Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 June	7 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamira A. Cole

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

Nobility is questionable. Person wrote their own Wikipedia page and accomplishments are equal to many other non-notable people.Choctaw47 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically, not yet notable. So far, only relatively minor accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are all either not independent, or barely mention her. Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is on here because she was a state pageant winner and is a notable Chi Omega nationally. There are many individuals with an article that haven't accomplished anything. Double check and realize that all of the references placed on her MENTION HER and pageant historians (such as myself)created her page. Chill out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterspirit (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any of the things in the article as a valid claim to Wikipedia notability. Sourcing is fairly poor as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if it has reliable sources after shooting begins. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HARA-KIRI

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

Film has not started shooting yet, which means it fails WP:NFILMS, and there are no sources provided to show WP:GNG notability. I can't find any sources (though it's a tricky subject to Google for - there have been several films with similar titles). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NFF and there is no prejudice to recreating this in the future should it prove to meet WP:GNG. Ubelowme (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that is happening, still less that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the problems already mentioned when you look at the edits of the the article creator Julesgladys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) it looks like we may have a WP:COI and/or selfpromotion situation occurring. MarnetteD | Talk 22:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the poster child of TOOSOON. Lack of sources speaking toward the project make deletion a no-brainer. I might have suggested a redirect to the film's director, but his own article is soon to be speedied as an unverifiable BLP violation. As for a redirect to the article on the producer, Jules Gladys, it is itself weak enough to likely end up at AFD as well. No coverage + no verifiability = Non-notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An identical version of the article called Hara-Kiri (2012 film) has been created. —Hue Sat Lum 17:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, and the author warned. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Created again, speedy deleted again, author blocked for 24 hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ironholds (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cook (footballer born 1990)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the usual caveats that it's too soon as he has yet played a senior game in a fully professional league. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. -- KTC (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Technically wouldnt he be considered notable for playing in the FA Cup against Rotherham United F.C. as said here [1]. We have done this in the past with players who have not played in league but only cup against fully-professional teams. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies if both clubs play in a fully pro league, which is not the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Confident it will pass WP:GNG if given the chance. To many hastily removed article's are gunned down before they are given enough time to achieve notability. I am sure with a good day's research this article could achieve that FishyPhotos (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD doesn't close for a few days. If you believe it's possible to find sufficient sources to demonstrate it meet WP:GNG, then you're more than welcome to look for it. -- KTC (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass any criteria. You may have a day or two to get a source though. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am adding quite alot of content in regards to WP:GNG also as an example, the Jamie Vardy article was allowed since July 2011 and he had never played in a fully pro league, the circumstances only changed in the past few weeks when he signed for Leicester City. Nelly_1975 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yan Klukowski, Richard Brodie, Jamie Vardy in my opinion all fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL also having never played in a professional league, yet these article's were turned a blind eye! What makes these articles so different to the rules? Nelly_1975 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right, feel free to nominate them and see what people think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will see what the outcome is on this first, if this is deleted, I will trawl through every non-league player and see how other people like their own hardwork being put at risk of being destroyed -- Nelly_1975 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you are saying you'll disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am saying similar article's should have some level of consistency in terms of equality of the article's in question, I must admit I had not read the Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point page until you thankfully pointed it out to me, having read this, I will not nominate any article's for deletion just to prove a point of equality, I hope turning a blind eye doesn't break any other rule noting in my previous comments regarding Yan Klukowski, Richard Brodie, Jamie Vardy -- Nelly_1975 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Nelly, personally I feel the boundaries should come up for discussion as the fifth level of English football is now predominatley a league full of professional footballers. If it was up to me, if you play in this league and have a professional contract that should be good enough for notability, but who am I to speak? That's only my opinion. My frustration, as a Grimsby Town fan, as well as my club being relegated is that I can no longer create, build and maintain player article's for my clubs players. For example Andi Thanoj and Shaun Pearson are two professional first team players at Grimsby who are supposedly ineligible for article's because they haven't played in the Football League. If someone agree's and is willing to bring it up in discussion then great, but I doubt many will agree. Footballgy (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree with the other two guys Nelly Footballgy (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I also have to agree with my friend Fishy. JesperBlomqvist (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The post above was made by an editor with only two other edits in the past year. This user may be a sock- or meatpuppet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Richard Brodie is now notable as he has played in a fully professional league (league 2) for one season, however technically Jaime Vardy does not merit an article which in my opinion is ridiculas as the conferance should be classed as a notable league due to the number of notable players in the league. Seasider91 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, Richard Brodie has not made an actual appearance in league 2, he was loaned out to Fleetwood for the whole season, that article has been on the go since February 2008 and no one pulled it up-- Nelly_1975 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Several in-depth interviews in reliable sources is, according to the concensus below, enough to show notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Whitney (computer scientist)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources given are interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY and are not helpful in establishing notability. Further, I have been unable to find better sources through all the usual Google searches. The best I could find was a blog post mentioning his A+ language as the "obscure language of the month" which hardly seems to be a ringing endorsement of the notability of that, either. Msnicki (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The A+ and K articles have some information, maybe the article can be rewritten as a section of the article K? (Apparently K was written by him, and A+ was a developed by a team) Ziiike (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment I don't see enough yet in searching to satistfy GNG or WP:PROF, but an interview published in the ACM Queue is not a primary source for establishing notability -- the fact that an important RS chose to interview him is a definite argument for notability. I'm satisfied that the languages themselves are notable now and with that plus the coverage in press sources, switching Comment to Keep-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The principal creator of two notable languages is notable--I'm assuming the languages actually are notable--if this is doubtful, a combination article could be written, either under the name of the best known language--or here, with sections on the languages. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like he should meet WP:ACADEMIC for his contributions to computer science (he also helped create J, which is probably better known). Not very many sources, though. This ACM Queue interview has some facts at the start[2]. Bloomberg has a bit of info[3]. This Computer Weekly article mentions him but quotes Wikipedia so maybe shouldn't count[4]. Is the Journal of the British APL Association a reliable source?[5]. Not RS[6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources aren't helpful in establishing notability. The ACM Queue article (1) is an interview, which makes it WP:PRIMARY. The Bloomberg article (2) is trivial coverage. The Computer Weekly article (3) is interview with the CEO at Kx Systems, which the subject founded; this is just plain NOT independent. The BAA article (4) is routine coverage of one of Kx Systems' launch parties and (even more useless) it was written by someone AT Kx Systems. I think the tribute to Roger Hui (5) is probably reliable with a citation to the original ACM publication but it's about Roger Hui, not the subject; any mentions of Whitney in this article are incidental to explaining Hui's accomplishments and offer very little information about Whitney. I don't think this is sufficient. Msnicki (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC and notability established by sources listed above. The content of an interview is WP:PRIMARY for the purposes of citing facts but the fact that an independent source chose to conduct the interview is strong evidence of notability for the topic. --Kvng (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delano Johnson

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

Unreferenced sporting BLP stub. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is sourced and a Google search shows more sources available. The more serious concern is whether the subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON, not having played a professional game. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Lame article, needs lots of work. Subject passes WP:GNG through multiple independent reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Paul, you need to do some in-depth homework and provide more critical analysis for this AfD. A Google News Archive search ("Delano Johnson" Bowie State) reveals a total of TWENTY-SEVEN results (see [7]), virtually all of which are fanblogs, sources affiliated with the Bowie State football program, or are simple routine mentions in post-game coverage. I found precisely one piece of in-depth coverage in an independent source (Yahoo Sports), and it's a blog (see [8]). That's pretty slender thread on which to hang GNG notability. If there is other quality, in-depth coverage to be found in independent sources, please provide links. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response funny I get 357 a lot of which are news articles but whatever, I'm sure they're not all about this subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking through the first several pages of results, almost none are about this subject. cmadler (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trying to be fair to Paul, I just went through the first ten pages of his Google search linked above. Here are the results: 106 - not the same person; 9 - trivial mention and/or routine game/recruiting coverage; 5 - fansite or team blog; 2 - non-independent Bowie State sources. Of the 122 hits reviewed, not one of them qualifies as a meaningful source for purposes of establishing notability per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooops that's all I got... thanks for the research!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very few sources, and none sufficient to establish notability for our purposes. cmadler (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Cmadler and my comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cards in Dominion

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

Fails WP:GAMEGUIDE; a listing of all cards in the game and their effects is never appropriate (plenty of external sites provide this information). MASEM (t) 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ILIKEIT, but there's no policy reason for its inclusion. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fall under WP:GAMEGUIDE; information of no interest to anyone except players of the game. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious WP:GAMEGUIDE which content is basically WP:GAMECRUFT. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 03:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N issues and a possible copyright violation (not sure, but worth noting). Hobit (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Mobile Software Version WU1004

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

Article is an operations-guide for some commercial software. WP:NOTGUIDE Salimfadhley (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No-brainer. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, also unreferenced. Dialectric (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alexis Tsipras#Personal life. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peristera Baziana

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "The subject's only claim of notability is being the fiance of Alexis Tsipras. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG." The PROD was contested by the article's creator (688dim (talk · contribs)) on my talk page, saying "On the talk page of Peristera Baziana all the users support that the article should not be deleted."

The point is, all coverage for Baziana doesn't come from reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Also, notability is not inherited, so a standalone article about Baziana is not justified without significant coverage by independent reliable sources as per GNG. So I'd say delete this article and mention her on her husband's article. – Kosm1 fent 05:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Keep.This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (it does not appear to meet the A7 speedy deletion criteria as suggested. The lady in question is the long term partner of Alexis Tsipras, currently a very important figure in Greek politics. She was also politically active in the same youth movements that he was involved with. This is a clear indication of the importance of the subject. If she is not worthy of an article on her own merits, perhaps it should be merged with the article of her partner, Alexis Tsipras) --C87wikiedit (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Keep.This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because It appears that she will be the next first lady of Greece making her an important national figure. --89.101.44.40 (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Keep.This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the economic crisis in Greece has catapulted the far-left Syrizah party to the fore of Greek politics. As the partner of a potential PM of Greece in the middle of the financial crisis, that gives her a profile equivalent to that of Michelle Obama or Carla Bruni. Given the lavish treatment of Michelle Obama in her Wikipedia entry (someone who has done nothing publicly notable other than marry a future President), a speedy deletion of Peristera Baziana would be the height of national narcissism. I think we should take no action towards deletion until a stable government is formed in Greece, and if Tsipras is the new PM, we can then figure out whether to incorporate information about Baziana into his "Personal Life" or give her her own entry, based on the contributions of Greek Wikipedians.. --69.211.9.252 (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Keep.This article should not be speedily deleted because of CSD A7 ("No indication of importance"). There is a clear indication of the importance of Peristera Baziana; she is the partner of Alexis Tsipras, who is a central figure in the current political crisis in Greece. --mennonot (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Keep.This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a biography of a person whose importance is increasing by the day. It seems very likely that she will be the wife of Greece's Prime Minister, especially looking forward to the next elections. Ph8l (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Keep.This article should not be speedily deleted because it refers to the mate of the Greek politician Alexis Tsipras who has a great influence on him (they have a relationship since they were teens). Alexis Tsipras, as the polls now show, may be the next Greek prime minister 688dim (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Good job copy-pasting the entire article's talk page to prove a point. However, you fail to address the reasons for deletion, which are 1) being related to a famous person doesn't alone justify notability (WP:POLITICIAN#Invalid criteria) and 2) significant coverage by reliable third-party sources is required (WP:GNG) but currently does not exist. Also, there is a bunch of crystal ball action in there (saying that Tsipras will be a new PM), but even then his wife will not be considered notable unless she satisfies GNG. – Kosm1 fent 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see several Greek sources that appear to provide sufficient significant coverage to satisfy our notability criterion: [9][10][11][12][13][14]. (Note: not all of these are independent of each other.) --Lambiam 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that can be considered reliable is the Sigma Live link which doesn't constitute significant coverage, as they only mention Peristera here (in Greek): "(about Tsipras) he is ready to become a dad for a second time from Peristera Baziana, whom he hasn't married." Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable being the fiance of a political figure. Refs that ~~Kosm1fent~~ Lambiam gave use the same photos with the same wording. All are a couple paragraphs that say the exact same things. It is almost as if a news story was published and all the other newspapers used the same exact story. Bgwhite (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lambiam you mean? I didn't give any sources. :P – Kosm1 fent 17:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I'm sure you are a source of something evil :) Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the article should not be deleted. Alexis Tsipras is these days very famous and in many countries the leaders (such as in the EU) have made comments about him. His mate should surely refered on a special article as she may have a great influence on him. 688dim (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's an obvious solution here. Redirect to Alexis Tsipras#Personal life, where the material is already present. It can be expanded into an article if he becomes head of government, and if there is more published information to write one with. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per DGG. This seems clear, until and if she personally becomes the subject of arm's-length third-party reliable sources. Ubelowme (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'd agree with redirecting the article to Alexis Tsipras. – Kosm1 fent 18:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per DGG. There are just not sufficient third-party sources to support, particularly for a BLP. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as separate article. WP:NOTINHERITED No coverage except as mate of a notable person. DocTree (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DGG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:HEY — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Benitez

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

Brief mentions in a few sources, but not enough specific treatment (yet) by reliable sources to write an article. — Racconish^Tk 19:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) ~~delete~~ keep. ~~Unfortunately, I just failed to find enough extensive reliable coverage. Search also reveals other people with the same name though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Since she does appear to have worked in several notable works, she could have an article at least for now, provided that more sources are found, those that actually about her. Nevertheless, she just barely qualifies notability, but coverage is still disappointingly thin. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject already has an impressive portfolio. The common name makes it hard to find sources, but there are some and no doubt more will emerge. Coverage of the Tagalog film industry is decidedly weak in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure 'some source will emerge' is a strong argument here. And the last point is in my opinion a form of meta-reasoning. — Racconish^Tk 06:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth. But the coverage of more recent films and TV series from the Philppines isn't too bad actually but its the quality above all which is lacking in most articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish we could somehow keep this article, but even with more specific search terms, I failed to find enough significant, in-depth coverage. Please note that coverage of Philippine media is actually relatively easy to find, even for independent films. Even directors less famous than Brillante Mendoza usually get decent coverage, and the fact that Benitez doesn't is actually surprising. I'm willing to reconsider my !vote if actual significant sources are found, such as coverage in newspapers or magazines like YES! which has a section on independent films. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not surprising that there are no independent bios - she is a 28-year-old cinematographer, not an actress or director. What shows up on a quick search is a solid body of work and a significant number of independent sources commenting on the quality of that work. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well wouldn't that be a problem? There's coverage about her work, not about her. I actually found more coverage about a pianist of the same name than her. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are known more for their work than for their private life, and some are known only for their work. If a person has a notable body of work, the normal title for an article describing that body of work is the name of the person. Biographical details are included if available, but a biography is not a requirement. If it were, there would be no article on Homer or Herodotus. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination.— Racconish^Tk 14:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to withdraw it. Nomination at time was very appropriate I agree. But its one of those very common cinema personalities who have been involved in notable projects and worked with some very notable people but lack major coverage about themselves. Enzo Petito is pretty much the same and there are some pretty notable US and UK cinematgraphers too I've come across with practically no biographical coverage. But based on the few sources that do mention them and the basis of the film product and involvement in a series of notable works they meet our notability criteria. Also a lot of the red links, especially Mel Chionglo and Jeffrey Jeturian she has worked with if you google book search or highbeam search you'll find a great number of hits. I'll try to reduce the red links in the article over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts and those of Aymatth2, still think the specific coverage of the person is rather thin, and suggest some additional sources are needed for a clear keep. — Racconish^Tk 17:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 BMW PGA Championship

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for a standalone article per WP:GOLF. Isn't a Major Championship or one of the small group of other events where a yearly tournament merits its own article. ...William 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BMW PGA Championship is the PGA European Tour home's tournament, is often regarded as the Flagship Event of the European Tour and each tournament generates a huge amount of coverage in European media. It attracts a strong field and usually has the highest prize money of any regular event which the tour organises. --StephanQz (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not clear (at least to me) after reading WP:GOLF where it explicitly states which tournaments warrant yearly articles and which ones do not. Neither does WP:NGOLF provide any clarity as it pertains only to players. The BMW PGA Championship is the European Tour's "flagship event" in terms of points offered towards the Official World Golf Ranking, and certainly enough coverage exists to pass WP:GNG. Further, individual Players Championship articles were kept at a recent AfD, which supports the possibility of yearly tournament articles beyond the majors. But then, where is the cutoff? Can someone point me to any previous discussions on the subject? Gongshow ^Talk 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously, I defer to consensus, but it's unclear what consensus exists as to which tournaments get annual articles and which do not. Such a discussion, as noted by Gongshow above, would be worthwhile. But in the interim, I'm looking at the merits - and here I see good sourcing and likely notability. We can always merge later on if consensus tightens the rules - but until then, I think this one warrants a Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Said Namouh

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

This individual does not appear to be notable unto himself. None of the events seemed to have gotten any major coverage, either. —Ryulong (竜龙) 10:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources already cited in the article are reliable, at least a couple are news stories specifically about the subject - and a GNews search shows more. PWilkinson (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - are a few sources indicating notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PERP which requires "For perpetrators: 1) The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities, or 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This guy was tried, convicted and sentenced, but there is nothing to indicate his case meets these (admittedly high) standards. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, WP:PERP should be interpreted as referring to ordinary crimes, and were designed to keep out routine coverage of routine murders and robberies, and to compensate for the heavy press coverage of these events. But political crimes, or things charged as political crimes, are political acts and should be judged accordingly, by whether they are notable as such. I consider terrorism cases political crimes, regardless of the country. It meets the ordinary BLP standards--there areetqwo events to discuss, though related. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 incident. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas M. Webster

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

Only notable for one event already covered in 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 crash MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a classic WP:ONEEVENT that doesn't warrant two articles. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Merge and redirect with 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 crash....William 17:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed my above vote. Bushranger and I discussed this article at his talk page a day before it was AFD. It was my plan to do a merge but I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Just For everyone's information, the Webster article was created long before the Philippine Sea article and the latter looks to have drawn its information from the former....William 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 incident...which was already being done... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 crash has been moved to 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 incident. Modified my !vote accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The orlando file

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

Non-notable book. Author is Ian C. P. Irvine (not to be confused with Ian Irvine). Author has no WP article. Book is for sale in digital form on Amazon, but beyond a few reviews there I can find no independent discussion of the book. Fails to meet notability guidelines for books. | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name of the publisher is the name of the author. (This was apparently connected at one point with Smashwords, another self-publishing arrangement.) Self-publishing confers no notability and I can find no arm's-length third-party expert opinion. Ubelowme (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable, self published book. With the ease at which people can self-publish e-books now, it almost makes you wish for a Speedy Delete criteria to cover books. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, Unreferenced. Also self-published book.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Sinn Féin

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

I came across this when making Sinn Féin (disambiguation). It strikes me as lacking in notability. As far as I can determine, this party has no elected representatives either at national or local level, and I can't find any evidence that they have ever put anyone forward for elections. Searching for "Real Sinn Féin" in google news archive produces two possible hits (ignoring all the false positives), [15][16]. Both sources seem to mention the party only in passing. The article cites republican-news.org, which I think fails WP:RS, as it seems to lack a robust editorial system, and it has a clear bias. Overall, this organization fails WP:GNG. Quasi human | Talk 14:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Quasi human | Talk 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest possible threshold for articles relating to political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders, without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a good encyclopedia. The existence of this organization is beyond doubt and I suggest that it should be treated like a town or village, a highway, a high school, or a professional athlete and kept on that basis under WP:IAR — "use common sense to improve the encyclopedia." Carrite (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible verifiable information in this article would be "Real Sinn Féin is a group." (per the Herald article). To what extent this is a political party is doubtful. Can you find verifiable information that this is a political party? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day comes to mind here. Quasi human | Talk 15:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly fails notability guidelines and politics guidelines. Just one of many small nebulous groups of Irish republicans with unverifiable and changing membership. Best you could do with this info, is a brief mention in article about Irish republican groups. Snappy (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be a properly constituted or significant party. They don't even have a website, just a blog on Blogspot[17], the latest entry of which concludes:
well he can go fcuk off + make it write hisself 'cause i do'nt get payed 'nuff 4 all dis righten WTF i am'nt geteN payed at ALL so if u are gonna go 2 thiS gig den brinG sum monies with u 4 me + i;ll write about u hear if u want?
:We should cover as many political parties as possible, especially if they stand in elections or get press coverage, but this is just a tiny fringe group that seems to be in chaos. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ive spent a bit of time at their "website" and i am still in the dark at to whether or not its a real thing run by clearly disturbed individual or whether its a parody. If it ever turns out to be a real party then im sure that it will organise better than it currently is and we can stick it back up but for now definitely delete.Eleutherius (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid E. Kruse Andersen

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

Non-notable person. Speedy declined on the basis that the claim that Kruse Andersen is "one of the pioneers in childbearing care in Norway", however this claim is supported by this source, a book titled Kruseboka (or "Kruse Book"); apparently a family history written by Bard Kruse (presumably a relative). This really can't be considered a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to satisfy WP:BIO, the guideline for notability for biographies, unless reliable and independent sources can be produced which verify the claim she is her country's "pioneer childbirth educator" beyond the book the nominator has identified as a family history. (Still she sounds like a fine lady, and deletion of the article should not be considered as disrespect). Edison (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find Norwegian sources either. Her book is classified as a popular work and does not appear to be a pioneering work. Her husband and who she studied under do not convey notability. The scouting angle might be notable but I was unable to find independent sources on it. Unless someone can turn up newspaper coverage that I can't see, she doesn't meet our notability threshhold. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The purpose of this book is to provide a brief overview of some what happens during normal pregnancy, childbirth ... That doesn't sound like anything that could support pioneer in childbearing care.--Ben Ben (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's creator says here that the subject is his/her own mother. Dricherby (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as G7 - OP blanked the page. Alexf^(talk) 23:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caméléon language

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

Zero indication of notability. JoelWhy? talk 12:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One article in arxiv as reference --TarielVincent (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One active mediawiki related to this language [18] --TarielVincent (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the language Tersus has also no evidence of notability (no academic publication) just a website of the enterprise. But, this language has a wiki webpage. I do no integrate the website of this language to not do some advertising related to this language. But I can include it to add notability. --TarielVincent (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. So far, you have proven this language exists, but you have not provided any evidence that it is notable. This is nothing personal; if you can find evidence of notability, we will happily change our 'votes'. JoelWhy? talk 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intended meaning of "I do no integrate the website of this language to not do some advertising related to this language" since it is not quite English and not quite logical. Edison (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my english !!! Caméléon is an open-source language developed by shinoe software. To avoid an advertisement for this enterprise, my intention was to not include the caméléon home page as external link in its wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarielVincent (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This language has already an application in Image Processing [19] with some academia and industrial users [20] and with a peer reviewing validation [21]. I could understand an argument this page is incomplete but I do not understand No evidence of notability. If you can advice me about what do you expect, I will try to provide it. Thanks !!! --TarielVincent (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:NOTE for an explanation about what we mean by notability. JoelWhy? talk 15:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been presented that it satisfies WP:N or any relevant notability subguideline. Edison (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources provided are WP:PRIMARY and thus, not helpful. Further the article is self-promotional. The author is of the article is one of the authors of this new language, which is an obvious WP:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a means of WP:PROMOTION, nor a WP:CRYSTALBALL of things that may someday become notable, nor for things you WP:MADEUP. Msnicki (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks Msnicki ! I am agree with these relevant arguments. I cannot provide arguments to oppose. So, You can delete the page. Thanks wiki reviewers--TarielVincent (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There are clearly numerous book sources explaining why this poem is notable. It would be a great benefit to the article if this explanation was added to the article along with some of the sources. Spinning Spark 10:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarana-e-Milli

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

No proof given for how this is notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books says otherwise. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be beneficial for this AfD if you reply why this poem is notable (giving citations for the same).--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see below the sources provided by SMS. And next time, don't try to hat people's comments when they actually take the initiative to prove something, rather than just sitting and making empty comments. Mar4d (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Delete~~ an article is not kept simply because it has Google books hits. This is a poem by a Notable author agree, but I don't see so far what makes this poem notable. The article at the moment says nothing that puts trust on notability. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So even with all the sources available, you think it is not notable? Great argument. Mar4d (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test before you make fun of a fellow editor, this sarcasm does not help you or this article in any way. --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 14:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously are not familiar with Iqbal. There is no WP:BURDEN on me to prove anything, I have already pointed out that the sources are out there. You can do yourself a service in verifying those sources and perhaps even volunteering to add them into the article. Making empty comments without checking is equivalent to thin air. Mar4d (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For being notable, the article should have secondary sources which have in-depth coverage of the topic. Most of Google books results don't have that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weak Delete per the comments of the editor with an unreadable signature starting with "D" as well as the comments of Vibhijain. Not every writing that exists is notable enough for a stand-alone article. See Wikipedia:Notability (books) Perhaps, based on his bio article, the case could be made that the author "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." It is hard to be sure he is the major literary figure that his Wikipedia bio article states, since it sounds a bit biased. Per his bio, he wrote tens of thousands of "verses," and I am reluctant to allow every thing he authored automatic notability for standalone articles knowing only what the Wikipedia bio says. Another issue is that unless there are reliable sources for the meaning and reception of each such work, the article would only be a reprint of the original work and original research or opinions of the Wikipedia editor writing the article. Is this particular work taught in schools? Has it been the subject of criticism and analysis by independent and reliable sources? Has it won awards? Give us some basis for notability beyond hand-waving reference to unspecified things at "Google Book." The burden is indeed on those seeking to show that something is notable. Edison (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The poem certainly satisfies WP:GNG per following sources:
- Ramakant (2001). Contemporary Pakistan: Trends and issues. Kalinga Publications. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-8187644217. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- Ema. Esa Jaina (2000). Muslim ethos as reflected in Urdu literature. Rawat Publications. p. 183. ASIN B0006FEIBQ.
- M.S. Jain (2 February 2005). Muslim Political Identity. Rawat Publications. p. 208. ISBN 978-8170338888.
- S.S. Shashi (1 September 2002). Encyclopedia Indica: A Grand Tribute to Culture, Art, Architecture, Religion and Development. Anmol Publications. p. 162. ISBN 978-8170418597.
- Muhammad Hasan (1987). A new approach to Iqbal. Publications Division, Govt. of India. p. 66. ASIN B0006EPOTW.
- Bapsi Sidhwa (30 August 2006). City of Sin and Splendour: Writings on Lahore. Penguin Global. p. 366. ISBN 978-0143031666.
- Sisir Kumar Das (1 January 2010). A History of Indian Literature 1911-1956: Struggle for Freedom: Triumph and Tragedy. Sahitya Akademi. p. 367. ISBN 978-8172017989.
- Akbar Ahmed (19 September 1997). Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin. Routledge. p. 72. ISBN 978-0415149662.
- Ralph Russell (15 January 1993). The Pursuit of Urdu Literature: A Select History. Zed Books. p. 180. ISBN 978-1856490290.
WP:BEFORE would have helped here. There are still plenty of reliable sources which I haven't listed here. I will add the above and other sources to article when I get time. --SMS ^Talk 20:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Comment Have you actually read what these books say about the poem? We are not easily swayed by a random wall of citations which do not support notability.There is nothing viewable in the cites from Sashi and Ramakant. There is only a passing ref in the viewable cites from Sidhwa, Hasan and Das. The cites from Russell, Jain, and Ema look to be supportive of notability. Please only cite reliable sources where you have confirmed significant coverage. Edison (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume like this. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't "look" like that when even the page numbers are provided above. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I thought its obvious that I have read those sources, if I say that it satisfies GNG per these sources, because I thought it means I have read all these sources and GNG. And probably that is why I provided page numbers. Next time will mention that I have read these sources. --SMS ^Talk 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very common for persons here to find things at Google Book search, link to them and claim they prove notability, or even to add them as references, without having seen them. It is also common, though improper, to copy refs from a foreign language Wikipedia, without actually verifying what they say. Since you have access to all the books cited, would you please quote a sentence from the books by Sashi and Ramakant that shows the significant coverage we look for? Edison (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the whole point of WP:AOBF. Don't think such is common, when some one adds a ref, you've to assume they've read it. If they haven't they won't be able to further debate on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to be the one to inform you that it is all too common for editors (even experienced ones) to add links to references they have not personally read. There is no violation of AGF in it when someone adds a wall of references a few hours after an AFD opens, listing books that are easily found online, but without online view of the contents, or with only an online view of a one sentence snippet. It is reasonable to inquire further about whether the person has the references in front of him or ready access. Edison (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

“

Some interpretors have tried to present this Tarana-e-milli to imply pan Islamism. This is a misinterpretation of Iqbal's thought. He was trying to demolish the concept of 'Vataniyat'. Formerly he had said that India was the vatan for all its inhabitants; now he said that the whole world was vatan for the Muslims, thereby denying the concept of attachment and loyalty to a defined geographical territory.

”

— Ramakant, Contemporary Pakistan: trends and issues, Volume 1

“

Iqbal's other poems Tarana-e-Hind (The Indian anthem) and Tarana-e-Milli (the Muslim Anthem) also became very popular among masses and used to be sung as symbols of National or Muslim identity at public meetings.

”

— S. S. Shashi, Encyclopaedia Indica, Volume 100

--SMS ^Talk 21:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not aware, the google book link is added above for a reason . --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 20:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't read the above sources please read them before saying anything, in case you don't read any policy/guideline/essay before quoting it somewhere, please read it and in case you are here just to oppose I am sorry I can't help you, consider that I haven't written anything at this page. Regards --SMS ^Talk 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBig: That's just really lame of you. See my previous argument. Notability has been proven and the sources can be added into the article. Unless you don't want the article to be improved. Your comment above shows that you just don't get it, do you? Mar4d (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Too much personal attack and bluster. We do not add "sources" to articles without reading them. Only a few of the online links above would be of any use. I noted three which are promising. A snip which only shows that a work was mentioned should not be added as a reference, until someone has viewed the physical book, which will in this case likely not be available in the countries where most editors of the English Wikipedia live. Editors in Pakistan might have an easier time finding them in a library, and could be helpful in adding them as references to the article and other articles about poems by this author. Some of the links provide no view at all of any text, and should not be presented as any proof of notability unless someone has actually read them. Edison (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: historical anthem that is definitely notable and much covered in text books and other sources. Just because sources are not present in the article is not enough to call the works of such notable authors as non-notable. The links at the top of this very AFD give a lot of sources to establish notability [22] [23]. The article should be tagged as unsourced and improved instead of being deleted. Remember that articles with subjects that are not notable should be deleted, not those that have a bulk load of sources and just not referenced yet, that's a clean up task per WP:COMMONSENSE. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have added reliable source,and will try to add more reliable sources.There is again darkness and shines, I choose "shines", because it is notable,is it not?.Someone must read Iqbal first, then take step.Justice007 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been added more sources as promise,editors of one channel can read the importance and notability of the poem!!.Justice007 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "channel" you refer to?Edison (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well,who understands, it goes there. It is very common to say,why someone is notable, because of his work?. When Muhammad Iqbal, his poetry books and literary works are notable, but poems are not notable?.As someone say William Shakespeare is notable but his plays and poems are not notable. What's a senseless idea and concept about. I consider Darkness Shines is a good editor, because he keeps other editors busy with his tagging activities to Pakistan related articles. I have read, but do not remember in which section of rule and policy, "to be bold but not foolish." I draw from this sentence that two rights, to be bold and to be foolish.May be Darkness Shines follows both of those. SMS and lTopGunl have provided academic books written by professional academic authors,that are being ignored Actually what are we discussing here??.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Justice007, you are applying blogs as a source :), please stop that!!! and do not make it more objectionable article.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to say that please learn more before preaching anyone and take a look at this WP:RSOPINION. Justice007 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off course you should be Sorry FOR this! and remember to maintain the adequate on WP, do not abuse the editors as you did above, if you have objection discuss like a gentleman if you are.

Are you arguing that the blog source you applied here is Reliable source ???? by applying blog sources you are directing the article into more questionable direction, and I am cautioning you prior to you apply more blogs and make the article more questionable ??? justify your source if not it will be removed ??? The author of this blog does not have any CV, and he is not a notable author, see his available details here, If you are so sure of this blog source then present your research ??? Just abusing the editors will not prove your source a reliable :) Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the links from the search results I pointed out, many might be useful for improving content too if you're at getting it to WP:HEY. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability established by independent coverage in reliable sources. Deletion is not indicated, rather this article in desperate need of improvement. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close due to discussion being opened in wrong forum. Discussion already opened at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troposhere

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

Article originally created with a typo. Currently redirects to correctly spelled article, so the purpose of Troposhere is very low. How feasible is it do get a hit count of this article to confirm my hypothesis? Xionbox^₪ 08:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close/Procedural keep – This should be closed and sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Articles for deletion isn't the correct venue for discussion about the deletion of redirects. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dimitriu

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

The sourcing is thin (mainly a lecture once delivered by a genealogy hobbyist), the claims unverified, and in any case they don't amount to much. If he was a newspaper editor, I see no source suggesting that as a notable attribute of his. As to his professorial, legal and writing career, even less so. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The full name is fairly common in Romania (meaning that there are several Paul Dumitrius out there), but I see no particular coverage of this particular one, and the part of the article that is actually sourced is entirely unconvincing. With that, it fails our notability policies for either academics or politicians. Dahn (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- hard to find information that is definite given the language barriers, but the Revista Magazin article argues for his notability as does the recommendation in [24] and that major US libraries do hold his book even despite the language difference ([25]). None of this would be enough for a US writer or academic born recently, but for a Romanian writer born in 1920, I wouldn't expect much more even if he were clearly notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources we have in the article appear to be a single book review and a genealogy of someone else's descendants in which he appears. I don't think that's enough. And I can't get any useful information from the link posted by Cuthbert either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012 Homs clashes

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

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER,WP:V,WP:NPOV Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it would be useful to place the Houla massacre in a bigger context, and this article would seem to be aimed at that objective. __meco (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to create a content fork. We have article that deals with all clashes/battles/fights in Homs and Houla massacre is only semi-related event (in the context of military activity in the region) which gained enough publicity to nominate for it´s own article. Frankly, I think that we have too many content forks when it comes to several battles (Idlib, Homs). EllsworthSK (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Siege of Homs if User:Alhanuty can add sources to what is claimed in the article. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think the article should stay because there is no article talking about homs after the cease-fire and i think that people should eidt it and add new information toit ,by the way i made the article.

Actually you are wrong Alhanuty. There is an article talking about Homs after the cease-fire. And its Siege of Homs. That article is still open and ongoing. Just read the section titled During the U.N. brokered cease-fire. Also, the cease-fire is still nominally in effect, so there is no after the cease-fire, only during for now. Just put what you have, but sourced, into the Siege of Homs article and that's it. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually there no information in it talking about what happening in homs after 4-20-2012,it is not tallking about events in homs after 4-20-2012 read it and you will see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provide sources for what is written in the article and it shall be used in main article. Fighting in Homs de-escalated since arrival of observers with no reported significant changes on frontline, surge of troops, escalation of artillery shelling or FSA incursions into government-controlled districts. If you claim opposite, provide reliable source which backs it. Otherwise this article should be deleted as it does not meet wikipedia guidelines. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there is nothing major to talk about after the 20 of April because nothing major happened during the ceasefire. The fighting there de-escalated. If what you are writing really did happen, but you still haven't provided sources for it, than add it to the main article on the Siege of Homs. If you have a problem with nothing being in that article after April 20 than add something don't just create a new article that is unsourced. Although you were again partially wrong. The Siege of Homs article does talk about after April 20. It talks about the destruction of the Armenian Church and the death of Bassel Shahade. In any case like EllsworthSK says this article talks about a event that is non-notable and un-sourced thus not fullfilling the main Wiki guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that no sources are given with this page. --Ishiisato (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or per EllsworthSK merge if sources are provided. EkoGraf (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What clearer consensus? Two editors here wrote that if original editor of the article will fail to provide sources it should be deleted. He failed to do so, article is un-referenced, delete it. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge There's your clearer consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Been more than a week since the start of the discussion. Consensus exists. Except for the creator of the article, four editors are of the opinion that the article is in violation of several Wiki guidelines, mainly the basic one, verifiability (no sources) and should be deleted. It was proposed to the creator of the article that if he should find sources to back up the claims than we could merge it to the main article on the siege of Homs. He has not done that thus....delete. EkoGraf (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If this were a snout count then the !vote would be split ~~if one counts plans "B" and "C" as "keeps" and plan "D" as a "delete~~. However it's not and I didn't find the "delete" !votes convincing. Most of the "delete" !voter's concerns can be dealt with through the normal editing process and BLP policy. The issue of whether or not to include a list and what criteria to use to determine what goes on it can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political gaffes

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

This is just a bad idea from the beginning. All it is doing or would ever do is exist as a honeypot for every two-bit criticism and political "incident" from any part of human history. It already ranges from the Hamilton-Burr duel to swearing in parliament to shooting your friend in the face. It in essence a "list of..." article, but this listing is just of indiscriminate, random criticisms, sometimes of living people. Note: the seeds of this began at Talk:Dan Quayle#Overemphasis on Gaffes, where a user is seeking to rid that article of a perceived gaffe overemphasis. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I created the article to possibly alleviate the Quayle issue. I don't really care if it remains as an article, is partially converted to a list, or both deleted. It was mentioned on the talk page that the gaffes should be 'notable and memorable'. It may be difficult to decide which ones qualify.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of articles which are specifically about gaffes, such as Fuddle duddle, Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, George H. W. Bush vomiting incident. If we have such articles, there's no reason against listing them in one place. If we don't have such articles, then they don't belong here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article about what a political gaffe is, it's after effects and so on (would need to be renamed to Political gaffe). There appears to be more than enough sources for the term. The article as it is should probably be moved to List of political gaffes, and there's a bit of a difficulty ensuring that the gaffes are notable enough to be mentioned and don't contravene WP:BLP, but it's certainly possible. Worm^TT(talk) 13:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the list of gaffes is removed. A similar article was deleted previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Politacle Gaffs. This article risks being turned into a political football, with new entries for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney being added by each candidate's detractors every few days. The inclusion of the Burr-Hamilton duel on this list seems to indicate that the meaning of "gaffe" is unclear at best. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- but what about limiting it to gaffes that involve politicians who are not current candidates or officeholders? That ought to lessen the "political football" aspect, which I agree is a concern. William Jockusch (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plan B. I agree it could be a mess. Could we set criteria as gaffes that have a stable article in wikipedia as brought up earlier? If the gaffe article is deleted it is removed from the list?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bush Vomiting and Cheney shooting his friend are not "Gaffes" and I would guess that most on the list are not gaffes either. A Gaffe is typically a stupid statement made by a person. Since politicians make a lot of stupid statements that make the news, this article is likely to fill up with a bunch of statements and likely turn into an attack page. Arzel (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't called aa list, it's an article, so the question is "Is this subject notable enough for an article?" At the moment I'm inclined to vote "Keep but make sure it's a well-sourced article." because a quick look at Google books suggests that we can source it. Of course, it will be a political hot potato, but is that a reason to delete? Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we're veering into "not a dictionary" if all you're going to do is tell the readers what a "gaffe" is. But to expand beyond a rote dicdef, you're going to have to go into examples and political history, and that is the loaded territory you seem to want to avoid. This is one big "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which is why IMO we're just better not having an article at all, as its either going to be dry or a POV honeypot. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - This should be covered by a category, whereby all the entries must be worthy of a standalone article. This "article" (actually a list with a definition) has inclusion criteria that are sufficiently vague and subjective that it will always attract edit warring, POV pushing, flame bait, etc... just a bad idea. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal. Create a category as the wise Blaxthos suggests. Would that satisfy the keep and delete people?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A category would be a much better idea. It would limit it to truly notable incidents and make it much less likely to result in edit warring. Arzel (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can see that this is POV bait. Waiting to see if it passes WP:HEY or should be turned into a category. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Create Category per Blaxthos, whereby all entries must warrant a standalone article. Agree w/ Bearian that having this as a separate article is "POV bait".--JayJasper (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Source list and WP:NNC requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plan C. Keep as an article but only include 'standalone' articles. If an editor wants to add one that isn't, then an article needs to be written and survive for a certain time period? I am COI because I can legally vote in my country. I think incarcerated criminals aren't allowed to vote in some countries so they may have to decide for us. I don't think many are allowed internet so this may be difficult.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still feeling meh. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Plan C, per above. If the gaffes are truly notable, then they will have their own article and then it is proper to include them in such a list. Otherwise, this will turn into a political mess and BLP attacks. Silver seren^C 20:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as see, for example, Message Control; Image Bite Politics; or Political Communication. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A political gaffe will always be an event and would need to meet the criteria for events to have an article. Adding a category to group these together for navigation would be more than sufficient. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTDUP. A "category is better than a list" argument is a non-starter. Silver seren^C 00:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably not clear, I did not mean to argue that the list should be deleted as a duplication of a category (which is what WP:NOTDUP says not to do). I was saying that a list is inappropriate for this type of collection, whereas a category is ideal. The advantages of a list actually argue against making this a list (or leaving it as a list), and the disadvantages mention the issue of sourcing brought up by others above. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Create Category per Blaxthos. That would allow an easy way to find the events that have actually been deemed to be notable and well sourced enough to have their own article, while preventing any POV warring that would inevitably arise from an article such as this. While keeping this as a list, but only allowing "stand alone" articles is a good idea, I think that would be difficult to enforce, and we would wind up with the same problems as we would with a straight keep. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plan D? Create the category, move the definition to the top of the category page, close this Afd.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it categorizes events and not people, I'd be fine with this. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should put a set of criteria at the top of the category page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too subjective, will become a crap magnet. Anything listed here would have to be an article in its own right, which means a category is more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plan D then? Should we keep the definition with sources at the top? Is the sort by country ok? Should we keep the 'see also' section? Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos with censored explicit content

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

Entire list is unsourced (with exception of one entry which source does not mention the artist or title or censorship at all), per WP:LSC - "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Additionally, given the multitude of censorship rules and laws globally, this list could never be comphrehensive enough to cover all entries; and if it were that comprehensive, it would fail WP:SALAT as being too broad. Tgeairn (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. The notable (and sourcable) ones belong in an article on music or media censorship, but trying to cobble together a list of everything censored anywhere by anyone is outside to encyclopedic scope. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all listcruft. I do not see how this is a maintainable list, as the criteria for inclusion is not exactly clear. What may be acceptable in one country or culture is not in another.Roodog2k (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Music videos are normally covered in the article on the corresponding song, so most music videos are not considered independently notable. Since lists are supposed to contain notable things, that poses a problem. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meaningless equivocation without context. Some countries may ban certain content absolutely, some may only ban it in certain channels of distribution, some privately-owned content distributors may have their own voluntary content restrictions, and some privately-owned content producers may have voluntarily edited content in the expectation of censorship or merely negative public opinion. Lumping all of this in one pot without distinction to these various contexts and causes is not informative. And that's even without getting into the question of what constitutes "explicit content"... postdlf (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Solyndra. The main objections to this article are that it is a content fork of an event that is covered elsewhere, it is not neutral, and it was created by a banned sockpuppet. There seems to be agreement in this discussion that since other editors have contributed to the article, outright deletion may not be appropriate, but since there is some good material here that doesn't appear at Solyndra, it should be merged there before being redirected. -Scottywong | chat _ 18:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solyndra loan controversy

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

This article is a clear content fork of Solyndra, an article that is not nearly large enough to demand a daughter article. Further, this article was created by, and most of its content was written by the banned sockpuppet Grundle2600. The entire thing reads like a partisan hack job. Even if we were to do the very extensive work needed to clean this article up, it wouldn't matter as the information already exists in the main article. Suggest deleting or merging if any useful and unique information can be found in this article. Loonymonkey (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an event of sufficient importance, and an article of sufficient size and depth of sourcing to justify a free-standing piece as a "spin off" of Solyndra, which is about the company. Sort of like the way an article in 1930 Wikipedia would have had an article both on Sinclair Oil and the Teapot Dome Scandal. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that, but this company is primarily known for having secured loans and gone bankrupt which is the focus of both articles. That's discussed in just as much depth in the parent article, so why would this article need to exist except as a POV-fork? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete or merge (without prejudice to recreating). We cannot allow Wikipedia to be gamed by sockpuppet accounts trying to enact a political agenda. This is not a one-time return of an editor formerly in good standing who loves Wikipedia too much to honor a block period. Rather, it is an editor indefinitely banned for trouble-making, who has created dozens of new accounts across wide IP ranges for the purpose of trying to alter Wikipedia to cast Obama in a more negative light, and lately, to whip up other like-minded editors in support. The only practical course, per WP:DENY, is to block the accounts on sight and unceremoniously revert any changes they make, whether or not they've managed to garner any new support (as pitting editor against editor in process disputes is one of the side-effects of this kind of trolling). It would be difficult to undo the work of this editor here, and with more than half the content and sources removed it would be too chaotic to stand on its own as a viable article. One fairly infrequent, but valid, reason for deleting an article despite the subject being notable is that the article is in such bad shape it would be easier to start again from scratch than to rescue it. That's where we are now. If someone can fix the article before it gets deleted, more power too them. Otherwise, best to simply delete it and let the legitimate editors build it up from scratch. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - per WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:DENY. Agree with Loonymonkey and Wikidemon. As noted on the article's talk page, the article was created by and largely written by sockpuppets of banned User:Grundle2600. Half of the current article is attributable to identified and blocked sockpuppets of Grundle2600, and some of the remainder of the article may be by unidentified and unblocked sockpuppets of Grundle2600. It would be best to delete the current tainted article.
This is not the Teapot Dome scandal. There is a Solyndra article with "Government support" and "Shutdown and investigation" sections that appear adequate, but to which WP:NPOV, non-Grundle2600 parts of this article could be added if close attention is given to maintaining appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Newross (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting, no vote yet I can see where there are POV concerns. That said, the Obama article has flagrant POV issues -- see my user page. And my attempts to fix those were stopped by a group of users which includes some of the people commenting here, and several members of that group took frankly intellectually indefensible positions in the process. Similarly, the Seamus article is an attack page, and it's still around, rather than having been merged into a "Dog wars" mutual attack page, which is what the issue has become. Personally, I prefer a world where everyone plays fair, and I want to AGF as much as the next guy does. But I don't see how I can get there by agreeing to deal with others' POV concerns, when those same individuals appear, to me, to be taking a "tactical" approach intended to defeat my POV concerns, rather than an intellectually honest approach to evaluating their validity. It gives me no pleasure to be where I'm at on that subject, but that's the truth.William Jockusch (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I wasn't proposing this for deletion/merge simply because the article has POV problems. That's not a valid reason for deletion and can usually be fixed through editing. The problem is that two parallel articles exist about the same subject, one of which is a total mess. So if one of them needs to be deleted or merged, it would make sense to delete the one that was created and primarily written by a sockpuppet for POV reasons. Problems in other articles don't really have anything to do with it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Can usually be fixed through editing" is not true in my experience.William Jockusch (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork created and primarily written by a sockpuppet for POV reasons. Johnfos (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything sourced properly back into Solyndra per WP:NPOV (no pov-forks) and WP:DENY. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tempted to call for a Speedy G5 as a Grundle2600 shtick here but too much time has probably passed to get that to swing. This is what we have to deal with time and time again in this subject area; that something happened (there was a loan to Solyndra) is fact, that that fact is a controversy is what is debatable here. Criticisms of a fact don't always add up to a full-blown controversy per se; this is the political arena where anythings politician does is going to be automatically hated by slightly less than half of the electorate. I think to justify a full article or an entry at a politician-related page (e.g. Dan Rather memos or Bill Ayers stuff), a "controversy" has to reported as exactly that, and not just be a composite of "well, some people criticized it" news stories. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting likely Grundle disruption per WP:DENY, If any admins disagree, please revert and let me know Loonymonkey

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment For the record, here is all of the info that Grundle2600's sockpuppets added to the article:

In 2009 the Obama administration gave a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, with the promise that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra's financial troubles. For example, according to the company's security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production.^[6]

In September 2011, federal agents visited the homes of Brian Harrison, the company's CEO, and Chris Gronet, the company's founder, to examine computer files and documents.^[7] Also in September 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department launched an investigation.^[8]

On September 13, 2011, the Washington Post reported on emails which showed that the Obama administration had tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory. The company was a hallmark of President Obama's plan to support clean energy technologies.^[9]

The New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company's business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.^[10]

The New York Times quoted Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, as saying "There was just too much misplaced zeal at the Department of Energy for this company." Among 143 companies that had expressed an interest in getting a loan guarantee, Solyndra was the first one to get approval. During the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review, the company had spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying. Tim Harris, the CEO of Solopower, a different solar panel company which had obtained a $197 million loan guarantee, told the New York Times that his company had never considered spending any money on lobbying, and that "It was made clear to us early in the process that that was clearly verboten... We were told that it was not only not helpful but it was not acceptable."^[10]

The Washington Post reported that Solyndra had used some of the loan money to purchase new equipment which it never used, and then sold that new equipment, still in its plastic wrap, for pennies on the dollar. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn told the Washington Post, "After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right... Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy."^[11]

On September 29, 2011, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.^[12]

On October 7, 2011, The Washington Post reported that newly revealed emails showed that Energy Department officials had been warned that their plan to help Solyndra by restructuring the loan might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first. However, Energy Department officials moved ahead with the restructuring anyway, with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company were to default. The emails showed concerns within the Obama administration about the legality of the Energy Department's actions. In addition, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, had pushed for the loan, despite having recused himself because his wife's law firm had done work for the company.^[13]

In January 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had thrown millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes into garbage dumpsters, where they ended up being shattered. Solyndra told CBS that it had conducted an exhaustive search for buyers of the glass tubes, and that no one had wanted them. However, CBS discovered that Solyndra had not offered the glass tubes for sale at either one of its two asset auctions that took place in 2011. In addition, David Lucky, a buyer and seller of such equipment, told CBS that he would have bought the tubes if he had had a chance to do so. Greg Smestad, a solar scientist who had consulted for the Department of Energy, also agreed that the tubes had value, and had asked Solyndra to donate any unwanted tubes to Santa Clara University. Smestad stated, "That really makes me sad... Those tubes represent intellectual investment. These could have had a better value to do public good. I think they owed the U.S. taxpayer that."^[14]

In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California.^[15]

Sally 65295 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working on cleaning some of that up. A lot of the Grundle references appear to be perfectly good references. But much the text can and should be changed.William Jockusch (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak keep: I wrote a fairly substantial portion of this article, but I'd be OK seeing it merged with the Solyndra article. I'm not convinced that both Solyndra the company and the ongoing controversy both merit inclusion on their own, although we've been operating under the assumption that they do. The controversy is sufficiently notable for inclusion, and I'll be honest in saying that the statement about User:Grundle2600 sockpuppets may be a bit exaggerated. A lot of the flagrantly POV content he contributed was removed as vandalism/soapboxing and much of what remains is as neutral as possible given the nature of the subject matter and the fact that it's still an ongoing current event. There's plenty of work that can still be done to make it better, though. I'm just not sure an AfD is really the best venue for a discussion on improving the article when the talk page of the article has been pretty much dead for months. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, but fix the Grundleisms I've just done a bunch of this, removing weasel words, putting in commentary from Obama and Chu, removing duplicated information, and reducing the prominence of jobs created, and reducing the previously excessive emphasis on unproven allegations of cronyism. The references to the article make notability obvious: among others, I see ABC, the AP, the Atlantic, Business Week, CBS, HuffPo, Media Matters, MSNBC, NBC, NYT, Reason, Reuters, and WaPo. I agree that WP:Deny should be a concern here, so much of the Grundle material should be rewritten. I've done some of that and tried to move the article towards NPOV. In light of the subject matter, this is going to be a critical article, much as the Niger Uranium Forgeries article is heavily critical of Bush.William Jockusch (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to vote merge (merge sourced content back to Solyndra), but I've actually looked at the article, and it seems that there may be a story to tell there. Note that the fact that this was created as a POV article by a banned sock editor isn't enough in my mind to delete the article. That's a simplistic solution - articles should be judged on their content - not by who created them - and articles about notable events should be cleaned up, not deleted. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a notable controversy, but remove all content contributed by sockpuppets of Grundle2600. That may not leave much of an article left, in which case merging may start to look more attractive, but I think there is a reasonable case for having an article on this subject for the time being. It's had enough contributions from other editors that it's not a straightforward WP:G5 candidate. Robofish (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the company article while keeping sourceable content. Its the most reasonable way to organize the content for our readers, who I do not think would prefer two separate articles on a company known primarily for the political "scandal". The "loan controversy" is certainly notable. At least the content is not currently infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome Webring links.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DENY et al. As has been said before, Solyndra is chiefly notable for receiving government largesse and then going tits up, so why do we need two articles on that? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the company article, or maybe merge the company article here. Cavarrone (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has received significant coverage in the media during the height of this controversy and has served as a political controversy. If you have a problem with POV then edit the article, do not delete it. Truthsort (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No refutation to the nomination statement was shown; the only Keep !vote was WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Church

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

Speedy deletion was decline. Mr. Church still has not played in a fully professional league, he is not a full international, and he has not received significant coverage, meaning this article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I don't see a reason to delete this article when other article's for example Richard Brodie are allowed to remain. Brodie although contracted to a Football League team hasn't played in a professional league and like Church has only played in the Conference National at the highest level. Both are professional footballers, and both have England C team caps, same rule should apply. In my opinion they are both notable Footballgy (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:WAX, WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sir Sputnik tagged this for speedy as a repost, and I declined it because it's completely different from what was deleted before. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now per WP:NFOOTY, hasn't played professionally as of yet. (2) --Chip123456 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was on a professional contract at a professional club with Grimsby.Footballgy (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria is playing in a fully professional league. For England that means, any of the top four divisions. Mr. Church has not played above the fifth. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ Give the article time to grow and pass WP:GNG, I know for a fact it is capable of passing if you give it time to expand. FishyPhotos (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What may happen is speculation, which is never grounds for notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not, I know for a fact there are enough credible sources available to compile a decent enough article. FishyPhotos (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then present them. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the article is not going to be kept solely on an unsupported claim that there are theoretical sources out there. If they exist, include them in the article and make a note here so that editors can re-assess. Simply repeatedly stating "there are sources out there" isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr the West Wind

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

Delete due to lack of notability established in accordance with the general and topical notability guidelines for books; self-published book; article fails to present significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. A search of sources primarily revealed press releases and online sales outlets. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 05:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a completely unnotable, self-published book. No reliable third party sources exist, and the article itself reads like an advertisment. The article claims notability by saying how it was entered into two contests (the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award Contest and the NABJ Author Showcase), however upon checking these out, both contests are ones where anyone can submit their own books for consideration, so being in these contests means pretty much nothing as far as establishing notability goes.Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree. Self-publishing confers no notability and the rest is pretty much fairly standard self-promotional efforts. There seem to be no reliable arm's-length third-party sources that I can find with a brief search. Ubelowme (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published & vanity-press books are non-notable pretty much by definition and this is no exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although certainly all comments seem correct and justafible in most cases, using the general and non confirmed "definition" of what you refer to as notability in regards to self-published books should not be adjourned so matter of fact. Also, with a quick search of the NABJ Author Showcase, it can be found that contestants may enter but it is a very selective process and that like with many other competitions reaching admirable heights in a competition can create world wide notability in many previous cases in a variety of industries. Also, I happened to attend one of the authors book signings a few weeks ago and from the looks his next edition of the book in question is fully represented by the publishing house Alfred A. Knopf. Nonetheless, because of the critical notability need to sustain an article that is not yet there, whether or not it is apparently in do process, I must agree that there is not enough notability at the moment . LightsMirage (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was bummed out. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Robinson (rapping bum)

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

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSICBIO; lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Only sources are obits and a twitter account created in the subject's memory. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 04:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you're creating an article with "rapping bum" in its title, you've probably already lost. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He seems to have gained some local notice but not enough for an encyclopedic article. I also suspect piggybacking off the similar story of Ted Williams (voice-over artist), who's also from Columbus but more widely notable. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centsports

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a follow-up from the deletion discussion for FreeSportsBet.com at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com, which resulted in delete. Centsports was acquired by FreeSportsBet.com; there are essentially the same sources to support Centsports that there were to support FreeSportsBet.com, but consensus for FreeSportsBet.com was that WP:GNG was not met. For Censports, one Forbes article is not sufficient, no other sources contribute toward WP:GNG, WP:GNG is not met. Zad68 03:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Good, sufficient sources found; notability established Zad68 13:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is my review of the relevant sources, taken from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com:

http://www.thefastertimes.com/sportschat/2011/09/01/centsports-com-taken-over-by-freesportsbet-com-centsports-users-screwed/

The source http://www.thefastertimes.com/about-us/ appears WP:RS legit, it has an editorial board run by an experienced journalist

However the "article" by Mark Donatiello, staff reporter, looks more like a personal blog post than a news article, not good enough to contribute toward WP:GNG

http://www.gambling-law-US.com

Doesn't mention either FreeSportsBet.com or Centsports by name

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/12/online-gambling-centsports-ent-manage-cx_jb_0612onlinegambling.html

Legit, whole article dedicated to discussion of Centsports.com, contributes toward WP:GNG

http://www.centsports.com/cronies.php

WP:SPS

Looking for other sources, I found:

Plenty of blog and forum mentions but that's probably only indicative of a healthy advertising campaign, none of it contributes toward WP:GNG
Nothing else

Zad68 03:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – The topic ~~meets~~ passes WP:GNG per:

Forbes Magazine – A Legal Alternative To Online Gambling
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal – Former West Texas native takes a bet on gambling Web site
Symmes, Richard (May 5, 2008). "Does CentSports Engage in Illegal Bookmaking or Violate National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") Bylaws?". Richard Symmes, Symmes Law Group. Retrieved June 5, 2012.
Solem-Pfeifer, Chance (November 4, 2010). "CentSports site offers 'free' sports gambling in social environment". Daily Nebraskan (University of Nebraska-Lincoln). Retrieved June 5, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, I agree you found a second WP:RS mention that I didn't find. But, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeSportsBet.com you !voted to delete, and you're !voting keep here? What's the value in keeping an article about a defunct company when consensus was that the acquiring company did not meet WP:GNG? Unless we find some other stunning news that Centsports was notable before it got acquired (and so then the article should be updated), I feel like common sense should prevail over a mechanical application of WP:GNG. Zad68 04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the topic "Centsports". FreeSportsBet.com was a different article, with a different degree of coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the website is not defunct, it exists right here, centsports.com, where it's stated "CentSports is now part of FreeSportsBet.com." Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, editors have not said the website was defunct, but rather the company. Also, regarding the website, http://www.centsports.com/ is now simply a pass-through portal page to FreeSportsBet.com, the account signup button at Centsports.com takes you to the FreeSportsBet.com signup page, the Centsports.com "Contact Us" button shows the contact information for FreeSportsBet.com, and none of the functionality at FreeSportsBet.com appears to carry any Centsports branding. The several sources since found for Centsports look good toward WP:GNG and I'm reconsidering my !vote... there's no need to put up this sort of straw-man argument. Zad68 12:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Added a source to my !vote above from Symmes Law Group. Changed to "strong keep". Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, If the acquiring company was deleted as not notable, I don't think that the defunct company should be considered notable. Centsports has a few articles about it only because it engaged in online gambling, which is of questionable legality in the United States. Based on everything I've read, the company had five employees, and was in business for 4 years, and they don't seem to have done much to be considered notable. NJ Wine (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Added another source to my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Delete Besides the Forbes articles, I was able to find one other independent source about Centsports, which was discussing the company's possibly illegal conduct.[26] I was not able to find out any information about the size of Centsports, which is now part of FreeSportsBet.com. Neither Centsports or FreeSportsBet is listed by Manta, thus indicating that they might be a very small operation. Article reads like an advertisement, and despite a couple of independent sources, the subject matter is not notable. Although a case can be made that Centsports possibly meets Wikipedia's corporate notability guideline, because the company's references are largely discussing the legality of Centsports' acts, I think that Wikipedia's event notability guideline should be the governing policy. WP:EVENT requires extensive, long-lasting, and deep coverage, which this article doesn't have. NJ Wine (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my !vote above; more sources have been found. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note – This nomination has been withdrawn (See top of discussion). Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG -Scottywong | spout _ 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cubit Accounting

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

Article subject does not appear to be notable as per WP:N. TOW talk 02:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles has no independent sources which give significant coverage, and I could not find any online. Article fails Wikipedia precedent on software notability. NJ Wine (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Added references are largely self-published. No reliable 3rd party source material can be found. --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

response

But there are links in the article itself? - And surely the notability is evident from the updated/amended content itself? - If I am wrong please take the time to explain it in plain simple language. Notability: The total source code consists of millions of lines of code. Just the initial core module: http://www.ohloh.net/p/Accounting-123 - estimated project cost $8,429,584 and that is only 10% of the source code. Surely that is significant or even notable? (btw - accounting-123 = cubit) If my article entry is not written well enough, please help me with it? or if I am wrong, I can accept that but explain it to me so I can understand it :)

External links

more:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You need to read WP:N the number of lines of code or cost of writing it is nothing to do with notability from the wikipedia perspective. Wikpedia's concept of notability is using what others have written to indicate that the world has taken note, not to set some arbitary metric. The general notability guideline requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The links you give above are, of the ones I've read (which was those which were accessible), are the software's own site (so not independent), press-release (or as good as i.e. largely just a reproduction of what the company said) (so not independent) or directory style listings where anyone can submit stuff and it get's listed (so not reliable, nor non-trivial) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blomap

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

Notability cannot be established (since 2009); basically an advertisement Prof. Squirrel (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a failed 2009 attempt to create a social networking website that wasn't notable then and certainly hasn't gained notability since. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An obvious case of a completely unnotable social network attempt. It has no sources (and no reliable sources can be found) and completely fails WP:WEB. It should have been deleted years ago, but just seems to have fallen through the cracks until now. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be general agreement that the sources found during the course of the AfD establish notability. -Scottywong | speak _ 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSHint

AfDs for this article:

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

Once again, this article fails the notability criteria largely due to lack of sources. It was declined CSD because it's a different version of the article, and the prod nomination was summarily removed by an IP. This version of the article has even fewer reliable sources than last time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's absolutely no proof that this is anything more than someone's little pet project. Completely lacks any notable sources. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Topic appears to just meet WP:GNG, per:

Significant coverage: Maintainable JavaScript
Just enough to qualify for significant coverage: Professional Jquery
Additionally, here's some mentions: Beginning Facebook Game Apps Development, Modern JavaScript: Develop and Design.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this review on a site that uses professional reviewers only. [27] That plus the book results already found, I think proves notability. Dream Focus 12:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm missing something, that link doesn't really seem to have non-trivial coverage of JSHint. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But what if it is trivial? It's not Wikipedia's job to give a value judgement on JSHint, just that it exists and "notable" people are talking about it. Gotofritz (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the WP:GNG's job to require "non-trivial" coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the need for notability when it comes to politics etc, but here we are talking about web software, distruted on the web and discussed in blogs and message boards. This is simply an entry saying 'it exists', which it does. It has more than a thousand downloads on GitHub, more than JSLint which you guys don't seem to have an issue with. I don't even understand why we are having the discussion in the first place.

if there aren't enough references, then the action should be 'gather more reference', not delete. There are a lot of references around the web, what value would adding 45 links to discussion of the tool on various article add? the main points are made in the ones I linked to. But by all mean, add more if you feel it needs them. Here are a couple RWB, Paul Irish, Chrome advoacte at Google
if it _was_ someone pet project (it isn't), this doesn't make the entry worth deleting. This is an entry that describes what this software is, it doesn't say anywhere this is _the_ industry standard (although a quick Google will show it is, in fact, used widely in the industry).
1200 downloads on GitHub and counting .... *EDIT* it was 1200 watechers, my mistake Gotofritz (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gotofritz A small clarification: 1200 is a number of watchers—i.e. people who monitor the progress of this project on a regular basis. Number of downloads (if you combine downloads from jshint.com and NPM installs) is way higher —antonkovalyov — antonkovalyov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

antonkovalyov ooops :-) edited still, it goes somewhere towards proving it's not just someone's pet project. Sorry for getting so animated on a page about your project, I just find the whole discussion unreasonable. Who cares if it's someone's pet project or not, as long as the data is accurate? Part of the fun of WP are entries like this Toilet paper orientation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotofritz (talk • contribs) 19:16, June 6, 2012

Nice, keep and bookmarked. --Hiddenray (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rombola

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO. Retired wrestler who only made developmental-level for about a year and is now a personal trainer according to his website.
This article was actually a recreation of deleted material (at Chris Rombola) and the notability concerns from that AFD do not seem to have ever been addressed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated both in this AFD and the previous one, having a WWE development contract for a very brief time does not automatically confer any sort of notability. In the years since this article was created, we can see that this individual never went on to have any sort of notability whatsoever. At first glance, it seems like the article has a number of references, however the vast majority of these are either defunct and/or completely unreliable sources. That leaves only the links to the pages at WWE.com, and those are first-party promotional pieces. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sandy & Junior. Deleted and redirected. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dig-Dig-Joy

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

Does not pass NSONG; no sources discussing it in depth, did not chart (Google search) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is nothing to indicate any sort of notability for this single. In fact, there's nothing here at all except for an infobox. At the very least, the article could become a redirect to Sandy & Junior, but it doesn't meet the criteria to exist as its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Spinning Spark 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoring (NLP)

...Bxxt:

This page is the landing spot for all NLP-related AfD notices. We now return you to your normal deletion request ....

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

Few, poor sources. Other tagged concerns not addressed after a more than adequate period of time. Serious notability concerns due to the fact that this is a concept from a technique described as "pseudoscientific" and "discredited" in its main article. Famousdog (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from much the same problems as the Anchoring article. There are far too many separate articles all saying very similar things that all rest upon the shaky foundation of a discredited pseudoscientific pyramid scheme. This is not science.[reply]

Famousdog (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering that these articles have not seen any improvement in the last few years, and that contributors have been unable to generate reasonable content for these subjects even in the more limited scope of the main article on Neuro-linguistic Programming, I have to agree, they should be deleted. I would encourage those who see useful content in here to merge it back into the main article, which is also in a bit of sorry state, posthaste. However, the fact that NLP is pseudoscience is not, in itself, reason to delete these articles-- many pseudoscientific disciplines, such as astrology, have generated a great deal of encyclopedic material. siafu (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that NLP being pseudoscientific marketing waffle is no reason to delete these entries, that was just me sounding off! Yes, any useful material (cough) should be merged with the main NLP article. There is no need for all these project-like subpages (or the infobox) on various aspects of NLP that are supported only by primary, unreliable and non-independent sources. Famousdog (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merging actual information about NLP back into the main article at the moment is a waste of time; it would merely be removed by those convinced that NLP is a
shaky foundation of a discredited pseudoscientific pyramid scheme. This is not science.
(citation required) One of the most interesting things about this on-going slow motion edit war is the insistence by editors attacking NLP that NLP is not science and is a pseudo-science, when NLP has never claimed to be a science; the claim made by NLP is that it is magical! Good faith leads me to believe that they know of a different NLP than that the article was about years ago. htom (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What you refer to as a "on-going slow motion edit war" is actually how Wikipedia works. If you have verifiable, independent, reliable sources that corroborate the "information" that you think I (or other editors) would "merely" remove or that we are somehow grossly mistaken about the "real" NLP, then WP:PROVEIT. Famousdog (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UNDUE.

The Anchoring (NLP) article currently has total of three (very poor) sources.
Meta-programs has two sources that actually go to a commercial site: jobEQ - Advanced HRM Solutions (not good).
Therapeutic metaphor has one cite that looks like a red herring of legitimacy.
Positive and negative (NLP) has zero cites and the reference section is a list of books by the inventors of NLP (Wikipedia should probably not be used as a book store).

In sum..."If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Delete the lot. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Updated ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly WP:UNDUE, and badly sourced. There are elements of WP:FRINGE and WP:WalledGarden around all this, too. But at the root, these things have hardly any support from proper sources (primary and commercial have to do instead). Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regards of the status of NLP, there is no particular notability to these individual concepts within it, and the terms are not sufficiently likely search points to be worth even a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added History of neuro-linguistic programming and several other articles having looked at their rather weak references sections. Again, any "useful" information from these pages could be easily merged with the main NLP article. They do not need or deserve separate articles and I am concerned that these articles are simply being used as content forks. I hope nobody minds me adding these after the fact, but exactly the same issues apply. One of these articles has been marked as refimprove since 2007!!! Famousdog (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mind, but it won't make any difference; what good faith I had in your motives has pretty much gone walkabout. Any more additions you want to make? //strangely unsigned, noticed now. htom (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)//[reply]

If you're so concerned about it, relist it to grant the full time period again; I doubt anyone would object. Just being snarky doesn't do anyone any good. siafu (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it encourages me in my belief that there are a number of editors who have "bought in" to the belief that NLP is a pseudo-science scam, rather than a artful psychological treatment methodology. I can't disprove your beliefs, and won't waste the time or annoy you with an attempt. If you were curious you could "read for the enemy"; I can wait. htom (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snarky it is, then. siafu (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have pointed you at Frogs into Princes, I suppose. htom (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OtterSmith, there are other additions I would like to make and already have done. Stop assuming bad faith and making presumptions about my motives and beliefs. The Wikipedia community as a whole has had all the time in the world to improve these articles and hasn't. This suggests to me that the topic(s) are simply not particularly notable. Why therefore do we have tens of poorly written and poorly sourced articles on non-notable topics when it seems one (or a couple) well-sourced article would do? I'm grateful that you "won't waste the time or annoy (us) with an attempt" to "disprove (our) beliefs," but making snarky comments because you can't be arsed to do the requisite work to bring these articles up to the standard by which all WP articles are judged is wasting our time and annoying us. Famousdog (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete broadly for the reasons given above. All the relevant material can be covered at the main NLP page, where there are actually some reasonable third party independent secondary sources. As has been noted above, the NLP-related pages fail on just about every policy criteria for inclusion. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 22:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with htom and, I'll also clearly state this: NLP is a methodology, not a science. That Guy, From That Show! 02:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no such thing as "a science". There is just science. If NLP was an effective "methodology", then there would be some science to support it. I can't see any decent evidence in any of these ... [counts] ... 11 articles. There is some decent science in the main article, but its invariably pouring cold water on NLP, not supporting it. I'm interested: Exactly which bit of OtterSmith's argument do you agree with? The bit where he's assuming bad faith on my part, or the bit where he's just being snarky and wasting our time with rhetoric? Famous_dog 08:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was because of this?

(cur | prev) 03:15, 8 June 2012‎ Famousdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,832 bytes) (+47)‎ . . (adding yet another sh*t article) (undo)

Not a lot of assumption needed. htom (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(At the risk of breaching WP:NOTAFORUM,) WP:AGF "is the assumption that ... most people try to help the project, not hurt it." The crucial words here are the project and my actions are guided by a desire to improve WP by ridding it of several very substandard articles that repetitively reproduce poorly-sourced material and that I think bring the integrity of WP into disrepute. Within the bounds of WP:CIVIL I don't have to maintain good faith towards NLP or practitioners of NLP. Famous_dog 08:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reframing

In cognitive therapy, "reframing" means cognitive reframing. If this article is deleted, could the closer please redirect to cognitive reframing? (Sorry if this comment's in the wrong spot.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactionary modernism

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

neologism invented by one guy and not widely used. gnews mainly refers to his book [28]. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are copious sources referring to the neologism, which is actually an influential concept, a quick search turned up many references to it, many recent ones. It's widely recognized among academic historians, not obscure at all, and widely used in cultural analyses of the Weimar Republic and European society during the interwar period. I added some more info and sources to the article, maybe the connection with 1920s/30s history will be clearer. I also added a couple of WikiProject banners to the Talk page of this article, it's an article related to Fascism as a topic and also (European) culture.OttawaAC (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons stated above. --Loremaster (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason for this article to be deleted. It certainly needs to be cleaned up and formatted, but the topic is certainly notable with a variety of reliable sources. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 01:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the original neologism has long since been taken up and used by many authors as demonstrated by the citations. Ample RS to prove notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus after improvement is clear DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina Umeh-Akamune

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

1. notability not verified due to self-published or dead refs 2. BLP bio without a single indi 3rd P ref Widefox (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete/~~comment - There is a Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria theme here in the NFDs, I see. I query whether many of the individual contest winners (many of whom have an article, it looks like) are notable in themselves but after looking at this, I'm coming to the conclusion that it could all be combined into one article on Nike Oshinowo-Soleye, a former winner and now organiser/runner of the pageant itself. She seems to pass notability herself and the pageant is often mentioned in association with her, so maybe all the pageant winners (unless they have individual notability beyond winning the pageant) can be redirects to the MBNG page (if it passes its NFD) or to the MBNG section on Nike's page (where I suggested putting info on MBNG for now.). Mabalu (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across a couple of these articles and the more I dug, the worse they looked. It looks like some/all have been block nominated before. That would certainly save time, but I do not know which are notable at this point. If they are only notable for an event, then no BLP should be created and simple listing at MBNG would suffice. Widefox (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - article has established notability by fulfilling WP:NRVE, WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. I have added reliable sources to the article, and will add more later. There are scores of reliable source on Sabina Umeh. By the way, WP:NRVE clearly stipulates, that "...the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Amsaim (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

Ukoni, Nkarenyi (11 September 2011). "Free yourself, be unique - Sabina Umeh-Akamune". The Punch. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 31 May 2012.
Popoola, Kazeem (26 November 2011). "Ex-beauty queen, Sabina Umeh in new improved mode". National Mirror. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 31 May 2012.
Segun-Oduntan, Olumide (24 July 2011). "Sabina Umeh returns in dazzling photo shoot". National Mirror. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 31 May 2012.

— Nice work by User:Amsaim in improving the article with the addition of reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changing earlier vote) - after seeing Amsain's work. Nice job! Mabalu (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The only notability reliable sources seem to credit him with is as an unashamed self-publicist. If he continues, he may gain notability for making awful movies, but he is not up there with Ed Wood yet. Spinning Spark 17:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powerstar Srinivasan

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:ACTOR, looks like WP:OR and sources are possible fan sites I'm not sure. JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Starring in your own Youtube videos and then self-producing a film doesn't make you notable. I got a laugh about the film "being showed in theaters for more than 250 continues days". Apparently there's one theater that's been running a noon showing for that long, with some people saying that he paid the theater to run the empty showings. Also, edit warring to redirect Power star to this page suggests that the page is promotional. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The movie he starred may be mokkai. But he is famous in Tamil media. So it is better to change the article type or content. There is no need for deletion of this article. Thank you --117.206.133.104 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's now a popular person in Tamil media. Even though he has not acted well in film, he became popular and many people want to know about him. It's better not to delete this page.115.248.166.162 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search returns zero results. Even I can beat that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through all the references provided (having failed to find any further reliable sources) and this material all looks pretty much like fan-generated -- or self-generated -- content. I am aware of a couple of sources of reliable information about Tamil cinema and this hasn't been discussed on any of them that I can find (non-English spelling is an issue for me but I've tried a couple of different ways and found nothing). As noted by Adjwilley above, the lack of results in Google news is remarkable; this individual seems to have negative publicity value even as a joke, which I considered. Ubelowme (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although I don't regard the source as reliable, this article [29] notes that the subject is known for "cheap marketing efforts"; given the notes above with respect to edit warring on a redirect, I thought it was worth mentioning here in that it's possible this is another attempt to self-promote. Also the article notes that these films are self-published, as it were, which confers no notability. Ubelowme (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Make the article to speak the truth. Removing the self promoting stuffs and providing true fact is sufficient instead of deleting this. Also try searching with tamil letters பவர் ஸ்டார். It gives back the results from tamil media websites. 49.206.133.144 (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can't read Tamil, but I found [30] through a Google News search of the Tamil-alphabet name provided by 49.206.133.144, and put it through Google Translate. It seems reliable, but I can't tell for sure because I have no familiarity with oneindia.in. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also did the Gooogle news search (24 results) and stumbled across that same page. I didn't really get anything from the translation, but it looks borderline to me. Note how the first and last paragraphs end with exclamation marks: "Dr. Srinivasan to bring star power to himself as a publicity again!" and "Star Power!" (or more likely "Power Star!") I'm not saying that exclamation marks in a news story disqualify it as a reliable source, but it does make me skeptical. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, note that the two IP's who voted Keep (115.248.166.162 and 49.206.133.144) are from the same city. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dynamic IPs are pretty common in some parts of the world. I don't know if those two IP addressses are from such a region, but nothing sinister should be assumed about that. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I assumed that it was the same person editing in good faith from home one day and work/school/whatever the next day, and that they didn't know not to vote again after it was relisted. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to note that a GNews search of "Dr. Srinivasan" turns up a few possibly RS English-language sources relating this film auteur (in addition to a number of hits about unrelated people).[31][32][33]--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did not search for Dr. Srinivasan and this is a more useful result (thank you Arxiloxos). I am unable to assess the reliability of these sources, although like Adjwilley I am skeptical, given their tone and content, but at least they are in English. As Arxiloxos notes, the gentleman is an auteur and I tend to regard such efforts as self-publishing (which attracts no notability) unless they achieve the level of cultural penetration of, say, Woody Allen. As an aside, it struck me that there seems to be an air of Florence Foster Jenkins about the subject's efforts. Ubelowme (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deccan Chronicle is reliable in context to what is being sourced, and IndiaGlitz, though lacking an article, is genrerally accepted as suitable for sourcing articles on Indian film and actors. Do not be too concerned with their style and prose though, as it seems that it is sinply the way they choose to report news. Its a regional/national thing. Even Times of India offers articles written in a similar manner. What is important to us is that any such source offers information which, no matter the original's prose choice, can be presented here in an encyclopdic manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep – topic appears to at least meet WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've thought some more about this, and while admitting my cultural ignorance, I am having a hard time accepting IndiaGlitz as a reliable source. I did some searching today to try to find out something about them, and I came up with nothing. Their articles don't have authors listed, the website doesn't have any "about us" explanation, there's no Wikipedia article on them, and they aren't mentioned by any reputable news agencies that I can find. I sampled a few other articles that were being featured on the site today and they're garbage (in my opinion). Would anybody in their right mind consider using this article as a source to say that Jennifer Lopez feels "insecure"? And this is just promotional gossip. Will fans really "go ooh la la" and "find themselves weak in their knees"?

In terms of WP:RS, calling IndiaGliltz a News organization would be a stretch. It seems to be entirely self-published primary opinion that can't even be attributed to a single author. To use this as a source in a Wikipedia article is really scraping the sludge at the bottom of the barrel; given our higher standards for BLP articles, I don't think it should be used as a source at all here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Adjwilley said there is no Wikipedia article on the name of IndiaGlitz , but it doesn't mean that its fake. Not all websites has an wikipedia article. This IndiaGlitz was used as reference source in hundreds of wikipedia articles. Gossips are quite common because of their profession. Can OneIndia.in can be considered as reliable source? If so then have a look here about him and is upcoming movies here : http://popcorn.oneindia.in/artist-comments/20319/1/dr-srinivasan.html and a news about him which came today in same OneIndia : http://tamil.oneindia.in/movies/television/2012/06/power-star-srinivasan-vs-gobinath-155530.html. This news is about his participation as guest in Neeya Naana program of STAR Vijay channel. I am not denying the fact that he self-promoted himself earlier but now has become famous because of that, so nothing wrong in keeping an wikipedia article on his name.115.248.166.162 (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2011
^ Solyndra Spent Liberally to Woo Lawmakers Until the End, Records Show, New York Times, September 16, 2011
^ Bankrupt solar company with fed backing has cozy ties to Obama admin, The Daily Caller, September 1, 2011
^ Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011
^ Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011
^ Loan Was Solyndra's Undoing, Wall St. Journal, September 16, 2011
^ Feds Visit Homes of Solyndra CEO, Execs, ABC News, September 8, 2011
^ Solyndra Loan: Now Treasury Dept. Is Launching Investigation, ABC News, September 8, 2011
^ Solyndra loan: White House pressed on review of solar company now under investigation, Washington Post, September 13, 2011
^ ^a ^b In Rush to Assist a Solar Company, U.S. Missed Signs, New York Times, September 22, 2011
^ Solyndra employees: Company suffered from mismanagement, heavy spending, Washington Post, September 20, 2011
^ Chu takes responsibility for a loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra, Washington Post, September 29, 2011
^ Solyndra loan deal: Warning about legality came from within Obama administration, Washington Post, October 7, 2011
^ Bankrupt Solyndra Caught Destroying Brand New Parts, CBS News, January 19, 2012
^ Solyndra Not Dealing With Toxic Waste At Milpitas Facility, CBS News, April 28, 2012

[1] Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2011

[2] Solyndra Spent Liberally to Woo Lawmakers Until the End, Records Show, New York Times, September 16, 2011

[3] Bankrupt solar company with fed backing has cozy ties to Obama admin, The Daily Caller, September 1, 2011

[4] Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011

[5] Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011

[6] Loan Was Solyndra's Undoing, Wall St. Journal, September 16, 2011

[7] Feds Visit Homes of Solyndra CEO, Execs, ABC News, September 8, 2011

[8] Solyndra Loan: Now Treasury Dept. Is Launching Investigation, ABC News, September 8, 2011

[9] Solyndra loan: White House pressed on review of solar company now under investigation, Washington Post, September 13, 2011

[NYT_Sep_22_2011-10] In Rush to Assist a Solar Company, U.S. Missed Signs, New York Times, September 22, 2011

[11] Solyndra employees: Company suffered from mismanagement, heavy spending, Washington Post, September 20, 2011

[12] Chu takes responsibility for a loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra, Washington Post, September 29, 2011

[13] Solyndra loan deal: Warning about legality came from within Obama administration, Washington Post, October 7, 2011

[14] Bankrupt Solyndra Caught Destroying Brand New Parts, CBS News, January 19, 2012

[15] Solyndra Not Dealing With Toxic Waste At Milpitas Facility, CBS News, April 28, 2012

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]