other great English writers coined phrases by accident. We see these creations almost daily as a result of the mass media's wide distribution of political rhetoric. As the term "juts" now carries a definite meaning by a greater and greater portion of the population, it would border on censorship to pretend as though knowledge of the neologism's origin and expansion weren't relevant. It would be arrogant. To those who wish this deleted, there had better be a reason better than "not what WP is for," as WP sources knowledge and ideas of which "juts" just so happens to be a part. Ttsilvester (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC) — Ttsilvester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Excellent speech. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 18:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable sources to support this article's existence, or to back up any of the assertions you just made? Moogwrench (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone else smelling a puppet? 94.8.98.105 (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how you mean. Look, the "urban dictionary" -- and I mean that in the generic sense (not the website) -- is full of terms not yet prolifically cited in "reliable sources." I could go either way with "juts," but it just seems odd that you would be so antagonistic toward a term that a small percentage of the population actually uses, as though your acceptance of the term rivals in relevance anyone else's. As I've said before, it's arrogant. You can't accept one neologism over another without providing a reason other than "not in reliable sources." In the twenty-first century, that's a cheap, and unreliable, argument. Ttsilvester (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone can contribute to "Urban Dictionary". It's like saying that Adolf Hitler took over the USSR and the reference is a Facebook post. Wikipedia is not for things you make up in one day. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 19:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of treatment in reliable sources as required by WP:NEO. Hans Adler 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable (no reliable sources found). Jarkeld (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "You can't accept one neologism over another without providing a reason other than 'not in reliable sources.'" Yes, we can. We delete multiple articles on all sorts of topics everyday for exactly that reason. Please read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. (As for words coined by the likes of Shakespeare, I think you'll find that there are lots of reliable sources that discuss them.) LadyofShalott 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete b/c no RS. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant third-party coverage to support assertion of notability. Neutrality^talk 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search reveals nothing about the definition of this word as claimed in the article. I suggest speeding as hoax.Curb Chain (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aindra Dasa

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

This subject has not shown any notability that is backed up by reliable sources independent of the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent RS found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks isgnificant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete b/c no RS.FeatherPluma (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Void coverage among the secondary sources. — Bill william compton^Talk 08:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Polansky

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

Non-notable activist whose publicist has been pushing this shamelessly. Orange Mike | Talk 22:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of the media sources for the subject are now offline, Ive included a couple from the BBC and will add more as I find them. Perhaps a clean up so it does not look so much as a promotion of his works, to make it look more like an encyclopedia article would be in question.

Declaration of interest on my part is that I know him personally, and can vouch for his authenticy.

His topic area is specialist, and prehaps he is the most sourced researcher into Romany culture and history out from Ian Hancock. Romany affairs may not be everyones cup of tea, or even notable in their own right to some people, so maybe judgement should be left to those who have an active interest in the field of Romany rights and research as to whether or not his entry is valid as a researcher and chonicler of Roma culture of note. Thats my tuppenceworth. Eiri Amach (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Struggling to find significant coverage of this guy in reliable sources, agree that the publicist has been hard at work here. Mt king ^(edits) 22:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it has been built almost entirely by 2 SPA's. However content looks reasonably encyclopedic vs promo, and ability to meet wp:notability looks likely, although not established in the article by references. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most everything out there is blog-based, as nearly as I can tell, which doesn't carry much water here. Still, this strikes me as a specialist academic that is an expert in his field, dealing with the history of the genocide of the Roma during WWII. INTERVIEWED BY RADIO PRAGUE as an activist on contemporary health concerns of the Roma people. Hopefully some sourcing will follow, I'm having difficulty but have the definite feeling that this is an individual of sufficient status to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Dateline Australia reference in the article serves to establish notability for the topic, and this article serves to further qualification for notability of the topic: :

"Roma and Ashkali in Kosovo: Persecuted, driven out, poisened" (article). From Society for Threatened Peoples Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's another link from a major mass media source, further qualifying notability for the topic:

September 23, 1998. "Paul Polansky: The road to Lety." The Prague Post. Accessed September 2011. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another reference further qualifying notability of the topic: "Paul Polansky and the Kosovo Roma." The Telegraph. Another reliable source. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NorthAmerica, I've told you repeatedly what is reliable, independent and significant source is and you just don't get it. An article written by the subject does nothing to establish the nobility of the topic... it is not "independent". Plus, the topic is not what is at debate here, Polansky is. The Prague Post article is a wonderful source that covers all the basics of GNG. The Telegraph article says absolutely nothing about him but recite his poems. Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on the fence as I could understand if the article is deleted or kept. But, I suggest somebody look at Google Scholar more closely. He is cited and quoted in academic articles. I couldn't find a "smoking gun" reference that said to keep, but maybe somebody with fresh eyes. Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the lead sentence in General notability guidelines, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article I mentioned is written by Polansky. That is not independent of Polansky as the topic or the plight of the Roma in Kosovo as the topic. Remember, a references has to be independent of Polansky in order to establish nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's the lead text from the "Paul Polansky and the Kosovo Roma." The Telegraph article. Another reliable source. Polansky's poems begin after this lead text. There is valid content here. The comments above from Bgwhite regarding this article (verbatim), "The Telegraph article says absolutely nothing about him but recite his poems.", are in error, because again, there is valid content in this article.

"JULY 30TH, 2008 1:09

Paul Polansky and the Kosovo Roma

By tomasocarthaigh

Anyone who knows me from other sites on the web will be familiar with my poems on the Roma, and in particular about the Roma of Kosovo, and Mitrovica in particular. Some eight or more years ago, on the invitation of UNMIK, the human rights activist Paul Polansky led back to Kosovo some few hundred Romany refugees, who occupied aschoolhouse while trying to arrange accommodation. On the starting of the shool year they were moved to camps that they were told were to be for 99 days… those were a LONG 99 days… in over eight years a recknoned 77 died… thats right SEVENTY SEVEN, of lead poisoning, not counting the countless natural miscarraiges among the pregnant women. The camps are in the windcast of the local lead mines, the water is red with lead, red dust swirls around the camps when its dry… all born since they were set up are affected by lead poisoning, amny showing severe effects over the years. While some have been moved, more that have arrived are going into the same camps, and also into the old French Army barracks, and no-one is accountable for this tragedy. True, the Roma refused to go back to the old mahala… its understandable as the Albanians drove them out in the first place, as they attacked and drove out fellow muslims in the local Turk and Bosniak communities, the local Serb, Gorani and other minorities… I include some of the poems from the series here, and the rest can be read on my site. This is a silent genocide against the ONLY INNOCENTS in the Kosovo wars…"

Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is not about Polansky. It says Polansky led him back to Kosovo. That is the sum total about Polansky besides his poems. Remember, significant coverage "means that sources address the subject directly in detail."

On your statement of "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." Bgwhite (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are some problems with this article. The article has severe NPOV issues and is not written in an encylopedic tone. However, there are reliable sources provided in the article, as well as this and this. The article requires considerable cleanup, but not deletion. The issue is NPOV, which can be fixed, rather than notability. I'll try and work on the article myself at some point. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 17:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I looked at some mentions, here and here, and while they are little more than passing mentions, they are in very reliable sources, and together with the other things mentioned here they suggest at least a weak notability. Now, if anyone wants to take a broom to the article, that would be great. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zuhaib Ramzan Bhatti

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

nonnotable tv producer. The article also appears to have been created by the subject --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. No references, nothing even claimed in the article looks wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article; search finds nothing on this person except the links already in the article, which is the webpage of the company he works for, and his own webpage. Another link turned up where it is free to manage your own press release. Other than that, there are no 3rd party mentions.Curb Chain (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dopamine (band)

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

Not notable, no sources. Members of other notable bands do not transfer notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Last AFD closed as keep back in 2006 with a very tenuous claim of "they've toured the UK". Five years later, the article's still unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5 Year old article with zero sources and no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still non-notable. SL93 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wasn't notable then, still not notable now. Neutrality^talk 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesivta Tiferes Yisroel

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

Search in News and in Scholar returned nothing! In Books, it only returned directories that list schools, has been marked for refs for more than 3 years now. The ref provided is also of a directory website. A lot of it contains info that's not very encyclopedic. The Terminator p t c 21:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — The Terminator p t c 21:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — The Terminator p t c 21:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — The Terminator p t c 21:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. No sources except a web page that had them on a list and which was not cited in the article. (actually just an external link) 95% of the article is self-descriptive and not enclyclopedic nor sourced. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what qualifies something for notoriety or deletion, but a google search of "yeshiva tiferes yisroel" returns a couple of news stories. Google News didn't find them, but they exist.QueensQrew (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- QueensQrew is right; the yeshiva complex, which includes the elementary school ("yeshiva ketana"), high school ("mesivta"), and post-high-school ("yeshiva gedola") programs enrolling up to 800 students, gets more news coverage under "Yeshiva Tiferes Yisroel". I took the liberty of renaming the page Yeshiva Tiferes Yisroel and added more references. Yoninah (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the Lookstein listing and added a more accurate listing of the school and type and number of students. There are a number of YouTube videos of Purim activities at the school; still checking for more refs. Any yeshiva that has been around since 1988 shows its notability in the Jewish world, and contributes to our Template:Mesivtas. Yoninah (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability according to criteria for organisations. What accords the yeshivot on the Template:Mesivtas inherent notability? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I didn't say that the template accorded "inherent notability", I said that "Any yeshiva that has been around since 1988 shows its notability in the Jewish world". Yoninah (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a very notable yeshiva in Brooklyn, and especially now that sources have been added. IZAK (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Also, lede needs to explain what it is in plain English. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Stuart: Be logical please. Question: If you don't know what "it" is, then how can you vote to "delete" it? It says right up front that it is an important Orthodox Judaism yeshiva in Brooklyn, New York. IZAK (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment made two points, separated by also. The first point (that of failing WP:GNG) is completely independent of the second point (that of needing an edit to the lede). As per the AfD rules, the second point has no influence on the result of the AfD, but correcting the lede will give a better article if it's not deleted. The second point relates to the fact that the term yeshiva (as a foreign term) should not be used without introduction as per the manual of style. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You gotta be kidding Stuart. You need to look up the WP article on Yeshiva to understand its reliable meaning in all languages. Just as the words Madrasah and Indaba and many more don't require "explanations", especially in the case of WP when, on top of general knowledge, they are approved words with links to WP encyclopedia articles about those terms. Bottom line, it is 100% fair to say that anyone who does not know what a Yeshiva is (or for that matter about any matter under discussion) should not inject themselves into serious discussions about their fate on WP AfDs. This should be obvious. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't it the case that high schools (that are verifiable) are presumptively notable? I seem to recall our high school notability-focused editor, DGG, saying that more than once. Or something to that effect. (perhaps I'll leave him a note).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above, there is much more news coverage for the whole yeshiva (elementary school, high school, and post-high-school programs) than for the high school (mesivta) itself. Therefore I moved this page to Yeshiva Tiferes Yisroel. For those who are having difficulty relating to Hebrew words, I am working on improving the Yeshiva article and adding pages on "Yeshiva ketana" (elementary school, "Mesivta" (high school), and "Beis Medrash" (post-high-school) programs. Yoninah (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why is this school any different from schools listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_secondary_schools_in_Scotland - each one has its own article. Or the ones in List_of_schools_in_Manchester. Danny Schoemann (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have an established practice of having all high schools notable, secular or religious, public or private--but not lower level schools. The basis for this is the realization that all high schools will have RSs if we look carefully enough. (In this case, that's the case, and for those who think them insufficient, I point out that many Orthodox Jewish publication appear in paper format only) . The reason for accepting this is that there might be one or two or three percent that don't , and it is not worth having these discussions, which would have a higher error rate than that. Yet it is true we have deleted some Yeshivas in the past--sometimes on the (irrelevant--and not true in this case) grounds they have only a trivial number of students, sometimes on the (incorrect) ground that the curriculum is not academic, sometimes I fear on the grounds that we do not understand that they are high schools. I think that is the case here. As for some other points, Yeshiva is a common term in the US at least, and at any rate has an article about it for those who do not understand,. But it is always helpful to make the nature of the school clear in the lede , as is already the case in the present article. I ask those who nominated or !voted delete two questions: 1. Do they understand that this is a high school, and have therefore nommed or !voted on the basis that the high school/elementary school compromise should be revoked in general? or 2.Do they think yeshivas should be treated differently than other high schools? I note in this connection that there has been a reluctance here sometimes to admit the schools and college-level or graduate-level seminaries of various religions to be notable, sometimes even on the ground they are trade schools. I know what I think the nature of that reluctance to be. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good encyclopaedic article on a notable yeshiva. Could do with some expansion. --Redaktor (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has since been improved. --Shuki (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added do establish an appropriate level of notability for a school of this nature. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the added sources, and explanation above as to wp notability practice vis-a-vis high schools for which we have verifiable information.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the event merits coverage in a separate article (and, sadly, among predictable lines, at least among the contributors whose usernames I recognize). My advice is to wait for a few months to determine whether the event attracts the "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time" as recommended by WP:EVENT. Sandstein 07:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub attack

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:EVENTS, no significant coverage of any extension to justify standalone article. We are not a newspaper. A possible alternative to deletion is merge and redirect to List of armed conflicts and attacks, July – December 2011, but I am inclined to delete as there is no much to merge and most attacks in the list lack redirects. Cerejota (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Ridiculously insignificant event. Nightw 22:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and significance are not the same thing. A crime is notable if it "attracted notice" in many international, secondary sources. And I feel it is a bit disrespectful to the victims to choose the word "Ridiculously". Marokwitz (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment (lean keep)~~Keepreasoning a few paragraphs down] Sources state that attacks of this nature in Tel Aviv have become rare. This one has stood out enough to receive coverage every day since the event (Google news search it) and it is safe to assume that this will continue. Along with that, the sources are from around the world and not simply from local news agencies. If you want to argue NOTNEWS, please pay attention to the wording. The coverage is in depth (something needed to satisfy the GNG) and not simply routine news like a box score or wedding announcement. Remember that EVENTS is subserviant to the GNG. Yes the article is a poor stub but that is not too hard of a fix. And before anyone argues that it is not worthy of an article simply because terrorism happens more frequently in Israel than other countries: More notable subjects means more articles even if one country's wikiproject receives a handful more articles. under their banner. And note that there is a precedent for such articles (read OTHERSTUFF completely before attempting to counter that).Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 9 persons wounded by a bad guy, and only local coverage. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind amending your reasoning since it is incorrect? not local, not local, not local, not local.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Any violent event in which no one dies anywhere is bound to not be notable. That is how jaded the RS are.~~ There is merit in including this in the list article, but all of these news sources you provide are essentially the same, and add no new information from which to ascertain notability. There is precedent in the WP:ARBPIA area, for example, we do not have articles for each rocket attack, even those that result in death (unlike this particular incident), in Israel. We do have, however, articles that list such rocket attacks, which are well-sourced and documented. There seems to be a generalized confusion that if something is reported, even widely reported (ie GNG) it is automatically worthy of its own article. Well, it isn't always the case: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says otherwise, as does WP:NEVENTS. If the reporting changes from the kind of police blotter style reporting right now, rather than actual historical significance and notability, we could and should revisit the question, but without claiming I have crystal balls, I am confident this will not be the case. In a matter of days not even the most yellow of the Israeli press would be giving this coverage: No one died, no group was behind this/this was lone wolf, there are no political consequences etc. Even the argument that this was notable for being isolated (ie first attack in Tel Aviv in a long while) is weak in the context of the current events at the UN, the border with Egypt, and the wider regional context. Sometimes, events which under other circumstances would be notable are not notable for reasons of timing and context. To address something fresh in my memory, this is the case with bus plunge stories, in which dozens of people die yet are not notable enough for their own article. The only reason there is notability being claimed is because this happened in Israel: I am sure that a crazy dude stabs people on an almost daily basis everywhere in the world. We do not need an article on each of them. --Cerejota (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was only "local coverage" then I would agree, but this is not the case here. The international coverage is huge. Marokwitz (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a news source; this is even more unlikely than most of the non-notable Israel events that come through here to have any lasting effects or coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the basis of NOT NEWS. Taxi driver runs amok, no one dies, not of historical significance. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a news source to recount events that have happened. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTNEWS fails in this respect because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a high profile war, no incident is "NOTNEWS." The incident drew condemnations from governments, including the Palestinian Authority, and endangered the lives of thousands of people. Many international organizations are describing the incident as terror in nature - a very thing rare in this conflict. So of course the article needs a serious rewrite, and its present form is obviously stub - but arguments for delete are dubious at best. 1, BBC, 3, 4, 5. Cerejota, this is a pretty ridiculous reasoning: "Any violent event in which no one dies anywhere is bound to not be notable." Are you joking? So the hundreds of articles on failed bombs blots in New York, Canada, and Europe - where *gasp* no one died - is not notable? How many people have to die to make this incident notable for you? 5? 10? 100? Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely in the context of the highly notable Israeli-Palestinian conflict is were this fail notability. This is essentially the equivalent - in that conflict - of a few rockets launched by a few teenagers trying to impress Islamic Jihad after Hamas refused them for being too dumb. Those rocket attacks go into a list article, so should this non-notable attack. I can see no circumstance under which this article could be developed into a GA or FA - which is my personal criteria for having an article; if it has the theoretical capacity of being expanded into a GA or FA, then its worth keeping. Exploding whale was demoted, but it is a good example of an encyclopedic article, this isn't. Add the info to the list (the two or three lines worthy of coverage) and get it over with. Then we can speak about the real notable stuff in this conflict, such as the situation in the border with Egypt, the UN stuff etc. Or better yet, the huge protests against the Israeli government that have nothing to do with the conflict. You know notable stuff, not some crazy dude whose t-shirt should read "Terrorism: I doin it rong"--Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a few rockets launched by a few teenagers trying to impress Islamic Jihad after Hamas refused them for being too dumb." Your interpretation and synthesis. We can only go by what the sources tell us, and the sources tell us quite a lot. You said notability is somehow dependent on death, that is a dubious assumption and not consistent with Wikipedia-terrorism related articles. Omg no one died. Very rarely do international media mention rockets launched at Israel by militant organizations unless it physically harms someone, though I imagine if Al Qaeda or the Taliban launched a few rockets at the US it would be world news. But this is completely different, your analogy isn't fair. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not transcription monkeys, we make editorial desicions, just because there are sources, that is not enough for independent inclusion into a single article. I think this is the point you miss. And do not play the systemic bias card, half of the stuff on Israel around here is not notable if it happened in a different country - this is obviously a recognition of the outsized coverage given to Israel in the world's media, but if anything, Israel is over-represented, not under-represented (in fact, I have read you argue the same thing when it comes to human rights issues in Israel, for example). Say, Kazakhstan has millions more in population and orders of magnitude more in size (its the 9th country in size in the world, larger than western europe!) and has significant problems with terroristm yet our coverage sucks. That is systemic bias, not an over-covered topic like Israel vs Palestinians. In this case, the sourcing doesn't compare to other notable events in topic are, not at all. All of the sources say the same thing, there is no further news, no wide-spread, significant coverage on this topic. Get me three sources that report significant differences and are recent (ie not from the day of the event), and you will see for yourself.--Cerejota (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota is right. I always double-take when I hear someone making the silly "deleting this article on a non-notable event in Israel would be evidence of systemic bias" argument. Terror events in Israel are covered on Wikipedia far out of proportion to their actual impact, largely because of people like BabbaQ and Wikifan who take the position that terror events in Israel are inherently notable, and because of users like the ones commenting on other AfDs whose arguments boil down to "Muslims did a bad thing and the world needs to know!" Obsessing over the minute details of every day in said country is evidence of systemic bias, not the other way around. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing fine Cerejota. You are grasping at straws. Article easily meets verifiability and sourcing issues - I don't see why articles should be measured against your own version of what constitutes a keep article. References to lack of deaths = notability demonstrates a lack of understanding here. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to ignore any of the points of substance raised to focus on an off-hand comment, I am strike the "deaths" thing through. What matters is the fact that there is no significant sourcing beyond the initial report. That is a clear WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NEVENTS failure. Your argument, essentially, is that this meets WP:GNG (which is doesn't), but that alone is not a reason for it to have its own article. It must not only meet other criteria, but also have the possibility to enrich encyclopedic language. Could you tell us how this enriches our understanding of significant historical context by being a stand alone article rather than part of other articles/list?--Cerejota (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article easily meets GNG. International coverage. Event doesn't have to receive endless coverage to support it. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you seriously need to go to WP:NOTE school, cause you flunk it. Endless coverage is precisely what WP:GNG is about. :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has received sufficient coverage to meet basic notability guidelines. Arguments for NOTNEWS fails because the incident occurred in a high-profile conflict. Your analogy to a "few rockets" is poor, the belief that notability is dependent on deaths is dubious, and the insistence that an event be subject to 24/7 coverage is outrageous. Now, when I have time, I'll expand the article because right now it is bare bones. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fine, but pretending not to hear doesn't make you right --Cerejota (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes if it was a case concerning any other country basically I would agree on deleting. But not here, this is notable in the greater context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. And by that it should be kept. NOTNEWS thereby fails because of the context of the greater Israeli-Palestine conflict that this event is a part of.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources also confirm that the attack has occured so no question about that. Provided sourcing also gives me a reason to say Keep. By the way, Wikipedia is in fact built on news even though most users wants to refute that fact. If Wikipedia refused to use news as a source of information for its articles then basically no articles would be made under that assumption that Wikipedia is not news. So that is in my opinion not a reason at all to delete this article. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also notable because attacks of this kind are very rare, especially in deeper Israel. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The number of victims is not related to notability, for example see 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt. This crime is notable as evidenced by in depth international coverage, for example, in the following sources (these are just the first page of 735 results in Google News)
- ABC News
- El Jazeera
- Haaretz
- Jerusalem Post
- Jewish Chronicle
- Sun Sentinel
- Ynetnews
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency
- GlobalPost
- El Correo Digital (Álava)
- RTT News
- La Gaceta Tucumán
- El Nuevo Herald
- La Vanguardia
- Sueddeutsche
- Rzeczpospolita
- The Chronicle Herald.

This kind of event is rare and unusual. If this WP:CRIME has attracted this level of worldwide media attention, it is notable. Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much of this coverage is beyond the first day?--Cerejota (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems many of the sources were published the day after. We cannot go by your own rules Cerejota. How often do ordinary NOTNEWS crimes receive headlines from mainstream news sources, with "TERROR" in big bold black letters? Basically none. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The event is still very recent, yet the coverage appears to span several days, covering additional details such as the condemnation from Palestinian leadership and other leaders, details from the police investigation and so on. Additional details may unfold. In any case this is not a case of 1 day coverage. Marokwitz (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an update since WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is being brought up. Just 7 hours ago 6 or 7 days later) it got mention in DefPro (only a mention though). Google news is showing plenty over the first 3 days. I think it should be noted that this source discusses the court's gag order which means there will be less news coming out about the case. But I assume we will see more info down the road as the justice process continues. Note that it "may be difficult or impossible to determine [continued coverage] shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable."Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: September 8 and news searches are still showing hits within a couple days. Most are only mentions but it has surpassed just a news cycle and we should be safe in assuming that whatever verdict happens will get some more overage. of course, we might even get more since sources are now discussing the turbulence and where it might go. We don't know but we do have international sources pointing to notability being "more likely", coverage that at the very least borders on in depth (detailed printed news stories but not 60 minutes yet, numerous sources, and sources that are not just snippets. Of course, this can also be summarized as it having significant coverage from reputable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Systemic bias must be avoided. I am convinced that if a man from Afghanistan would stolen a taxi in the center of New York, driven it in full speed into a crowd of people outside a large party, and then attacked a large number of young civilians with a knife, simply because they are Americans, no one here would have opposed the existence of such an article in the English Wikipedia. I ask all the people here whom argued that this was simply a minor event in which a taxi driver went mad - you are wrong and misleading - please read the article again (which has been significantly expanded), and carefully read all the sources within the article. This wasn't a minor criminal incident mention only a few in local newspapers briefly. This was a multi-casualty terrorist attack, that took place in the heart of the biggest city in Israel, carried out with the intention to strike a large group of random innocent young civilians simply because they are Israelis, and altough the security forces at the site managed to prevent a horrific mega attack this incident still left a large number of people badly injured. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right on cue - the systemic bias argument! Never mind that we cover events in Israel far out of proportion to their actual impact - never mind that giving a day-by-day report of events in one country while neglecting major incidents in another is exactly what WP:BIAS is all about - of course it's systemic bias if we don't write about every Israeli who is killed. That makes a lot of sense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is stopping you from creating articles about major incidents in other countries. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a major incident, which is the point.--Cerejota (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major incident, taking into account the volatility of the region and political context, which is why it received massive worldwide coverage. Marokwitz (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted above. In addition, these terrorist events are not just random criminal acts that are forgotten after a few weeks. Every single terrorist act, affects "peace" talks, and thus has large-scale international ramifications. This much is clear and supported by the sources in the article and the sources listed above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Despite the efforts to redefine news stories on the basis of their being "terrorist events" by some users this remains a news story with no lasting significance. nableezy - 02:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz and TheCuriousGnome. Clearly notable. REmmet1984 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Note that this comment was struck due to socking and not a change of position.[reply]
Keep This event is sourced by many WP:RS.So I don't see any reason for delete.--Shrike (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is repeated a number of times, it fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. nableezy - 13:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of opinion. Others here obviously dont think it fails those.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to claim there is no reason is quite clearly absurd. Especially when the response is "it has sources", which does not in any way refute the cause for deletion. nableezy - 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed above. NOTNEWS policy is for preventing the creation of articles on "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" and "first-hand news reports on breaking stories". This is not the case here. Marokwitz (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case here, like every other "attack", is that a minor event was picked up by the press and then dropped. Every insignificant story, from Thailand to Texas, is covered in the press, many times in the international press. That does not make every insignificant story an encyclopedia article. This is as notable as this or this. Meaning, it is not notable, it is simply a news story. nableezy - 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the above WP:CRIMEs received significant coverage internationally (didn't check but it is definitely possible), then I see no reason why they cannot be notable . Marokwitz (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted above. Flayer (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definately a WP:EVENT.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megan and Liz

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

Per reasons brought up in the previous nominations, most importantly, that it does not pass WP:MUSIC. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. As with the last AFD, I found nothing of substance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agree with the notion - presented in the earlier AfDs - that a musical act does not necessarily have to be signed to a major label and/or reach the charts in order to be notable, I'm not particularly persuaded by social media prominence (i.e. "fan following") alone being an exception to our guidelines. If there is substantial interest in a subject, then reliable sources will have written about it. With that in mind, the best cases for significant coverage appear to be the articles in ExploreLI (Newsday) and the Niles Daily Star. Any others? Gongshow ^Talk 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A touring band with a record label and songs for sale through Amazon seems to be notable enough to me. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that have to do with WP:MUSIC? I Help, When I Can.^[12] 23:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I dunno -- I kind of object to this nom on procedural grounds. There was an AfD earlier in the same month, and I don't know if any article should exist in a more or less permanent state of being at AfD. On the merits, I don't have a strong opinion. Herostratus (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The page views of this article are startlingly high if they were really non-notable.[2][3][4] In one day they get more views than my sweet collection of 19th century Nebraska lieutenant governor articles will get in a year. They were on Oprah, so that's already beyond Greyson Chance territory. And if we delete so soon after prior AfD, its just the vagaries of AfD participation, not anything else. It doesn't harm wikipedia to wait 6 months before re-nominating. No consenus is no consensus.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think probably in that they don't have any articles about them in notable publications. If they're so big, why isn't there even a short article about them in Rolling Stone or... I dunno, Spin or Melody Maker or whatever they have nowadays, or even Teen Beat or whatever. It's an important point. There are other notability markers for this entity, so I'm not voting one way or the other. But YouTube Generation or no YouTube Generation, music magazines stay in business by covering popular artists. The lack of notable dead-tree coverage is a sticking point. Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was up for deletion as recently as July, to bring it up for possible deletion ones again so soon, and also after no consensus for 4 nominationa is disrespecting the Wikipedia in my opinion. Wikipedians need to get a clue about Youtube and the phenomenas and the fact that people can get record labels and succeed in music trough that media. They are touring are signed to a record label. good enough for me. (again!).--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I agree with Herostratus here. You would think that with all the "buzz" that this group supposedly has, there would be more coverage of them by real reporters writing real articles that have to be approved by real editors. However, going back to the 2 sources provided by gongshow, this is a supersource, this I'm not sure about, it seems to fall short of "significant coverage" but is more then a trivial mention (but it is Megan and Liz featured in the big honking photo at the top). Another supersource or 2 would really be helpful here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That big honking photo is them, and Newsday, I was surprised to learn not long ago, is something like the 10th highest circulation newspaper in the United States.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2faced1

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

A neologism, a brand, a "movement"? It's not entirely clear what this article is talking about. The sources seem to indicate that it is something to do with fashion. In any event there doesn't seem to be much more here than hype which is attempting to appear to be notability. LadyofShalott 20:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent article about some sort of movement. Looks like self publicity. Malcolma (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it is not entirely incoherent, the flaw is no RS (per following search: article refs, Google News, NewsLibrary, Google, FindArticles, WorldCat.) FeatherPluma (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endeeper

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

Not notable. No assertion of notability - just another software company. No refs to support any notability. Principally an advertisement Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertisement (The company is composed by a group of experienced professionals in Geology, Computer Science and Knowledge Management ... Custom solutions on knowledge management and information systems, including the organizational aspects, human issues and information technology needs.) for a back office niche business (a provider of software and services for knowledge management and data integration for the upstream oil and gas industry). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant article. You should notice that Endeeper is not just another software company. It is the only company in the world that offers a large range of software for petrography. We have not added this in the article, because you may consider it an advertise. In addition, Endeeper has several scientific publications about the subjects that it studies. I can add a large list of links to the publications. So, as Endeeper is a company with a lot of relevant research about petrography and knowledge management, it is relevant to wikipedia. Petrography is a sub-area of geology and it is very important for oil studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk (User:Eduardoestima • contribs) 15:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above comment may well have been written by Eduardo S. Estima de Castro a core member of the Endeeper team and therefore is at severe risk of Conflict of interest. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed, I am not hidding my identity, I am one of the owners of Endeeper and I have written an article that describes the company in a neutral point of view. Please, note that I have removed the expression 'group of experienced professionals', because a member has identified as a potential spam expression. As wikipedia is a public place for sharing knowledge and petrography is a specific area of geology, I think that is important to publish information about companies that are relevant to this subject. In fact, I recommend a visit to Research Papers to understand why it is relevant to have this company listed in wikipedia, Endeeper has published several papers about the area in relevant journals. Eduardo S. Estima de Castro Talk 23:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, no evidence of sufficient third party coverage in the article. Sandstein 07:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and being an obviously unsuitable topic for a Wikipedia article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (Moon)

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

As with Dominant group (art) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art)), it is hard to discern the actual topic of this article. Although some of the content of this article might fit into an article such as Geology of the Moon, the article seems too intensely focused on the phrase "dominant group" to be meaningful. It seems to be original research and/or a synthesis. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, oddly fixated on the sociological implications of the term "Dominant group", using multiple sources that span the social sciences in an article obstensibly about the Moon. Moogwrench (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear synthesis. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the article's creator and substantial contributor. The use of the constituent phrase 'dominant group' as the cited author's demonstrate has to do with the physical science, specifically the planetary science, of the Moon, and zero to do with sociology. On Wikipedia there is an article entitled, "Original research", wherein is the following, "The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).^[1]^[2]" For a word or phrase, once a number of purposes or functions (of the metadefinition) are addressed and satisfied, this set of addressed and satisfied attributes is the definition for the word or phrase.^[3] Presenting the existing knowledge of or about the word or phrase in a new form (the metadefinition) and summarizing or classifying that existing knowledge into the new form is something other than producing new knowledge; i.e., something other than original research. It's simply putting old knowledge in a not-quite-so-old-form. The metadefinition has been around a while also and often outside metamodeling. The author Albert referenced here about 'metadefinition' is not a metamodeler but deals with identity, organizations and conversations. The phrase 'dominant group' is first used in evolutionary biology where it is still used and predates its current popular use in sociology. May I recommend that you read WP:DEV. If you want to delete something, why not try the article on Oppression. It has far more things wrong with it than Dominant group (Moon). Dominant group (Moon) meets WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, is about a topic described in the introduction, is NPOV, and exposes knowledge that is already established and recognized. Use of a metadefinition (itself a definition) is by definition only. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source. Thomas G. Carpenter Library, University of North Florida".
^ "Schaum's Quick Guide to Writing Great Research Papers".
^ Stuart Albert (1998). David Allred Whetten, Paul C. Godfrey (ed.). The Definition and Metadefinition of Identity, In: Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 1–13. ISBN 0-7619-0947-8. Retrieved 2011-09-02.

- It's not the case that I only want one article in all of Wikipedia to be deleted; I have also recommended "delete" in other pending AfDs besides this one. Oppression, which you mentioned, seems to me to be a poor article, albeit on a legitimate topic. If you want to nominate that article for deletion, you are free to do so. But what we're discussing here is whether Dominant group (Moon) actually refers to a topic at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis/bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR/synthesis with no references for the actual topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original SYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - article seems to be trying to explain the usage of the term within the geochemical literaure. It appears to be the author's interpretation of that use, and not even a clear exposition thereof. LadyofShalott 23:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no topic here; it's what someone at the other AfD called synthesis by Google. Amusingly, the first "usage" of the term is just the result of failure to correctly parse; it's "dominant (Group 2)," not "(dominant Group) 2." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscelese (talk • contribs)
Delete as OR by SYNTH. The same is true of Dominant group (stars), Dominant group (meteoroid), and Dominant group (astronomy), and possibly others in this article family. -- 202.124.74.106 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear topic. Glrx (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly synth--Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the other one. Also Metadefinition, another creation of the same user, while a valid concept in math/logic (but hardly worth a separate page, when we have metalanguage) is similarly marred by the mixing of concepts based on common phrases. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Peridon (talk · contribs) as G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goquick.in

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

Obvious advertising for a non-notable company. Article creator is a single purpose account, and removed speedy delete tag. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godolphin River City

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

A building project which hasn't progressed beyond planning in the two years since the article was created. WP:CRYSTAL Bazj (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The development is still in planning stages, and we do not exactly know the current status, whether it will be built or it will be cancelled. Any update has not been released regarding the construction of the project. We should wait in order to get any update of this project rather deleting the article.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; falls a little short of the GNG. If it becomes more notable later (if it attracts more attention from independent sources), write an article later. bobrayner (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no RS (per following search: article refs, Google News, NewsLibrary, Google, FindArticles, WorldCat.) It is not mentioned by name at List of development projects in Dubai. So any real content (and I am not sure there is any) could be moved there, or if it is a subset of Dubai Meydan City, which it seems it may be, to that article. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, the article does not contain references to substantial coverage in independent sources. Sandstein 07:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm giving more weight to the opinions of established editors, who conclude that the subject does not meet our inclusion requirements. Sandstein 07:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn K. Jones

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

advertising the job. can of truth 18:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Does this qualify for speedy keep, under "no argument put forward by nominator"? The argument is incomprehensible, so... In any case, I vote keep because the only possible meaning of those six words is that it's written like an advertisement, but even that's untrue. Inter change able|talk to me 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page so obviously I vote to keep the article. Dr Jones was my professor and I have learned a lot from her. She has written several books and her unique approach is appreciated by millions of people worldwide. I am trying to collect more information and references and will be adding those here in the near future. I hope that others vote to keep this article so I can contribute more about this great professor and doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaree (talk • contribs)

Comment. Whether the article is deleted is decided by consensus, not number of votes. See Wikipedia:Before_commenting_in_a_deletion_discussion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to lack of a clear argument to delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero claim of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No plausible assertion of notability, fails WP:BLP#Reliable sources. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some citations to the journals and books that she is part of. Hope that helps in asserting some notability. Thanks Jaree 22:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Strong delete Although I agree with the editors above who complain about the unclear nom, I don't think that unhappiness with the nom is sufficient grounds for a !vote, the article has to be judged on iots merits, regardless the nom. The sources added to the article are absolutely insufficient to establish notability. Yes, Dr. Jones has published and co-authored presentations at scientific meetings. This is something that goes for every academic. Does she go above the median and fulfill any of the criteria of WP:PROF, however? Obviously not. --Crusio (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absurd nom. Her studies have been mentioned in some important writings and there is extensive bit of research under her name, that is enough to convince me that she deserves a WP mention. (talk) Ffbcso22 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)— Ffbcso22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I had a little research of Marilyn K. Jones outside Wikipedia and found, her article would be useful.can of truth 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

So after a mysterious AfD nomination you are now mysteriously changing your mind. Could you share with us the results of your "research of Marilyn K. Jones outside Wikipedia"? Any useful sources? The same goes for Ffbcso22 above. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replay to Crusio:

Nobody denies that she's a dentist. But none of the links that you provided shows anything beyond that. There still is nothing showing any notability whatsoever. Please read WP:PROF to see what is needed. --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. The article notes "extensive research", but lists this publication, which further checking shows to be nothing more than the dissertation of a Marilyn K. Jones, except in psychology (the article does not mention such a degree, so it's unclear whether this is actually the same person). GS searching on her name seems to return many pages of false-positives and there is nothing in WoS. The above "keep" votes seem to focus on either the procedural aspect of the AfD itself, or assert the same "extensive research" without showing anything that meets WP:RS. For example, the above 4 sources are all web flotsam. I would say this is an uncontroversial "delete". Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Cannot find RS, and the dissertation reference may not be the same person, as is alluded to by Agricola44, and even if it were the same person, it seems to be a degree dissertaion, and seems to be of quite unclear notability. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator Abraham.divine (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Divineabraham (talk · contribs). — ξ ^xplicit 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* First of all nomination makes no sense and its no surprise that the nominator has been blocked. This should fall under speedy keep but I understand the concerns of other users on this page. I have been in dental industry for a long time, infact I believe I am notable enough to have my own page, my point is that I know more about this industry than almost everyone who commented here. I will try to offer my insight on this debate. Marilyn Jones is a well known dentist not just in state of Texas but in the whole US as someone who is fighting for healthy alternatives, all by herself (atleast here in the US). According to WP:PROF the number one criteria "# The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." applies to Marilyn Jones. She is the only board certified dentist and researcher who is leading the cause for a more healthy and natural dentistry which is called "Holistic dentistry". Now obviously there is a lot of debate about this approach and both parties have good arguments, its a relatively new concept so it is going to take some time before it is considered a separate branch by general public but most dentists and professionals already do. Now there a lot of dentists and scholars who label themselves as using this approach of dentistry but nobody is doing as much to promote and research this approach as Yoshiaki Omura and Marilyn Jones. These two have been doing a number of things all over the world, including symposiums and independent researches, from New York to Tokyo, as you can verify from the article itself and independent resources. Besides her active role in the research and marketing of this new approach, she is accepted to be the most notable and knowledgeable by the dentists all over the US, now ofcourse all of them have a problem accepting her new approach and crediting her research because that will destroy the core of dental business. 98% or more dental offices right now promote the use of mercury and fluoride in treatment and thats what they use in their clinics, do a little bit research on the harms and you will get a good picture of why nobody will give credibility to Marilyn Jones even when its well deserved. Now ofcourse there are some who are more concerned about their patients rather than making money and those professionals are right by her side. There are numerous authors who have tried to promote her studies. Just like who small health organizations and clubs cant fight against giant tobacco companies, she is having a hard time trying to compete with the whole dental industry and so are those authors who have published her research and those dentists who accept her approach. You can pick up a number of books on holistic dentistry or natural approach to dentistry (I wish I was at library to add the ISBN numbers here but here is one 1929661134, also mentioned in article) There are whole chapters dedicated to her studies. If you do your research, instead of leaving a one line comment here by doing a simple google search you wont deny her notability. Even based on WP:PROF standards, there is already enough evidence of her notability. She is the known dentist in the 4th largest city of US, Houston and the largest state in US, Texas.

If that is not enough to convince anyone that she is notable enough, lets take a look at her journals and books on topics ranging from Alcoholism to Psychology and her research on psychology of student teacher relationship. Forget the journals and books in which you may have to sift through few pages to find her name (which obviously no one here is going to bother to do) even if you just take a look at Google (seems like thats the only credibility indicator here) you will find more journals and books titled by her or about her than anyone here on AfD, not just that, lets take a look at few other dental professionals on wikipedia. Its clear that she is way more notable than half of that list, just by doing a google search and nothing else. I recommend that if you are not a professional in the industry you do not voice your opinion because your knowledge is going to be limited to what is on Google. I dont see a valid case presented by users who wish to delete this article. The stupid nomination and ignorant comments on her lack of notability without proper research do not offer any substantial evidence or advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsyntheticx (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) — Xsyntheticx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you have references to support your claims, I suggest that you add the references to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said earlier, its hard for me to find something on Saturday evening sitting at home with no access to books and other material. I am limited to Google search myself, that anyone can do by clicking on the links above. Yes, it doesnt show a lot of books and journals under her name but what you do see is more than enough to get a better understanding. There are atleast 5 encyclopedia references and over 15 books that are either written by Marilyn Jones or talk about her approach which you can find in Google but lets not limit our research to Google. I dont remember the ISBN or titles off the top of my head besides the few that are mentioned in the article itself. Even if we take that one reference that we have available! take a look at that book. There are 60 pages of that well known book that are dedicated to her studies. I have personally read atleast 5 other publications (books or journals) that I dont remember right now since its been over a year but I will try to find them and add them to the article when I get some time to do more research. Having a doctorate degree, being a professor at one of the largest universities of US and being a director of an organization promoting a new field of dentistry and all of this being verified by a simple google search leading to 100s of references cannot be done by someone who is not notable. Purpose of AfD is to clean wikipedia from trash articles or from spam, this is neither. I agree that this article needs a lot of work and it definitely needs more references and information which is only possible if this article is not deleted. I am kind of surprised to see no mention of Holistic Dentistry whatsoever on wikipedia and small one paragraph article on Holistic Health which is a shame because that field is much bigger than stupid Chiropractic field that has 100s if not thousands of articles listed on wikipedia. I do plan on adding a lot of information in Holistic Health and Holistic Dentistry in coming few weeks, I think wikipedia needs that information asap. Xsyntheticx (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)— Xsyntheticx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am not very knowledgeable on how wikipedia operates because I have not done many edits myself. It is going to take me some time to learn some of the stuff, in the mean time if there is someone reading this page who is knowledgeable enough to make contributions to Holistic Health and make a new page for Holistic Dentistry. I will be more than happy to help that person in collecting information or any other help that s/he may need.Xsyntheticx (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)— Xsyntheticx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In the light of the arguments brought forward by Xsyntheticx, I change my !vote from "delete" to "strong delete". --Crusio (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to make any assertion of notability, and provides no sources that could pass WP:GNG. Additionally, I suspect that it conflates more than one person with the same name. There's a Marilyn K. Jones who has a reasonable citation record on the subject of women and alcoholism, but that's not a subject one would expect a dentist to publish on, and there's a different Marilyn K. Jones (now Marilyn Jones-Gotman) who looks more likely to be the expert on that subject. If we can't even verify that we're talking about a single person or multiple unrelated people, we shouldn't have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its the same person. Article confirms that and you can verify so by the references. She got her doctorate degree in dentistry in 1979 as mentioned in the article. All the research on subject of alcoholism and psychology is before she got her doctorate degree, if you check the dates of those publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsyntheticx (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thodoris Moschonas

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

Still not notable, as he has not played in a fully pro league, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Should be elidgible for speedy deletion, but the G4 tag was removed by an IP. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing has changed since the last AfD discussion. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 20:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - still not notable. Giant Snowman 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012. That seems to be the most consensual option. Can be recreated if he meets the normal notability criteria (i.e., substantial third party coverage). Sandstein 07:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hinckley

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

Non-notable candidate for political office; no coverage found outside of the context of his campaign. MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: as nominated. If this individual receives significant coverage before the election or wins the election, such a deletion should be revisited. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - a major party candidate (I'm assuming here he's the candidate and not a candidate - any idiot can be a candidate) for a national elected office. In a two party race for a national office, it's perfectly reasonable to have an article for each candidate. Rklawton (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never assume. ;-D He is the only DECLARED candidate at this time, but a glance at United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012 shows that there are at least five other "potential" candidates. The actual Republican candidate will be selected at a later time, --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In lieu of deletion, the article could be redirected to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012. I did not do this boldly because I felt it would be controversial and the article was entitled to a full discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is the official Republican candidate then Redirect the standard procedure in these cases is to redirect to the relevant election article until after the election when the redirect can be reverted into an article or deleted. Hinckley doesn't appear to satisfy notability criteria, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources at this time and contrary to what Rklawton says above, being a major party candidate is not grounds for keeping an article under either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. If he is not the official republican candidate (and Melanie's comments above suggest that he isn't) then delete. Valenciano (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You are right on target. Quoting from our policy on notability: in the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate. The guideline references elected officials rather than just candidates. Rklawton (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, does that "redirect" guideline apply to EVERY declared candidate, or just to officially nominated candidates? As you noted above, any idiot can be a candidate. I'm not saying the current subject is an idiot, just that at this point he has no official role in the race. If I'm reading this correctly, the actual Republican candidate will be selected in a primary in September 2012. And if I'm reading this correctly, Mr. Hinckley is not considered to be one of the front-runners for that nomination. For that reason, I am sticking with "delete" as my preferred option. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I'd read it, he was the candidate. My bad. Go with delete - and if he becomes the candidate, then relevant information goes into the article about the race per Notability. Rklawton (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder - the article used the word "the". I have changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to satisfy notability at this time, and Wikipedia does not crystal ball. Rklawton (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012, per above. Even people who win the nomination are not necessarily notable, as shown in the Alabama, Kansas, and Oklahoma Senate elections in 2010. This is a clear-cut case. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have often not been held notable, but this is not common sense. A nomination for a statewide office of this stature in a two party system requires a substantial public career, and its just a matter of finding sources. I'm also somewhat disturbed by the implicit violation of NPOV, in not voering political contests equally. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't have the nomination. There's a valid argument to be made that everyone who gets an R/D Senate nomination is notable, even though we don't do that currently. But that criteria doesn't apply to Hinckley, because he isn't the nominee and probably never will be. -LtNOWIS (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy delete - clear case of nn-website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computers Guide

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

This blog doesn't seem to be notable at all, and the claim in the article that "[t]he site has earned numerous positive reviews" isn't backed up by any reliable sources. A quick Google search only reveals promotional links to the blog by the creator of it through comments on different sites and no third-party, positive reviews. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Sooner rather than later. Sounds like self-promotion. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:SPIP. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures of Dakota Deathstrider

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

Unpublished literature lacking notability established through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had a problem with my friend editing the page, It was supposed to say 2nd of MAY not the 2nd of september, I am rectifying the problem. Fopnor (talk) 12:07 4th September 2011 (UTC)
Delete: The article says that the writing started on September 2 for the first book. SL93 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SL93. These books only started to be written yesterday. The article can be re-created after they are actually published. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BOOK. Come back when they are published and become New York Times bestsellers. Edison (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. No speedy criterion applies, but SNOW soon would be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. Could possibly have been G3'd (a "series of 5 books" of which none of the books exists). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Vanderhorst

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. I can't find substantial coverage of this artist in reliable sources. All I can find are a number of press releases and a single article in the Toronto Star [5]. I infer any notoriety he has achieved is due more to his association with Nash the Slash than his art. Pburka (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidence of notability seems very marginal. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search turns up no 3rd party mentions of himCurb Chain (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauran Irion

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

Young actress with only minor roles - her parts aren't mentioned at all on the show pages - ie Gia Jenkins isn't even listed as a minor or recurring character on the I'm in the Band article. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove general notability. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking reliable sources, not notable as per WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Luke (Talk) 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, and also essentially violates WP:BLP, since IMDb is not considered an RS. Moogwrench (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. Her roles not being mentioned on some other user-edited page in a self-admitted unreliable source is not a criteria for deletion. A possible WP:BLP violation is of less a concern when sources DO exit that can at least verify her work, such as Futon Critic mentioning her in context to her latest series.[6] HOWEVER, her short career fails WP:ENT, and the lack of proper coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (obviously notable, no point in waiting longer) Zero^talk 07:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomo Riskin

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

This is person is not notable. This reads like a resume/advertisement. He does not appear to meet basic notability guidelines for Wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. He appears to have business relationship with the few biased sources actually cited. --Mmhmm613 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Person is notable, as one of the most important Modern Orthodox Jewish rabbis. He was the Chief rabbi of Efrat, Founder of a network of high schools and colleges, chairman of Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, and more. He is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, such as "A circle in the square: Rabbi Shlomo Riskin reinvents the synagogue" by Edward Abramson, and other books cited in the the article. I agree the article can be improved to sound less like a resume. Marokwitz (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- having been chief rabbi of Efrat is sufficient for notability, and there is more besides. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you kidding? Shlomo Riskin is a well-known leader of Modern Orthodox Judaism, founder of a well-known New York Orthodox synagogue, chief rabbi of Efrat, and is often in the news as he leads settler protests in the West Bank – e.g. Rabbi Takes U.S.-Style Protest to Israel (NY Times); Candidly Speaking: The Incredible Shlomo Riskin (Jerusalem Post). The article needs to be improved, not deleted. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gimme a break. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep / Investigate Nomainator The article provides a clear claim of notability and multiple reliable and verifiable sources are included. Hundreds more sources and some of the many books he has written would only pile on to the obvious case of notability. The bigger issue here is why we tolerate an WP:SPA the abuse of a well-defined process that requires a nominator to look for sources to support notability before staring an AfD. Here we have an editor who has no other edits to any other article doing an excellent job of nominating this one article for deletion. A speedy keep followed by a sockpuppet investigation / block would appear to be the appropriate course of action here. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because this sourced and referenced article (see the "Find sources: "Shlomo Riskin" – news · books · scholar" for a plethora of RS etc etc etc), as it's about one of the most famous living Modern Orthodox Judaism rabbis known universally in the USA and Israel. This nomination is utterly bizarre, coming as it does from an unknown who just joined today [7], made a couple of contentious edits to the article, and then decides to nominate it for deletion. Fully agree with User Alansohn (talk · contribs) above that the nominator be investigated for the reasons stated. IZAK (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there does appear to be some unsourced material in this fellow's article, just looking at his achievements seems to verify that he is a notable individual. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 04:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 16:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwangwoon Electronic Technical High School

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

Notability unclear. Cannot find any English language references for the school. No interwiki. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Nominator - Monty ₈₄₅ opposed my speedy deletion article. He explains that Criteria A7 does not apply to schools. While the notability guidelines do technically apply, High schools are generally not deleted at AfD, as most high schools are at least minimally notable (see here). I can't imagine this is really true. Is there any policy which supports that? Surely there are non-notable high schools out there. I'm finding it tough to immediately verify this place is even real. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) for an essay explaining why it is rare for a high school article to be deleted under the notability guidelines. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Monty ₈₄₅ 16:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edited to add" given reliable sourcing to verify the existence and enrollment") Countless AFDs have established a de fact notability for high schools, at least for large ones such as this. The exception might be home schools or tiny unknown private schools. Verifiability is the only practical requirement. Notability guidelines should be descriptions of the practice at AFDs , where the community has !voted in favor of high schools being notable. There is a lot of institutional inertia and "ownership" in some guidelines, resulting in the confusion expressed by the nominator with not seeing notability of high schools codified. Guideline talk pages often have a very small number of editors not agreeing with the consensus of the many, and resistant to changing or adding to guidelines to make them an accurate descripotion of practice. Edison (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how to you know this is a "large" school? NickCT (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my concern is to exclude tiny random faux high schools, such as a home school with 4 students taught by their Mom, or a private school in the church basement with 6 students from 2 families taught by the Pastor or a volunteer. This school has over 1100 attendance, per the infobox, although a reliable source should be included to verify that; certainly not the largest school in the world, but not a tiny faux school either. English language sources are not that great, per Google:[8]. A Wikipedia biography, not a reliable source by our own standards, says that an individual [[Kim Pyung-Seok], soccer player, attended the school and later coached there. I've added a verification requirement to my "keep" !vote. Edison (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - re per the infobox, although a reliable source should be included to verify that; - That's really my main concern. I'm finding this place difficult to even to verify. If we could find even 1 solid RS, I'd feel significantly better about the article. NickCT (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - experience shows that high schools meet WP:GNG with sufficient research. We need to avoid systemic bias by allowing ample time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Exists and has some minor coverage about it in Korean. Homepage. News report (from YTN) about an open house they held. Another news report about their building being borrowed to host the national tax accountancy exam this year. But NickCT is hardly at fault for being suspicious about this article as it stood at the time of nomination, since there's nothing reliable in English even verifying that the place exists, and the creator could not be bothered to include the Korean name. cab (call) 03:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from Nominator - Ok... Well, seeing the developing consensus, I'm feeling a little more neutral about this. Still feel a little awkward that this place is so difficult to verify and yet we're willing to keep it. That said, I wouldn't oppose a "close as keep" at this point. Thanks to CaliforniaAliBaba for some good researching, and for acknowledging that I had a point. NickCT (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was fine to nominate it. Just tagging it "references needed" has rarely moved anyone to start looking for and adding references from foreign language sources. Isn't there a Wiki page or project which can translate things? Could they be asked to find references in a case such as this? As an exercise, I tried Google translating the name of the school into Korean, and lots of Korean websites popped up, but Google translating them back into English showed that they were cases where any of the words in the name appeared in the website. I'm not sure if putting quotes around the name of the school and Google translating that would prevent the extraneous search results. It would be very easy to pick a more obscure language and invent a high school, licensed broadcast station, legislator, or professional sports player (all of which seem to get de facto notability in AFD) with some invented offline print references, or with cites of things not proved by foreign language references. A since-banned editor made wild claims from Hungarian sources for Anyos Jedlik's invention of the Electric motor, for instance, and there may be still some excessive claims in the articles. Edison (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. I'll not deny that most high schools reach the threshold notability, but we still delete articles that don't have references, and this one doesn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable high school. Keb25 (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per the consensus that the subject is a current Minor League manager of a notable team, which contradicts the argument that the only assertion of notability is inherited. Steven Walling • talk 23:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Mauer

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

Notability is not inherited. He is best known for being related to a famous person. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mostly because I don't like deleting the pages of current minor league managers. His college career seems fairly notable also. Seems like the sources exist to make this a better article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. Minor league managers aren't inherently notable. His college career: maybe, but I feel like many college players who aren't notable have similar collegiate careers. Ask yourself: would this person have a page if he wasn't Joe Mauer's brother? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uneasy keep The coaching career is what pushes me into keep territory. There are at least some citations already establishing notability and given his career I imagine there are more. Also, while I agree with Muboshgu that this MiL career wouldn't be enough by itself, I disagree that being related to someone can't be a part of notability. See virtually any First Lady article, Billy Carter, Tommie Aaron (not a perfect example since he did reach the majors, he was just terrible there), etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED, you see that it makes specific mention of the First Lady of the United States, because it is an actual defined role. There is no such thing as Lesser brother of a Major League Baseball star. As you said, Aaron's brother made it to the show. Billy Carter had notability on his own that wouldn't have happened without Jimmy, but is clearly independent of Jimmy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Jake Mauer had notability as well, much like Billy. He might not have gotten the shot without the big name brother, but he is a guy with a semi-notable college career and now a decent MiL coaching career. Like I said, I'm not in love with keeping the article (since I'm in part acting on faith that there is more sourcing out there for his coaching), but I think there's enough here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joe Mauer, otherwise Delete Coverage is WP:ROUTINE for his playing career unless there is mention of his more famous brother, in which case the articles become a compare/contrast of the two or discusses there relationship growing up. Since he doesnt meet WP:GNG on his own, it make sense to merge him where his story has the most WP:IMPACT and where his notability is WP:INHERITED—his brother. Does not merit a stand-alone article.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd relist reason: article is a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dating Guy

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

Non-notable show. Was deleted by a PROD earlier this year, and then recreated by a sock of a banned user. I'm bringing this here rather than reprodding or CSD because I'd rather there's a community discussion. Ged UK 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked through GNews and a general Google web search and not found much of anything. The only mentions of the show are a single sentence (occasionally two), but always in articles discussing the Teletoon channel as a whole, including all of its other shows. Teletoon is notable, but, for now, this show doesn't seem to be. It needs to get some reviews from mainstream sources before it will meet our criteria. Silver seren^C 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is nothing but cruft, and without any revelations of significant, published discussion there is no notability. A redirect, maybe--but perhaps this needs to be salted. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We're talking about a multi-season television show on a major cable channel. See [9] and [10] for examples of media coverage. At the very least, this could be merged to the production company behind the program, marblemedia. Pburka (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links could possibly be considered to be 'significant coverage'. Ged UK 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Here's a better article: [11]. Pburka (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It's very in-universe, to say the least! It supports the fact that the show exists, that is true, but I don't think that was ever in doubt... Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage by reliable publications. Fails WP:GNG. LK (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, Jclemens's merge proposal has merit but first the episode list article should be reformated to allow episode summaries. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think Like a Dinosaur (The Outer Limits)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, for lack of third-party sources to substantiate stand-alone notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of articles per stale merge proposal on article page and per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was able to find several secondary sources which would be helpful in turning this into a decent sourced article. — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cirt Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quarto dos Livros

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. 7 gnews hits merely confirms its existence [1]. no evidence of high chart listing Oo7565 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salangaiattam

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

This is an irrelevant article. Either user should have created it in sand box and would have search for references. Day000Walker (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least under this name, it appears to be unverifiable and doesn't meet the notability guideline. Using google I could find one trivial mention of a folk dance under this name, from a source of questionable reliability. There also appears to be a group called Salangai Attam, but that would be a different article. --Beloved Freak 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 15:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not an irrelevant article, but at this point finding online sources is going to be difficult and there's really nothing to write a sourced stub. It's a fairly popular folk dance, and any study of it etc will be in Tamil books only (Gbooks doesn't have). What I've been able to find online are just program listings in newspapers "xyz is performing Salangai Aattam at abc" or program reviews "this included a performance of Salangai Aattam" and so on. If anyone else has better luck, I'm adding the Tamil search string below. —SpacemanSpiff 08:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - The article should have been created in sandbox, developed to meet Wikipedia standards. The contributor should have made effort to search references. I strongly recommend deletion. The contributor should seek help from Tamil wiki teams and try to publish finished articles. Searched a lot on internet still unable to find supporting ref. May god bless Wikipedia--Day000Walker (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia De Sciglio

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

Fails WP:GNG. Plus, this guy has not yet made any appearances in professional games. Luxic (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Luxic (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Luxic (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete article deleted by admin Acroterion with reason "Mass deletion of pages added by Greenencyclo". (Non-admin close) Monty ₈₄₅ 15:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie MacMillan

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

No notability per WP:NGRIDIRON Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete article deleted by admin Acroterion with reason "Mass deletion of pages added by Greenencyclo". (Non-admin close) Monty ₈₄₅ 15:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Langford (footballer)

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

No notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 advertisement. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mombasa cottages

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

No notability established. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Schwarzmann

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

Notability not established through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. No indication that subject meets topical notability guidelines for authors. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so this would mean I need to provide extra media coverage for Schwarzmann's book rather than just a publishers website? --Portions100 (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Googling, I couldn't find anything useful. Msnicki (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn b/c search revealed no 3rd party refs/mentionsCurb Chain (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Epic Mickey. v/r - T P 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Mickey 2

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

Article that announces a game for sometime 2012, unsourced WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. WP:SPECULATION Ben Ben (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epic Mickey This is very much in rumour territory at the minute ([12]) and anything could happen, so a separate article at this time is premature. A section within the original game's article could cover any developments on this sequel until things get more concrete and it can be spun out. Someone another 16:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. Until there is any kind of press release, there is no need for this article at all or anything that suggests it's coming. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Epic Mickey, and hopefully someone can add a blurb to Epic Mickey about the rumor. The rumor was picked up by ever major gaming news site out there. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Odie. Needs to be a small section of the original article until there's more content. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Greek and Hindu Gods

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

The article suffers from multiple issues: WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Though there have been comparisons between Greek and Hindu deities and mythological figures, in the current form, the article needs a complete rewrite to read like an encyclopaedia entry, rather than an OR essay. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup — it is our policy to improve articles in mainspace. If the nominator thinks he can do better then he is free to perform a complete rewrite using ordinary editing tools. Here's a source to help the matter forward. Warden (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here which is encyclopedic to merit cleanup. Appears to be largely original research, since no inline citations to reliable sources are provided when the article says "this god is like that other god because both have X and Y and do Z." There could be an article comparing two suchreligions, since comparative religion has a long scholarly history, but there does not appear to be salvageable content in this essay. Edison (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Edison. There is nothing salvageable from the current content.--Sodabottle (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced original research, nothing here to save. As well, since most of the article consists of "X and Y both control Z natural phenomenon," I question whether it would need to exist even if sourced and rewritten, since that is why Category:Sky and weather gods etc. exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable original research/synthesis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly pointless, and some very glaring mistakes to boot (Yama, for instance, is said to be lord of the Underworld like Hades when in fact he is the God Of Death and Lord Of Justice) I didn't even bother correcting it; what's the point? Also, the vote seems pretty clear, it's time to move on a decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiraj121 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleanup might be possible but I suspect it would be a massive timesink. A long series of comparisons just invite masses of OR anyway. bobrayner (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny idea! But seems worth only a fantasy. DELETE it! Or else they will just start comparing Prime Ministers of different countries just for their commonness of being PMs. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~WP:CONTENT FORK~~WP:CONTENTFORK; no reason why this should exist as this is just a compendium of information in a sidebyside comparsion formatCurb Chain (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a3, no substantive content. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxing out

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

Wikipedia is not for neologisms -- $Σ talk contribs$ 08:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Palarimath

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

No indication of WP:notability. Sources given are either not there or trivial mentions. Google does not show anything. noq (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:SCHOLAR. The entire article appears to an autobiography WP:AUTO WP:COI created by the subject and a small number of socks and meats WP:SOCK WP:SPA. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. The two ISBN numbers given for the subject's books don't even appear to be real and cannot be confirmed through usual searches. Nothing turns up under Google, including Google scholar and Google books. Msnicki (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unremarkable deparmental headCurb Chain (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, foreign language article that makes no sense when translated. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

უელსოფობია

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

Machine translation (courtesy of Google):

Uelsopobia, is in the uelsobisa, ie the fact that the time will come when uadamiano (linear sense) in the environment, to appear, stop the personal development and slow - slow start in recession. For the first time the disease was observed in 2011 (he was described by two scientists, whose names and surnames of the name of the article's author, many mizizta due mizazshetsnoilad not think), umtkitsesi suppose it ukurnebelia, but certainly nothing to say, because the disease is the only such case in the old medical books in the display, therefore not to give further someone is always accompanied by a patient, this is what he says himself uelsopobi _ "nice to Kia, never be afraid but I have this fear of the opposite (perhaps because of) attempts have been continuously developed, it can be such things but before that he could not see, after he, himself of the disease are noticed, is Self-where I started, I think it better where it became my goal imaginable leed Behavior is the way that him and me between zero difference to be, in addition to gadavarchino humanity to create new ideals, humanoidebi and animals as possible mivuakhlovo each other (not daavakhlovo), make for what they had was unacceptable, but he wanted everyone to mirror chavakhedo They give a chance to improve after admianeb together leave this planet, and I elsi create a new seat, where animals, plants, "Adam's children," and animals Martyr, humanoidebi are eligible to apply. "The patients themselves to treatment and other ekimaa concluded that although uelsopobi sheshlia that, but it is not the truth, and it is very challenging to phobias, it is not (Mr. or PCs).

Wikipedia is not the place for essays and opinions. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 07:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Morris (historian)

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

Article was created by the subject in 2009 and has remained as an unreferenced biography of a living person ever since. I have been unable to find any reliable sources to support the subject's notability, which I find surprising, given the number of articles quoted. Only sources availble online appear to be self-published. This needs more eyes on it. CharlieDelta (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —CharlieDelta (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete — clearly fails WP:PROF. i can't even construct a google scholar search that picks out this guy's work. his publications are almost uniformly from the ensign (see also wp article Ensign (LDS magazine)), which is not a scholarly journal even in the circumscribed area of mormon self-scholarship. since wp:prof doesn't apply, he'd need to satisfy gng, but he clearly does not. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails Wikipedia:GNGTeapotgeorge^Talk 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point he is a long way from being notable. He has only published in church-sponsored publications, does not appear to have an academic appointment anywhere, and only got his PhD last year.[13] --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Estate Net Worth

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

The value of Michael Jackson's estate is not worth an article of its own, especially this SOAPy screed about how "the mainstream media isn't reporting the true value of the Michael Jackson estate..." szyslak (t) 07:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly unnecessary. I suggest the info be copied to Michael Jackson. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here but original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable article. It need only little bit fix. --BadMuroZ (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what would be left after a clean-up and delete the rest. Not notable as a stand-alone article.TMCk (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sorts of issues, but among them is the article's self confessed non-reliance on "mainstream media"- and which seems to SYNTH an approximation from certain sources... but none of them are actually verifying the overall context or figures. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge information if possible. Aside from the high level of WP:OR there is no evidence of notability for a separate article.--SabreBD (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, nothing on IMDB, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Semoni

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

Speedy A7 tag removed by a third party. Actress, only minor roles are asserted in the article. No references. Speedy delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michigan_State_University#Student_organizations. v/r - T P 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Guard

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

This student group lacks notability. All that should be said about the group is already in the university article. Thus, no merge to do, thus, deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the time being to merge relevant data into the Michigan State University article. I merged some data to the MSU article about the group being focused on helping people with disabilities, which wasn't in the MSU article before. This helped to clarify and be more specific regarding the group's focus in the MSU article.Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, is this a vote for Keep or Merge? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per message above:
Merge - (This isn't a second nomination, just a clarification to the above). Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief, cited mention (one or two sentences) in the main Michigan State University article might be appropriate. I would not object to a redirect, but it's not a particularly useful one. Neutrality^talk 07:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by Keegan (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth botte. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 12:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth botte

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

Speedy A7 template removed by an IP without addressing the issue. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as promotional. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Funky Psycho Boogie Thang

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

No evident signs of notability for this band. This article seems more of a promotion for the Mr. Hedges listed in the article. Only source given is Mr. Hedges website. Delete. Safiel (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-Calibur (artist)

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

This appears to be a promotional piece for a non-notable musician. LadyofShalott 00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources other than promotional material, reads like an ad. Kauffner (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There weren't any notable sources on Google and Yahoo, and not to mention it would be need be rewritten and wikified.SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD had not been listed in the daily logs, so I've added it just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, mea culpa. Thanks for fixing it. LadyofShalott 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage in my opinion. 11coolguy12 (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 06:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources in the article have significant coverage and I found none also. SL93 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, eww, that's awful and it fails WP:MUSICBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. 08:43, 8 September 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Anthony S Adams" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: more at User talk:A2adams - please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony S Adams

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

Article was possibly created by the subject itself. There is very little citations that adhere to WP:RS and uses PR websites as sources.

PR Websites are references directed to actaul issued press releases of relevent and notability.

Additional policy WP:NOTFACEBOOK applies as well. Phearson (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please define reasoning for WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Currently not in agreement.

Delete Google searches yielded scrappy references. No indication of notability. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Delete on the ground that the article defines notability and the references substanciate. Just another quick push to delete...

Advocating for removal from list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions discussion.

PR references are not reliable sources, which do nothing but promote for the dollar. Phearson (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM Stuartyeates (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naohiro Takahashi

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

nonnotable. The only notability claim is taking part in some contests. The mentioned contests he was not top winner. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply non-notable. Google searches indicated no significant coverage. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bio & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlashPunk

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

Declined prod. Doesn't seem to be notable, no reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Sudo Ghost 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. I could not find any reliable sources referencing the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you guys are deleting FlashPunk, but not Flixel. They're very similar products, and their pages are nearly identical, with the FlashPunk page having more content than the Flixel page. The FlashPunk and Flixel 3rd party references are nearly identical, too:

FP:
Official website
FlashPunk wiki at FlashGameDojo.com
Source on GitHub
Interview about FlashPunk at DigitalTools

Flixel:
Official website
Flixel wiki at FlashGameDojo.com
Source on GitHub
Official Flixel wiki on GitHub
Interview about Flixel v1.1 at DigitalTools.com

Only difference is Flixel's wiki is uploaded to. I could add FP's wiki if I wanted to, but I don't see how that's a 3rd-party reference as both wiki's are created by the library creators. What makes Flixel's article more notable than FP's? Bretboy129 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD isn't addressing any other article, that other stuff exists is not addressing why this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. - Sudo Ghost 03:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is noteworthy as a freeware, open-source program available on the Internet. The Flashpunk website has a forum with thousands of posts on it, which is noteworthy as to the significance the application. The article is also noteworthy as an encyclopedic reference regarding the availability of freeware and open source programs, and how the Internet continues to evolve. Furthermore, the Flixel article is a notable comparison, because both platforms are very similar, and the "Other Stuff Exists" webpage is an essay, not official Wikipedia policy. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Also a Google search returns numerous websites regarding Flashpunk, which correlates with the subject's overall notability; click here for Google search results. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being nominated for deletion for failing to meet the WP:N guideline. WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which are not policy but are meant to explain to you why your support to keep the article is incorrectly stated per WP:N. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep argument fails to demonstrate why the article is notable, simply because it is a freeware open-source program is not sufficient. The Google search return is useless as a keep argument, as none of the results are reliable, third-party sources, most are random blogs. As for the other stuff exists essay, ignoring it would be valid if the article was proven to be notable, but that is not the case. - Sudo Ghost 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. One interview does not notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This application will likely never receive significant press in mass media. Go ahead and delete the article then, along with most other freeware software articles. Refer to List of freeware video games for a starting point to begin an en masse deletion. Continue, and delete all articles about open source software too that are ignored in mass media. What will be left in Wikipedia is software produced only by corporations, and articles will be based upon corporate lobbyists influencing mass media to report about their latest innovations. For examples, refer to: iPod, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Hewlett-Packard, Adobe Systems and many others that have significant advertising budgets for national and international advertising campaigns. The rest will fail WP:GNG because they're not available in Google news. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, we should allow garage bands to have articles, simply because they're garage bands. Why should bands that have advertising or labels be the only bands that are allowed to have articles?

Articles about open-source software exist that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines, such as Warsow (video game), GIMP, Arch Linux, and many, many others. None of these are produced by corporations with "lobbyists influencing mass media", nor do they have significant (or any) advertising budgets. In fact, none of these examples are produced by corporations at all. We cannot give exceptions to Wikipedia's notability guidelines simply because the software is free. I'm all about open source software and the freedom of information, but that's exactly why Wikipedia's notability guidelines are so important, because if every piece of open source software or freeware was allowed an article simply because of that criteria, it would dilute the encyclopedia into a repository of crap software, and that's not what Wikipedia is. - Sudo Ghost 12:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Refer to the discussion page of the FlashPunk article here for more information. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Go ahead and delete the article then, along with most other freeware software articles. Refer to List of freeware video games for a starting point to begin an en masse deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said the same thing above, and SudoGhost has already responded to it. Simply repeating it doesn't accomplish anything. LadyofShalott 12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minimizing dictionary

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

I found zero sources for this term. The source in the article is offline. See Maximizing dictionary AfD also. SL93 (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment": They both appear to be a neologism by Sandro Nielsen. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COnfirmed lack of any usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, leaning delete Not sure if it's received significant coverage. Can't see this article get past stub class. At the very least it should be incorporated into Dictionary. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the expression was commonly used all this and the other article does is define this aspect of dictionaries.Borock (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Big Dom 06:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximizing dictionary

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

I found zero sources for this term. The only source in the article is offline. See Minimizing dictionary AfD also. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment": They both appear to be a neologism by Sandro Nielsen. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COnfirmed lack of any usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, leaning delete Not sure if it's received significant coverage. Can't see this article get past stub class. At the very least it should be incorporated into Dictionary. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the expression was commonly used all this and the other article does is define this aspect of dictionaries.Borock (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as nomination withdrawn with no countervailing delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux International School

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

~~Stub created in 2008. No secondary sources or indications of notability.~~ Racconish^Tk 02:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TerriersFan is right. I wish to withdraw my nomination in view of this article and this video.Racconish^Tk 18:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - experience shows that high schools meet WP:GNG with sufficient research. We need to avoid systemic bias by allowing ample time for local sources to be researched. TerriersFan (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 16:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World of Books Ltd

AfDs for this article:

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

Commercial in nature. Notability is questionable, and lacks significance. Phearson (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - received significant coverage in a national UK newspaper (the Daily Telegraph). Also, per Warden, the last debate closed too recently. --S Larctia (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep We already had an AFD for this two days ago. Warden (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This article was created from a single-purpose account, suggesting a conflict of interest and a reason for the article being commercial in nature. Dolphin (t) 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was created for commercial reasons doesn't suggest anything about the notability of the subject. The article is written with a neutral point of view. --S Larctia (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage appears to relate to a single round of positive coverage probably generated by a PR person. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close Phearson wanted to delete it in the last AFD which ended two days before he opened this one. Not getting your way is not a valid reason to start another AFD. Dream Focus 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find significant coverage to indicate this company meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. As for the quick re-nom, I don't think that it was ideal, however it still does not change the situation with regard to notability. Mt king ^(edits) 08:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while this did qualify for a speedy keep as nominating an article two days after an closed AFD without a deletion review) is highly discouraged, and considered disruptive. I decided to look closely at the sources before deciding. The first source is most likely a press release, as there was no author named in the article and researching further the Trade Month articles come from the UK Trade & Investment website, which is a government website that helps UK buinesses expand and grow. So that source is not independent of the subject. The second and third sources are clear press releases from press release websites, not independent neither. The fourth release can be considered "independent" from the subject but it's a local newspaper award, which isn't a claim of notability.

As a result having one local source is discouraged by the wording of WP:CORP, and the other three sources violate our policy on self-published sources, and considering those (and a few more press releases) were the only sources I found on google, the company should be deleted. Secret ^account 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable book company, I purchased several books from them myself via amazon market place, which I then used to improve Wikipedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you bought serveral books from the company doesn't mean it's notable, there are thousands of book companies about the same size as this in Amazon (maybe without the press releases but still). Secret ^account 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm told by the previous closing administrator on his talk page, that he won't just speedy close this. Those who say keep please copy over your past rational so they'll count it in this one. With coverage like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/uk-trade-investment/6385885/Trade-Month-World-of-Books-business-is-booming-but-it-needs-to-start-making-a-profit.html I don't see how anyone can doubt its notability. Dream Focus 19:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just rebutted that it's not The Telegram article, it's a UK Trade & Investment press release that was redistributed by The Telegram, defiantly not an independent source. Secret ^account 02:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, its independent source, since they are independent of the book company. "Trade Month: UK Trade & Investment In association with UK Trade & Investment, the Telegraph presents a series looking at the opportunities for UK exporters." Dream Focus 04:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rupin Kahlon

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The album Folk Addiction is a part of this AfD also. Being in the number 10 spot on a download chart does not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The creator of the articles was only notified about the primary article, and did not receive a notice on Folk Addiction. (notification now provided) Monty ₈₄₅ 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the chart listed doesn't seem to be reputable one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Trooper (card game)

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

Unremarkable card game per WP:N Dengero (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims to notability, no references. Might just as well be made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 05:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be made up. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Gosh no. No explanation needed. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Paper Tickets

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this company. I only found a bunch of press releases on Google News. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found one decent article to back it up. Certainly not significant coverage. tedder (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage. No indication of importance in the field. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Xyz or die (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Port Vila Vanuatu earthquakes

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

Non notable earthquake; no damage. Diego talk 20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a more detailed reason ? Diego talk 16:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user who proposed deletion of this article, Diego Grez, stated that the sole reason for the earthquake's lack of notability was "no damage". This is not the sole criterion upon which an earthquake is deemed to be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

This article meets the [notability guideline] for [events] because there was widespread coverage of the earthquakes covered in diverse sources. A quick Google search shows that there are over 400 articles about these earthquakes, originating from various countries in various continents. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they have a significant consequence? Most earthquakes which are felt in a large area are often reported my media from all around the world; that doesn't grants 'notability' IMO. Also, you can simply call me Diego; for a reason I'm only using my name in my signature. Diego talk 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the Port Vila earthquakes had significant consequence. However I will note that these two earthquakes (magnitude 7.1 and 7.0) were the largest earthquakes on the planet in August 2011. Even if there was not much damage, the magnitude suggests that they are notable. Also as noted above, there were numerous articles about the earthquakes in sources from many different countries. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude doesn't give automatical (not sure if that's an actual word) notability; and being the strongest tremor in X month and Y year certainly doesn't either. Diego talk 16:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the magnitude, combined with it being the biggest earthquake for August, combined with the hundreds of sources in various countries and continents are the reasons why this earthquake meets notability criteria. Gfcvoice (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An earthquake of magnitude 7.2 in Fox Islands, Alaska, the strongest in June 2011 according to the same article you linked to, doesn't have its article, even when it was covered by several sources. Why? Because it didn't have significant consequence. This Vanuatu earthquake didn't have either, that's why it isn't notable. Being widely covered, being of certain magnitude and being the strongest quake of an X month doesn't guarantee notability. Diego talk 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The "widely covered" criteria comes straight from the Wikipedia general notability guideline and the notability guideline for events because there was widespread coverage of the earthquakes covered in diverse sources. A quick Google search shows that there are over 400 articles about these earthquakes, originating from various countries in various continents. Your discussion regarding the Alaska earthquake is not relevant to the discussion about the Port Vila earthquake article. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NNEWS, particularly WP:INDEPTH. If widespread of coverage was all that was needed Christina Desforges would still have an article (view that AfD). Big earthquakes get reported all around the world, but they're just news unless they have a lasting impact.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The earthquake is notable as a significant geological event in 2011. Also, retaining the article can be beneficial as an encyclopedic reference regarding the event, and for the creation of new articles.Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOTNEWS. Earthquakes are common around the Pacific rim, this one had no major consequence of any sort.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add it could be mentioned in a list of earthquakes article, but there's nothing to write about in terms of a stand-alone article.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, a spate of news articles at the time does not confer notability. We need sustained coverage and these earthquakes just didn't get any, or at least not enough for a stand-alone article. Big Dom 06:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already redirected.. v/r - T P 15:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Down for Whatever

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

Not enough info for stand on its own, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Sauloviegas (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Here I Am (Kelly Rowland album), the parent album. The reliably-sourced content that currently exists (second UK single, co-produced by RedOne, Jimmy Joker and The WAV.s) is already covered in the album article. I can find no significant/in-depth coverage for the song; appears to fail WP:NSONGS. A redirect seems appropriate until such coverage emerges. Gongshow ^Talk 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per above Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong at the Heart

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

Does not assert notability. The book doesn't seem to be in print any more (Amazon only lists used copies) and the webpage we link to was last updated in 2005. I was not able to find any meaningful coverage through Google Books and Google Scholar. Matt Deres (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is the second AFD for this article. The previous AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong at the Heart: How it feels to heal from sexual abuse. The article was moved and the AFD record in the discussion page pointed to the wrong place as a result of the move. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I saw the redlink to the deletion discussion, but didn't really twig to what had happened. Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a review at doi:10.1353/bcc.2006.0012, but I don't know how extensive it is, except that it doesn't go over more than one page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of notable books are out of print--being continuously in print is a strong sign of notability for a book, but the reverse isn't always true. That said, I'm not seeing any evidence this particular book is notable by any other measure either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Ball

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

Wikipedia is not for madeup things -- $Σ talk contribs$ 00:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Carpenter-1] "What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source. Thomas G. Carpenter Library, University of North Florida".

[Schaum-2] "Schaum's Quick Guide to Writing Great Research Papers".

[Albert-3] Stuart Albert (1998). David Allred Whetten, Paul C. Godfrey (ed.). The Definition and Metadefinition of Identity, In: Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 1–13. ISBN 0-7619-0947-8. Retrieved 2011-09-02.

[1]

[2]

[3]