Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 March	24 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 1 Home Care

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

Promotional article. James1011R (talk, contribs) 23:50, 23 March 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 he achieves notability. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammet Çat

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

I found nothing that shows the subject meets the criteria at WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. The only claim to notability is a bronze medal at the World University games. That is insufficient to show notability for a boxer and I found nothing else to show he's notable. Papaursa (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, has sufficient notability.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what notability criteria he satisfies, since he clearly doesn't meet the standards listed to be a notable boxer. You're a new user so you should learn to give a reason for your statements. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOLfan112 now appears to have retired from Wikipedia; see here. Janggeom (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning a medal at the world university games is a nice achievement, but doesn't meet the standards given at WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. I could find no indication he's ever competed at the Olympics or a non-collegiate amateur world championship. Astudent0 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails to meet the notability standards for a boxer. Mdtemp (talk) 21:50, 29 March 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. Pruning, renaming and/or splitting can take place through the usual methods. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of places associated with Jesus

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

Delete. A bare list that serves no purpose. The topic is better served with the numerous articles about Jesus. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor technicality, but the nominator can not vote in an Afd. Sorry. And it isno longer a bare list. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Keep - It is absurd to claim that to have scattered "numerous articles" all over the place is good enough, without having a list of geographically important places for the study of Jesus. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list is helpful to the serious dedicated student. It serves a very good purpose. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "serious dedicated student" would be very familiar with placed associated with Jesus. Incidentally, "associated with" is a very vague description and could even be extended to every ___location where there is a Christian church. I am sure that if I looked there would be an article that covered geography relation to the New Testament. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Associated with mean associated with Jesus during the period covered by the Gospels, not associated with the Christian Church in general. This is a finite body of locations, and a perfectly good subject for an article. If the nom is sure it is duplicated by another article, I ask him to find it. If I looked, ... is an argument that has as much validity as saying .I think there would be sources if I bothered to look for them, an argument that AL has often rightly criticized. And even if there were such an article, many, perhaps most, of the places in the NT are not associated with Jesus but with the missionary journals of the apostles. Jesus's geographic range on earth was very limited as compared to all of the Christian world, even in the first century. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But this is not how the list is presently structured. It includes Alexandria and Ávila, Spain and Bountiful (Book of Mormon), none of which are mentioned in the gospels. If this is going to include every place that Jesus has appeared to someone, then it will be unwieldy and necessary incomplete, and I will vote delete. On the other hand, if it is renamed to List of places associated with Jesus in the Gospels, then I vote keep. St Anselm (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep as notable WP:N list of locations visited by a prominent religious leader known world wide. References however need to be included WP:RS . The article has potential WP:POTENTIAL. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously notable per WP:LISTN. When one starts reviewing sources, one immediately finds items like "This work emphasizes places associated with Jesus or his disciples: Nazareth, Bethlehem, Cana, Magdala, Capernaum, Banyas, Kursi, and others. The list...", "Pilgrims like to (literally) follow in the footsteps of Jesus and visit the places associated with him.", &c. Warden (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Jesus is notable but the list is not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG. The name could be further specified, and there's certainly room to add a good bit more about HOW these places are associated with Jesus, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is this list of any use to readers? It is a list of places that gives absolutely no context to the reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Literally thousands of reliable references. Lack of context in the current list can be fixed by editing. -- 202.124.74.74 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like List of places visited by Jesus in the gospels and purge of anything that does not fit this. Something like this would be useful as a category (or does that exist)? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - although I see no problem with the list, it needs sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe divide into two lists? Maybe divide into 2 lists: "In the Gospels" and "Elsewhere" - Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is certainly useful as DGG stated. And of course, it does need sourcing, as also stated above. But the whole field of biblical archeology etc. is reigniting now in scholarly circles, (publish or perish I guess) but the ___location/geography issue is an active scholarly topic now. However, I do agree with StAnselm that not every ___location "associated" should come in, e.g. Avila is certainly not suitable, and Shingō, Aomori is certainly associated, but should certainly not be included. So some type of rename may be a good idea. History2007 (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as Bearian said, it needs sources. I did not even know this page existed, so I will add sources now. Big ticket items such as Emmaus were missing anyway, so I will add those. It looks like a keep decision anyway given that the Afd started on the 23rd. As for a new title, how about New Testament places associated with Jesus, so it can also refer to the NT not just the gospels. I think at least a "large paragraph" needs to be written for each ___location, and is easy to do. I should point out the following:

Places "visited" by Jesus does not fit as well as "associated" with Jesus, because the NT does not state that Bethabara was visited by Jesus, but that John baptized near there. So associated is the right term.

NT should be used instead of the gospels, because Road to Damascus is an associated place, and appears only in the NT, not the gospels.

By the time sources and explanations are added, this will no longer be a list. I have started adding sources and should finish in a week or so. Hence New Testament places associated with Jesus should work best.

Ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Gospels are Faith-based documents devoid of all historical provenance and articles like this on Wikipedia can noly be written by Roman Catholic Fundamentalists wishing to use Wikipedia as an indirect channel of Christian evangelism. There are Catholic fundamentalist editors on Wikipedia who wish to delete content even found in standard reference books on Christianity. Wikipedia is infected with Roman Catholic fundamentalist editing. Lung salad (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An encyclopedia is not a Biblical travel guide, and I see little value in an "associated with" list. If his visit to a ___location is notable to Jesus' biblical narrative, then that should be reflected in prose in the appropriate article. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly legitimate list. Lung Salad's objection that "the Gospels are Faith-based documents devoid of all historical provenance" is utterly irrelevant. A "List of places associated with Sherlock Holmes" would be equally legitimate. Also, why does he assume that only "Catholic Fundamentalists" would desire this. Has he never heard of Protestantism (and Orthodox christianity), or for that matter Ahmadiyya, which has its own places associated with Jesus. There is a legitimate question about what should be in the list, given that Jesus appeared in the Americas, according to Mormons, and England according to William Blake. It could be renamed as suggested above to exclude these, or alternatively these non Biblical locations could have their own section. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator since the article has been changed substantially. I still believe it is one of the many articles on WP that has limited utility to readers. There is a fixation on creating lists by some editors regardless of how useful they are. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see how deleting this improves the encyclopaedia. A list of places associated with the subject of the world's biggest religion is hardly obscure, and is certainly informative. Someone could feasibly search for this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually now that the nominator withdrew the Afd just above, the keep decision is somewhat automatic. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 30 March 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} 23:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R.O.C. (band)

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

Deprodded because it is apparently notable, non of their albums or singles have even charted. Fails WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Allmusic biography, plus listing in this book. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have no rule that only chart-friendly musicians should have articles here. The band released three albums, two of which were on labels that clearly satisfy WP:BAND criterion 5, and would certainly have received significant print coverage. Also covered in The Wire (partially visible on Google Books), they recorded a radio session for John Peel and made the end of year Festive 50 chart in 1995. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep just about notable.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band was very widely reviewed in their 90s heyday by major music publications (NME, Melody Maker, Q Magazine, Select) - the band themselves keep an online archive of coverage at [1] with scans of a number of the articles, but presumably this in itself isn't a reliable source (there's difficulty finding reliable sources for any of this pre-Internet stuff - are there online archives to be able to build citations?) They released albums for one major label (Virgin Records, then part of EMI) and one highly-regarded indie (Setanta Records); one of their singles (Cheryl) was playlisted by BBC Radio One in 1997. (COI declaration: I'm a fan of this band and tried to sign them to my own tiny indie label ten years after their heyday.) Fosse8 (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PhpPennyAuction

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

Non-notable script. I can't find any mention in google books / news. (disputed PROD) SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the software script has been in the news here quite a bit, eg: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/watchdog-probes-penny-auction-software-104359. Highly notable. 81.135.36.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC). — 81.135.36.195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Such a brief mention in a tabloid paper isn't sufficient. (I removed ref tags around the link given by the IP) SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing suggesting notability of the subject. Official site and press release don't warrant notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News articles warrant accountability, this article should be improved to highlight the legal issues. 87.112.93.175 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — 87.112.93.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I note that the Mirror article above doesn't even name the software in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Various mentions in Google and News articles. Phatwa (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Phatwa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Can you point to specific articles? I did a search and found no usable sourcing for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:15, 27 March 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. Nomination identifies an editing issue, not a deletion issue, no other users arguing to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SecondMarket

Remove the article - this is an advertisement for the financial firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtannor (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article reads like it was written by an employee of the company. ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep definitely notable, added COI tag.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know about "speedy" but I see plenty of non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. There are definitely COI issues though. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 25 March 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 Userfy. Moving to User:Walter Görlitz/Brian Sylvestre —SW— ^verbalize 23:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sylvestre

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

PROD contested by User:Walter Görlitz with the explanation of "Residency is a fully professional league". However, the USL Premier Development League, which is the only division the subject has played in, is not fully professional. As such, the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The team is fully professional although the league may not be. I misread WP:NFOOTBALL. With that said, move to my namespace if (when) it fails. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy - currently non-notable, per both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, but Walter seems willing to take it and work on it until as such time as the subject is notable. Giant Snowman 00:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userify - as stated above. Mr Sylvestre is not currently notable, but probably will be in the future. As Walter Görlitz has agreed to work on it, I see no reason not to keep improving the content outside the article namespace. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 30 March 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 2012 in UFC events#UFC 154. —SW— ^confer 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 154

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultimate Fighting Championship - it is too early for there to be any encyclopedic content on this specific event; a redirect to the organisers would be most helpful for readers. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~List of UFC events~~ as per nom and lock the page to prevent removal of the redirect. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing suggested redirection to 2012 in UFC events#UFC 154. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of UFC events and protect the article to such time as it is clear the event meets WP:MMAEVENT. Mt king ^(edits) 06:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of UFC events I agree with the previous 2 comments. I also strongly support a "2012 UFC events" article instead of all these individual event articles. Astudent0 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in UFC events. This is a future event with no indication of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:46, 29 March 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. —SW— ^comment 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with concealed rules

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

Needed more sources since 2007. Most examples are in-universe plot stuff, redlinked or not notable (7 11 Doubles drinking game). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minimal sourcing and redlinks are not sufficient reasons for deletion - this can be remedied by adding sources and creating additional pages. Non-notable additions to this list can be removed at any time, though a discussion on the talk page is always appreciated. Would support moving page to Games with concealed rules and adding additional prose. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A number of the games here are notable and the list is helpful. Any game which is not notable can be removed from the list. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major tidy and keep. I'd argue that the entire "in fiction" section needs removing. In addition to that, agree with nominator's implication that unreferenced redlinks need removing. But even then, there would be a not insignificant number of entries, the contents of the list are well defined and it seems slightly more useful than using an equivalent category or two. GDallimore (Talk) 00:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Needed more sources" is not a valid reason for deletion. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually not an unreasonable nomination, given that most of the most notable games on the list do not actually fall within a reasonable reading of "concealed". Still, at most I'm neutral on this one, since I would like to see a trim and focus fail before agreeing that regular editing cannot solve the acknowledged problems. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might be better as a category, but there's enough meat in it to make an article. Does the concept exist? yes. Are there refs for some of it ? yes. the rest is editing, not deletion. Greglocock (talk) 23:52, 25 March 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. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 23:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn Technologies

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

Fails WP:CORP. I stubbed the article because it was unsourced although I left in the lead and an external link that is probably largely irrelevant. There is an Indian company [2], but I don't think it's related to the original SF company. Google News search on the company (along with the founder's last name) gets just a few hits from a long time ago. Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources which even mention this company. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete', possible A7 speedy or even G11 given the high number of unsourced peacock adjectives in the lead sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 25 March 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 2012 in UFC events#UFC 152. —SW— ^squeal 23:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 152

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~List of UFC events~~ as per nom and lock the page to prevent removal of the redirect. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing suggested redirection to 2012 in UFC events#UFC 152. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of UFC events and protect the article to such time as it is clear the event meets WP:MMAEVENT. Mt king ^(edits) 06:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of UFC events I agree with the previous 2 comments. I also strongly support a "2012 UFC events" article. Astudent0 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 in UFC events. This is a future event with no indication of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:45, 29 March 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 weak keep. Hopefully someone will take the time to actually use those sources to improve the article, or we likely end up back here again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals–Royals rivalry

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

PROD, endorsed by one editor, contested by another. This article provides zero sources to claim the existence of a rivalry. It points primarily to 1985 World Series, which the teams competed in, but provides no evidence that this "I-70" Series has any lasting notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & paste of what I wrote on the article's talk page:

I removed the deletion template. I had created this article a few months ago. The rivalry between the Cardinals and Royals exists. They share a state, have played a World Series (with a highly controversial call), and play each other in interleague play every year. In other words, they share in common the aspects of Mets-Yankees rivalry, Cubs-White Sox rivalry, and A's-Giants rivalry (Bay Bridge Series), all interleague rivalries with articles. There are definitely sources out there to prove it as well, unfortunately I haven't had the time to look for them. This rivalry was mentioned on both respective team pages, and also at interleague play#Geographical_matchups_.2F_Natural_Rivals, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling by creating the page. I'd hoped others would have jumped in and contributed by now but I see that is not the case! But I'd urge you to give other editors a chance to improve this article because I know it can be sourced. If they don't, then I may take it upon myself to do so, time permitting. Failing both of those, we can revisit the deletion. Thank you! TempDog123 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pressed for time right now, but here's a few links from reputable sources that I found from a quick Google search: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Here's are some from more questionable sources, but that seem current on Missouri baseball: [8], [9]TempDog123 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2012

(UTC)

Weak keep It would be best if articles were developed on user pages until enough sources were identified to satify WP:GNG and placed in the article or the talk page. That being said, based on the sourced identified in this AfD, there's probably enough sources that at least refer to the interleague series as a "rivalry" to warrant an article. I wouldn't mind this redirecting to a larger MLB interleague rivalry article, but with the World Series—albeit only one series—there's likely other tidbits floating around about the "rivalry".—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that in the other interleague rivlaries with articles - Mets/Yankees, Cubs/White Sox, A's/Giants - the official games between the two teams are likewise limited to interleague play and one World Series. In the case of certain other interleague rivalries that have articles (Citrus Series and Freeway Series) the respective teams have never even met in the World Series. The Rays and Marlins did not even exist when the Cardinals and Royals met in the 1985 World Series! So, I do not see why this interleague rivalry is being singled out, except that the article is in its infancy and hasn't yet had the time to grow. TempDog123 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, I think its an understandable reaction to "single out" this article based on the fact that this rivalry does not get as much press as the ones from bigger cities. Unfortunately, it's sources that determine notability, not whether anything "meaningful" really happened in the rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that a week after I've nominated this article for deletion, no changes have been made to the article in an attempt to keep it. Finding a few sources and putting them here is better than nothing, but it doesn't help us to determine just how much credence to give these sources. Are any of them WP:ROUTINE? Editorial comments that don't convey notability? If two respected editors say "weak" keep, that suggests it's still iffy at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I suppose the various articles (although I don't think the first meets the independence requirements) calling this a rivalry are enough. Barely. It would be much better if they actually described the rivalry in a manner that goes beyond the one World Series they played (lots of teams played one World Series against each other) and their interleague play record (which of course lots of team pairings have). As it is, it is hard to tell if the sources are describing an actual "rivalry" or just using the term for convenience.

The Met-Yankee, Cubs-White Sox and A's-Giants rivalries are hardly comparable. These teams share not just a state, but a city (or municipal area). Each of those pairings involved some element of territorial disputes and/or shared stadium issues. In the Mets-Yankees the significance of the Mayor's Trophy Game is barely hinted at in the article - Steinbrenner used to treat that pretty much second only to the World Series, and without doing the research I am pretty sure at least one Yankee player got cut because of a costly error in that exhibition game. And of course, the newspapers all treated the game with equal seriousness. In the case of Giants-A's, I wouldn't be surprised if there were sources in the early 1910s describing a Giants-Athletics rivalry back then, given the proximity of the cities (and their tendency to look over each others shoulders) and the fact that the teams met in the World Series 3 times in less than 10 years, starting when the AL and NL themselves were virtually at war.

Besides that, having lived in the New York area all my life and been to St. Louis many times, I have yet to meet a Cardinal fan who feels better about a loss because the Royals lost too, or feel that the only thing that would make a day the Cardinals win better would be if the Royals hadn't won that day too (there may be some, but they aren't common). Whereas in the Met-Yankee and Cub-White Sox cases, such fans are very common. Really, I don't know any Cardinals fan who cares more about the Royals than about the Mariners, or any other particular team (I am sure they exist, but I doubt there are many). Nor am I convinced that the I-70 World Series was any more indicative of a rivalry than the I-95 series a few years earlier. That said, given the sources, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Rlendog (talk) 00:45, 27 March 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. —SW— ^confer 23:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Willem van IJperen

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

BLP1E. Medical ethicist, available sourcing appears to revolve around a license suspension on child protection issues, a case in which he was reinstated. One possible counterargument might be that the "Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health" is sufficient to keep. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a fair number of articles at Google News, but they are all about that one incident, a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Google Scholar finds nothing so he does not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC. "Fellow of the Royal College" does not appear to be a big deal, it simply means that he is a certified specialist; there are more than 13,000 such Fellows.[10] --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be known only for this single event which not so widely reported as to reach notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 26 March 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 incubate. Consensus seems to be leaning in the direction of keeping this, but not having it in article space until such time as it has been improved to meet our minimum standards. However, nobody has specified whose userspace it should be userfied to, and normally userfication is only done by request. The initial creator if the article is not longer active. So, moving it to the article incubator is the closest we can come to following that consensus, and at least there it isn't in one user's personal space but rather in an area aimed at encouraging collaboration. Article may now be viewed and edited at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Gogyōka. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gogyōka

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

Afd over a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogyōka was shelved on the basis of a commitment to improve the article, but there is no evidence of such improvement. All references ("Notes") refer to self-published books by the inventor of this poetic form. There is still no evidence of notability based on independent sources. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG; no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Terence7 (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was kept a year ago to allow sources to be found, which still hasn't been done. This must now be taken as evidence that the required material does not exist. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking under the alternative name Gogyohka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) I think its possible to find some indication of significance. I'm not saying that this article is not in need of improvement, it is and probably should be tagged that way, but a search of the web shows the term "Gogyohka" in decently common use, although not by very reputeable sources (still this hints toward the idea that this is decently significant, but would require some digging). Likely I'm guessing that this is a largely Japanese topic, with reputable sources limited to Japanese language sources (which may be hard to search for by either name), the larger web presence makes sense then in the light of the fact that there are always more non-reliable Japan-o-philes knowledgeable about a Japanese topic than reputable English language sources about that topic. All that being said, I did find a possible source for some more authoritative info about this topic, unfortunately it is A. not in my possession, B. in Japanese (or Chinese, I am not an expert in either language and I cannot generally tell the two scripts apart from a glance). But if some Japanese speaking Wikipedian could take a look at this and say what it says, that may give a good idea of what's what in terms of whether or not to keep this article:

http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/toModule.do?prefix=/search&page=/search_detail.jsp?seq=374029

By the way here's a link mentioning the poetry type by name, however, it is just in passing, again hinting toward notability although not necessarily giving any definite info: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/12/13/nation/7611687&sec=nation

Jztinfinity (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy As the nominator points out, there has been a significant period for improvement since the last deletion discussion. We should be cautious to avoid possible systemic bias against non-English sources, however there must be a realistic prospect of improvement in the near future for this to be retained as an article. I suggest Userfication if more convincing sources cannot be found at this time. As in the last deletion discussion, I encourage Japanese readers to consider the sources listed on Worldcat. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:49, 22 March 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 17:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: This needs the attention of people who read Japanese. Comment left on the WP:JAPAN talk page. Sandstein 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument to delete rests on the assumption that this is not in independent sources, but I was easily able to find independent articles about this topic by going to the Asahi Shimbun website and typing in the term "五行歌" into the search box: [11] [12]. It's just possible that these are shilled articles or paid presentations of some kind, but unless someone can show that this is some kind of monkey business then I don't see the reason to delete this using the specified criterion of "having independent sources". JoshuSasori (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Also I don't think that the people have been lazy about updating the article is really a good reason to delete it, otherwise there about two or three million other articles which should be deleted. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Keep - plenty of sources available in Japanese at the above links, and elsewhere as shown by JoshuSasori. Here are a couple of books to start with: [13][14]. Any problems with the article can be solved through editing, rather than deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to　Yahoo!Japan,　the search number of 五行歌 is http://search.yahoo.co.jp/search?p=%E4%BA%94%E8%A1%8C%E6%AD%8C&search.x=1&fr=top_ga1_sa&tid=top_ga1_sa&ei=UTF-8&aq=&oq= and according to Google Japan, the search number of 五行歌　is http://www.google.co.jp/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=f&oq=%e4%ba%94%e8%a1%8c%e6%ad%8c&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GWYH_jaJP308JP320&q=%e4%ba%94%e8%a1%8c%e6%ad%8c&gs_upl=0l0l0l5087lllllllllll0&aqi=g5 When Japanese people search words or phrases in Internets, they never add a quotation mark to them. So these numbers are facts themselves in Japan. In conclusion, we hope gogyohka will have the developement in English speaking countries. Can you understand Japanese customs correctly, grab what you can? Please grab what you can! --Rappelle-toi (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Rappelle-toi has rehearsed this argument several times now in various places. The above comment displays a complete failure to understand how Yahoo! and Google Search work, despite this being explained several times. Quite simply, per Yahoo! Help
  To search for an exact phrase, put quotation marks around two or more words. For example, a search for "to be or not to be" returns only results containing the exact phrase inside the quotation marks.
  The same applies in Google. Thus, Google search for "to be or not to be" (with " "): 24,200,000 and for to be or not to be (without " "): 7,430,000,000. The first search finds the phrase, but the second finds any/all of the words in the search, but not necessarily the exact phrase. So, your results above are hugely distorted. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What you wrote above is only the customs in the western world. The Earth has not only the western world but the eastern world. Your way to search the words by adding a quotation mark belongs to only the western world. We, Japanese and Chinese, don't use the quotation mark when searching words or phrases. Can you understand the difference between them ? There is another culture different from yours. Please grab the difference correctly, grab what you can! The Earth is wide and large ! --Rappelle-toi (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just tried this out. On Google, a search for 五行歌 without quotes turned up 832,000 results, and a search for "五行歌" with quotes turned up 486,000 results. On Yahoo, a search for 五行歌 without quotes turned up 867,000 results, and a search for "五行歌" with quotes turned up 486,000 results. So it looks like gråb whåt you cån is right - sorry. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mr.Strasvarius, I'll repeat that we, Japanese people never use a quotation mark when we search japanese words or phrases in Yahoo or Google. Even if you search words with a quotaiton mark, at least the result number 468,000 is very numerous. Judging from the number and many publishments in Japanese, 五行歌 is rather notable in Japan. We hope it will have the developments in Wnglish speaking countries. --Rappelle-toi (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I assume that the man making a profit from the trademark 五行歌 must be delighted. --Fæ (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I'm changing my position to Userfy. While it appears from JoshuSasori's and Mr. Stradivarius's comments that there exists adequate material in Japanese to justify the existence of this article, in its current state it falls well below WP standards. I note that the nominator of the first AfD (over a year ago) stated, "As the nominator, I would like to withdraw the nomination on the basis of the current commitment to improve the article and the prospect of improvement in sourcing in the near future." Given that that did not happen, and that on this occasion there has been no undertaking to improve the article, it seems clear that Wikipedia:Userfication is the correct course to follow. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:30, 30 March 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. If anyone would like any of the content from this article to merge into another article, feel free to contact me. —SW— ^prattle 22:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LDFLAGS

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

This article is only about a parameter or variable used within another computer program (Makefile), and thus should be a part of that article instead. Senator2029 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an administrator to use xyr deletion tool in order to fix that. You have an editing tool. Instead of taking three edits with it to make a pointless AFD nomination that will just waste everyone's time for a week, take two to do an article merger straightaway. Deletion nominations are not the only tools in the toolbox, and deletion forms no part of the article merger process whatsoever. Uncle G (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this can be merged and redirected to Make (software), it should be remarked that it is merely a convention to use the name LDFLAGS for a variable whose value gives the -l and -L options for cc. --Lambiam 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, perhaps you could explain further this process you are referring to (or at a minimum, provide a specific link to the "tool in the toolbox") so I can use it in the future? In any case, I nominated it for deletion because I don't think it has notability to exist on its own. And I don't know enough about the topic to say for certain that it should be merged. I'm doing my best to bring this article to others who hopefully know what to do with it; don't let this get you upset. Senator2029 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I already gave the link to you. And the places to get second opinions on whether something should be merged is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing and similar, not Articles for deletion. The tip-off is in the name. Uncle G (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to linker (computing) perhaps instead of make? I certainly don't think this deserves an article on its own. Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 20 March 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 17:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to merge here. WP is not a manual or how-to guide. --Kvng (talk) 01:01, 26 March 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. —SW— ^confabulate 22:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Bachchan-Nanda

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lead says it all - she's only known because of her family. Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable personality. Inherits notability from other family members. Some information worth including; i.e. DOB, was (non-notable) journalist, hosted some (non-notable) TV show; may be included in Bachchan family. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with her father's article unless notability can be established. Being a Bachan daughter alone is not worth of notability The Determinator p t c 20:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Claim of non-notability seem to be based on Western bias.
Better to use Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really have to include the part about the bias? Hidden agendas lurking everywhere on Wikipedia. What a world.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Indian. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for you to disclose that, but, let's see, that would make it a double reverse, partial bluff, ricocheting western bias.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the few news sources available on her make it clear that any interest secondary sources have in her is rooted in her having famous relatives; there's no independent notability here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just delete, no need of discussion in such cases. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 08:10, 24 March 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. A notable subject with potential for expansion, however converting it to a disambiguation page might be worth discussing further on the talk page. —SW— ^communicate 22:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idler

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

Not Dictionary: this stub adds nothing to the blue-linked terms that it mentions, because it is just somebody's whim to have an entry named 'Idler', and they've pulled together some meanings of that word. A giveaway is the Wiktionary link - the term is defined, and this article has no place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a dab page: The Idler, The Idlers, Idlers, Salomon Idler. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - An idler mechanism certainly exists, and as something distinct from other mechanisms it is used in. I'm not convinced that it is notable, however, owing to a lack of sources. I would not expect as many sources for a mechanism than I would for other things, but I do believe something more than a patent is required. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more that patents is not required. But in the exact sense used in the article , see this Google search. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Idler-wheel and possibly create disambig as suggested by Clarityfiend. --Kvng (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mechanism is common and significant. The WP:DICDEF policy is not a reason to delete. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our deletion policy. Warden (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idler is an important and common mechanical concept/component. The general meaning is a freely-rotating component (no power removed or deliverd by the axle). The term is often used as a short hand for longer terms, such as idler gear, idler pulley, idler wheel, and idler sprocket. It is often used as a tensioner. A non-round version would be an idler arm, and the related bell crank. Another usage is for the idler motor in a rotary phase converter. All of these terms might be rolled into a new article named something like idler (mechanics), leaving idler as a disambiguation page. Robert Hiller (talk) 05:37, 27 March 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. Disregarding Uishaki's WP:JUSTAVOTE, the (narrow) consensus is that there is not enough that can be usefully written about this future event at this time. Sandstein 07:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 UEFA Europa League Final

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

More than two years away, only "fact" is the venue. ~~Delete per WP:Crystal.~~ For me it's not important whether it fails CRYSTAL. Over-ridingly, there is only one fact which this article could possibly comprise of, which is not enough justification for an article on Wikipedia. Cloudz 679 16:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 16:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. It will almost certainly become notable in the future, but at present fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does anybody actually read WP:Crystal when nominating? I cannot see how this article violates any of the five points listed. Point 1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Match is notable and almost certain to take place. Point 2: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." Non-generic information (venue) is known. Points 3-5, none of them applicable. So which part of WP:Crystal does this violate? Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Uishaki (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:CRYSTAL ("Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"). Lugnuts (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an event that may happen (and it is a 'may', anything could happen in between, including the big one ;P) in two years time. Recreate at the click of a button nearer the time, when more info is available. GiantSnowman 19:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Crystal does not have any "time frame" for when an event is close enough to happen to have a page to be created. And when is more info going to be available? Apart from minor details like ticketing, the next time more info will be available for this match is April 2014, when the identity of the two finalists are known. This page currently has a similar amount of content as, 2012 UEFA Champions League Final, 2012 UEFA Europa League Final, 2012 UEFA Super Cup, 2013 UEFA Champions League Final, 2013 UEFA Europa League Final, 2013 UEFA Super Cup, and 2014 UEFA Champions League Final. Not sure why this page is singled out for deletion. Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 16:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again people are quoting something without actually reading much of the article. In the section Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#Creation of articles, says, "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." And I have demonstrated that articles of similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia. So thanks for proving me right. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wrong link on my part, I meant WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Giant Snowman 18:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        New link does not negate what I demonstrated. And from your new link, "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me ask you then - what's your argument for keeping? This event may happen in the future? That similar articles exist? Neither hold any weight. Giant Snowman 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Re-quoting WP:Crystal in my original comment. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This match passes this test and other relevant criteria in WP:Crystal. All current information in the article is correct and verifiable. All similar UEFA articles I cited were created (excluding redirects and obvious nonsensical stuff) at the same time point: when the venue of the match was announced (e.g. the 2012 UCL final article was created in 2009 when UEFA announced the venue), and none of these articles have gone through a deletion discussion. Lots of sport event articles are created when the venue (assuming non-regular venues) has been decided, or even when the venue bidding is ongoing. I have quoted from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that this argument holds weight: "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia.". However, you just seem to fail to acknowledge any of my points. On the other hand, what is your argument for deleting? That it is too far away? Who decides what year is too far away? Sorry that I could find anything supporting your argument in any Wikipedia guidelines. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may technically pass WP:CRYSTAL, but there is not much to write until much later. – Kosm1 fent 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So technically passes means passes. There's no grey area. Lugnuts (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But actually all there is to know for sure, is the venue. Cloudz 679 16:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in all the upcoming UEFA match articles that I have listed. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make them ideal candidates for deletion. Cloudz 679 20:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As your argument is that these articles should be deleted according to WP:Crystal, please cite particular sentences in WP:Crystal that support your argument. I have cited sentences in WP:Crystal that support my argument that these articles pass WP:Crystal and should not be deleted, and I eagerly await your reply. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball - "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". Don't think so. "While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." This is a short article and only consists of product announcement information. It is certainly a product in the business sense. Cloudz 679 07:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. At least you have made your points clear, even though I disagree with them. But since you have changed your reason for deletion (I did not see it when I commented last time), I am guessing even you are admitting that this article likely passes WP:Crystal. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically passes, and also passes in terms of the spirit and purpose of the rule. An event almost certain to take place, about which there is advance discussion, is sufficient to an article. How many years to go in advance for such events is a matter of judgment, but 2014 is just the year after next, and is certainly a reasonable period for major sports events. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This year's UEFA Europa League Final hasn't happened yet, next year's UEFA Europa League Final hasn't happened yet, how in the world could anyone believe that it is necessary to start writing an article about the UEFA Europa League Final which won't take place until the year after next? Per WP:CRYSTAL, these types of articles "are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research". —SW— ^prattle 22:44, 30 March 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dallas (2012 TV series) episodes

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

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 16:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CRYSTAL and WAYTOOSOON. Wait until near the end of May when we actually have press releases confirming episode titles and details (which should be made policy; I'm getting really sick and tired of having episode guides for unpremiered series, but that's another discussion). Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced episode list for a TV series which has yet to air. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - It is valid. There is nothing wrong in adding the episode guide. And episode titles and airdates...etc are according to the Official Dallas website (UltimateDallas.com) -- Longstudios (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2012 (GMT)

No. The show's site on TNT.tv is the official website; UltimateDallas is the "The official fans website" according to their Twitter. It can't be used as a source (and displaying the WB shield on their site as some sort of vague approval from them doesn't count). Nate • (chatter) 07:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:HAMMERtime. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 30 March 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Of Fury

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

Fan Compilations do not meet notability. Frorunner9 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A fan compilation album with no coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 30 March 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. —SW— ^prattle 22:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pranic healing

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

Prana is ~~an Indian word~~ most commonly translated by the Western new-age as energy. Likewise pranic healing refers to the exact same concept as energy medicine. This page is redundant because we already have a page for the exact same topic but using the more common English translation. We should use English titles where possible and redirect as appropriate. Non-notable synonym for energy medicine. The only available reference for this topic is one which disputes it's existance as a valid field. The other reference appears to ba an advert for a book on natropathy. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Propose delete of this article (there's nothing worth saving) + redirect to energy medicine.

Keep You can find a lot of reliable sources (dated from the 1980s) regarding "Pranic healing" in the G-News archives, see for example The Times of India, Daily News and Analysis, The Hindu etc (not only Indian, but also African and European media). It means that this healing method is noted and popular. There's a possibility and potential to build up a good and informative article about it. Btw, are you sure it is a synonym for energy medicine? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Response According to the article: Pranic healing is an alternative medicinal practice that claims to use prana or life energy to heal ailments in the body. This would strongly suggest that Prana (and therefore Pranic Healing) is simply referring to the same esoteric concept as Energy in energy medicine. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress, unfinished and developing. We should consider the potential of a topic, not just current state. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. The article itself cannot serve as an evidence for similar hypotheses. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many, many hits at GBooks and GScholar as well as GNews. Not all of these hits can be taken as indicators of notability, of course, but among the more reliable ones, note for example the serious study of the Pranic healing movement in Religion, entitled "A new religious and healing movement in the Philippines", abstract here. And I don't understand why the nominator considers the existing "skeptical" source "nothing worth saving". Whether this topic should be merged with other similar practices can be discussed elsewhere, but there is certainly enough source material to consider this notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell Pranic Healing is an Indian/Eastern synonym for energy medicine. The language and jargon (chakras, energy) is much the same. Refer to the Times of India link above which provides a definition that is indistinguishable from that of Energy Medicine. The skptical source is a good one, I felt that an article assertign the notabilty of a topic should consist some notable proponents in addition to those who believe it is nonsense. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prana. Not enough information here to merge. Alternatively, redirect to Energy medicine but I feel the article Prana is more closely related. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd propose that Pranic Healing -> Energy Medicine, Prana -> Energey (esotericism). FYI, having reviewed even more (painful) docs on this very silly topic: "Energy" is just the English new-age translation of a bunch of much older words: Prana, Qi, Life-Force... whatever. I could see the justification in having two articles if the concepts were substantially different, but in this case there's really no difference at all other than the language. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re-reading the sources I now realize that I got this totally wrong. Pranic Healing is not an ancient Indian art at all, it's actually the registered trademark of a Korean author who came up with the concept in 1987. The links provided by Vejvančický give the game away - each of them mentions the Korean founder. The only thing I got right was that Western new-agers use the word Prana almost interchangeably with other more familiar terms such as "energy" or "qi". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:08, 23 March 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delaney (band)

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

Non-notable band, does not meet the guidelines for inclusion described at WP:MUSIC. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criteria A7 as a non-notable band. Rorshacma (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably a speedy, and there is no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 26 March 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Little

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

Artist of dubious notability. At first glance, this looks to be a reasonable article, but upon investigation the sources given refer to associates of the article subject and do not indicate that WP:N is met. A Google search revealed the usual primary sources, but I was unable to find anything that points to this artist meeting the guidleines set out at WP:MUSIC. There were zero GNews hits for "Kirk Little". --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources don't even mention him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources are not about him, hence they fail to establish any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable band spam. also i suspect WP:AB since article's original author Kirklandmusic80 has only made articles about this musician and about a band he performed in. that the article about the music and career of Kirk Little (born:1980) was created by a user with that name (KIRK L and music 80) fails the autobiography smell-test.Cramyourspam (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 26 March 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 speedily deleted per A7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. QU ^TalkQu 19:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eatmewhileimhot!

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

Not notable. One EP that didn't chart, online releases only. Does not meet WP:MUSIC QU ^TalkQu 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band is not notable and I cannot find it to be important. Yash t 101:) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GreySpark Partners

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

Article was nominated for speedy deletion, and nomination was removed by SPA AnonIP editor. I have searched for any reliable source coverage to establish notability and have been unsuccessful. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability; All references are the company's own website and press releases. Iglooflame (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in the article (refs to company's own site, Linkedin, and a PR release about a previous company); there are a couple of slightly better refs available: on their formation, on their opening another office but these are routine financial news items falling short of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam and I have tagged for G11. Safiel (talk) 03:39, 24 March 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 Les Visiteurs. —SW— ^converse 22:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Godefroy de Montmirail

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

This article has been unreferenced for more than five years and is about a fictional character. No content that isn't already repeated in the articles about the films, and no likelihood that this will ever need to be longer than it is now. eldamorie (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this brought to the attention of AfD? A simple uncontroversial merge and redirect to Les Visiteurs, leaving a merged-to note at Talk:Les Visiteurs, could have fixed the issue better than a deletion that should be the last resource. Diego (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Les Visiteurs -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 26 March 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 one refuted the nominator's rationale or Iglooflame's !vote. The perceived problem with this article was that it is an exact 100% duplication of content that already exists in another Wikipedia article. No prejudice against re-creating this article if significantly more information becomes available about it which doesn't already exist in NATO#Structures. —SW— ^confess 22:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main headquarters of NATO

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

This is a completely useless article that just contains duplicate information from lede in the "Structures" section of the NATO article. I redirected this article to the NATO one, but the creator reverted it, saying "A building with over 40 years of history should have more than two paragraphs about it." I then searched the address on Google and Yahoo and have not found any evidence that this building has had anything significant happened to it in its 40 year history (if that is really how old it is. I have not been able to find proof of that either) other than it being the main headquarters of NATO for it to merit its own article. Note that even if we were to redirect this article to the NATO one again, it remains intact, so if anyone is able to find any reliable information about this building in the future, they just have to simply undo the redirect and add whatever they found with sources. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total duplicate of NATO#Structures. No point in breaking it out into a new article until new information is added and WP:Notability is determined. Iglooflame (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NPLACE landmarks often survive AfD. So, I am not so sure it should be deleted. Needs place coordinates and a picture of the place. I am quite sure this article can be improved. If there is a standalone article about The Pentagon, then why not about the NATO headquarters? MakeSense64 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MakeSense64 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added three references from different reliable sources, more can be found with gnews search.

Reply: There is no proof that this building is even considered a "landmark", which usually has a name to it (like The Pentagon, Empire State Building, or Eiffel Tower). A building named "Main headquarters of NATO" should be an indication that it is not notable. Also, those sources you added do not even confirm its significance (one of them just says that it was formerly a military compound, which does not necessarily meet notability requirements, and does not even give its name) and since NATO plans to relocate in the near future, it is possible the building will be abandoned and demolished or used for insignificant purposes. I have not been able to find an image of it. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All true, but it just so happens that the bar is put rather low for buildings or 'venues'. If we keep articles for tennis venues like Spartak Tennis Club, which survived AfD years ago, then how will we make the case to delete the article about the NATO headquarters? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Consensus from AfDs are not permanent as we are allowed to renominate articles for deletion or recreate one that have been deleted after a certain amount of time. It seems to me that Spartak Tennis Club, whose article looks really sloppy and needs major editing, is considered "notable" because numerous professional tennis players have worked or trained there. It is also not affiliated with any major group or organization and the AfD was only borderline keep, so I would not be surprised if it gets renominated in the future. This NATO headquarters, though, is very different. I still have not found sufficient evidence that this building meets Notablity for places or what was its history before it became NATO headquarters. A structure that is considered a landmark would never use its address or something like "Main headquarters of NATO" as its name. It would be named in a certain way so that people could find it easily on a map because landmarks are usually open to the public. I highly doubt NATO would let people visit their main headquarters publicly and the odds of this article being expanded are slim to none because NATO would never release anything about their headquarters. Basically, what I am saying is that the big difference between your tennis club example and this building is that the club is public while the NATO headquarters is private. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable WP:NPLACE. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Barry James, "NATO unveils blueprint for its new headquarters", "The New York Times", 2003-01-24 ([15]) does seem to dedicate three one-sentence paragraphs to this building (and yes, looks like it was built in 1967, in a hurry, doesn't look nice and wasn't designed to last that long)... I wonder if that is close to significant coverage..? Still, there might be something in sources that were published during the construction, or in some Belgian newspapers... Also looks like there is an image of the building (File:OTAN bruxelles.JPG), but its quality isn't high... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough evidence of notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per WP:NPLACE, per User:MakeSense64. Expansion or rewriting is to be desired, but not required. Anarchangel (talk) 20:42, 29 March 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 Paritta. —SW— ^converse 22:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paritta Chanting

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

Appears to be a non-notable topic within Buddhism. Propose delete or merge into ~~Buddhism~~ Paritta. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's already covered in some detail at Paritta (which the article links to), so I think it could even be a Speedy A10. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 25 March 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 Closed as housekeeping after article speedy deleted as A7 (non-admin closure). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Windsor-Harris

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

I can find no mention in recent news of a major figure in sports-management called David Windsor-Harris. He does not seem to be a noteworthy person in Brtish sport. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is very odd. No sign of David W-H; nor of David H, nor David W. in association football. Could be a hoax, perhaps. Anyway, unsourced and apparently unsourceable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking hoax. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:59, 23 March 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coesia

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

Appears to be a non-notable corporation. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, and so tagged. The current text is unambiguous advertising and the lead section is also deliberately vague gibberish and charlatan's patter: a group of innovation-based industrial solutions companies operating globally. The article claims that this is some kind of conglomerate and some businesses within it may in fact be notable; it was formed around G.D, a legendary motorcycle company established in Bologna in 1923. But the notable business is not this name, and none of this text is acceptable. Note that the "Business Week" reference is in fact a directory. The other references are to a linkedln profile and an apparently deleted article on the Italian Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if not speedied first - Smerdis of Tlön makes a good case for it) No evidence of notability, promotional tone. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but not speedily - give the creators a chance to make a case. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am still waiting after three days. Give them another three days. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For sure the article's tone, and sourcing are terrible. This article indicates the company has rather large sales. I have a sneaking suspicion they may be notable, but am unable to find sources, perhaps because they are privately held. Or perhaps they are better known under specific operating names like Volpak. I'm not going to advocate deletion, but I cannot find sources that would support keeping the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 26 March 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. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 21:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association Soccer Europe

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

Non-notable sporting organization. Does not appear to have any significant coverage (nor does it's founder). No references. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find absolutely no coverage whatsoever. Not even in unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This might be a candidate for a speedy-delete. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - David Windsor-Harris can be verified to be involved in futsal based on articles such as this. I'm not sure if this would make the claim to be a governing body for five-a-side football to be a credible enough claim to notability to escape a speedy deletion. I tend to be very conservative in interpreting this and would just let this AFD run its course. - Whpq (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - G12 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shan's School of Music (Institute of Performing Arts)

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

Does not appear to be a very notable music school. No references. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of the school's Facebook page. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 23 March 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. In closing this AfD, I disregarded many of the comments made. I disregarded Smerdis' initial delete vote, because it only focused on the content being promotional, and his concern has been addressed somewhat after the vote was made. I also disregarded the SPA votes, for obvious reasons. After that, we have 1 keep and 1 delete vote, both from experienced editors, and both with valid arguments, although Cunard's analysis is more thorough and somewhat more convincing. However, my opinion is that this is not enough to declare a consensus to delete. At the very least, the author(s) of the article can/should use this discussion as a list of improvements that need to be made to the article. I would recommend that the article be renominated for deletion if the stated concerns with this article are not addressed in a reasonable amount of time (a few weeks, at a minimum). —SW— ^converse 15:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altoros

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

Another global software development company that provides big data expertise, focused software product engineering, and independent quality assurance to software companies and information-driven enterprises. The article is not backed up by reliable sources and reads as advertisement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been 80% rewritten (will be finalized in a couple of days), the advertising was removed, provided references that include non-technical media (such as National Radio and TV, etc.)--feel free to review once again or suggest any more changes. Thanks. The-verver (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - All you added is either blogs and local sources, either passing mentions or not about the company at all. And the article still reads like advertisement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dmitrij, what abstracts in the article would you suggest to change to make it sound more neutral, rather than advertising-like? Thank you. --The-verver (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You know, several times I attempted to rewrite it in neutral way without saving changes, as WP:V and WP:OR issues don't allow to write at least anything viable. If the issues of this article could be addressed without its deletion, I would just implement them without taking it to AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Dmitrij, I've significantly shortened the article, eliminating almost everything about services. Hope it's more neutral now. Instead, added more info about contributions to the community and educational initiatives. --The-verver (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Last week, the article was tagged that it is being re-written at the moment to introduce more references (trusted coverage) and eliminate advertising. The company is an active organizer of non-commercial events for developers (in Denmark, US, Belarus, Ukraine, etc.) It is the first organizer of CloudCamp in both Danmark and Belarus, an international unconference held globally to support developer communities, rather than promote any commercial services. In Belarus, the company organizes 80% of non-commercial local developer events, such as the first local hackathon, numerous user group meeting, as well as speaks at various developer events, etc. The company also launches open source initiatives, such as Apatar--acknowledged globally by LinuxWorld, InformationWeek, EbizQ, Network World, TMC, InfoWorld, ZDNet, etc etc etc. (You can find not only press releases, but also detailed articles containing analysis, comparison, etc.) There are numerous interviews with Renat Khasanshyn, the CEO of the company, taken by DMReview, InformationWeek, REDHerring, Robert Scoble (yes, it is), etc. The process of re-writing was started but not finished yet! Please be patient, it takes time to gather all the materials. Thank you, guys. The-verver - (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — The-verver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Please view global contributions instead.The-verver (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ORGIN on why neither of your arguments is in favor of keeping this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see my answer about WP:V and WP:CORPDEPTH below. --The-verver (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but your global contributions say nothing about the purpose of editing English Wikipedia, while the local contributions show that for years your edits were limited to this topic. BTW, you only had one edit on other Wikis before I tagged your vote with {{spa}}, though you made 68 on them since. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dmitrij, I've used to edit Wikipedia as an anonymous for at least a couple of years. Lots of typos, proof-reading, minor edits, etc. I had my password saved just on this sole computer. Couldn't even imagine that it matters so much, I'm in it not for a fame or statuses, it's a fun thing itself. Now I had a lesson learned and will be tracking all of changes to avoid such comments, however I admit that I'm more interested in contributing to local versions, it's true. There are so many things that have to be done there, ooh. =\ I'm sure you know that. --The-verver (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; It's quite popular company in Belarus ([16] and [17]) and gained popularity in other countries, there is a lot of links and mentions about Altoros (see <Альторос>, as well). Also, it regularly takes part in national and foreign IT conferences. There are a lot of people who mention this company in LinkedIn, Google+, Facebook, blogs, etc. Though I know this can't be considered as a trusted source, I think many people will be surprised that Wikipedia doesn't know anything about this company. Isn't it what Wikipedia was designed for (to find relevant and comprehensive information)? --Melnikaite (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Melnikaite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Nothing of that suggests worldwide notability as required per WP:NCORP. Furthermore, this doesn't demonstrate that this organization "have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A company of this ___domain can demonstrate effects only on some of the spheres mentioned above and Altoros successfully does this. It demonstrates effects on science (by participating in IT conferences as a speaker or expert, organizing technology communities both local and global), culture (by bringing international events to local communities (Cloudcamps, Hackatons)), education (by organizing free educational courses), economies (by supporting several start-up initiatives). -- Alexander Vergeichik (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Alexander.vergeichik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Are you sure you are talking about the effect, not about participation. What are its scientific accomplishments? What is its unique input in culture? Several local events? Another piece of software? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's about effect rather then simply participating. Few developers can afford going abroad to visit international conferences and Altoros brings the conferences, events, experts to people's native countries. Moreover, very few companies, if any, offer free of charge education opportunities, for many people that's really a chance to improve their life, and see an alternative world view. Allena.vasilenko (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Allena.vasilenko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        It's good that Altoros promotes itself not only with Wikipedia spam, but it still doesn't show the effect worth mentioning. Where is the UNESCO report on significance of educational opportunities provided by Altoros? Where is verifiable proof? In local media and blogs? If this company's efforts were not significant enough to be mentioned in a worldwide mainstream media, they are not worth mention on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Dmitrij, Herald Sun, InformationWeek, Associated Press's magazines, Interfax, RBC Information Systems, Robert Scoble, Network World, and others are definitely not "local media and blogs." Many of these source are about the company itself or are interviews with Altoros's CEO about the company. Please check the References section. --The-verver (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Brief mentions or articles about outsourcing with no mention of the company at all? Don't see the way they establish notability of this company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        ALL articles on outsourcing in the Reference section DO mention Altoros, please take a closer look. Articles that feature Altoros's subsidiaries (they should be better called departments, in reality) are not involved in outsourcing. There are NO articles in References that do not feature Altoros or its branches. --The-verver (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I see no sources satisfying both WP:V and WP:CORPDEPTH. May be you could name some? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Dmitrij, let's have a look at the policy. According to WP:V and WP:CORPDEPTH, "A company...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." An then, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." As for the sources, most of them can be considered as reliable and independent--in accordance with WP:SOURCES--and satisfy WP:VERIFY. They are independent of Altoros, they are global and not local, they belong to established media companies (such as Associated Press, Herald Sun, etc.). By no doubt they are reliable and independent. I've several times listed some of them in this discussion already. All you are trying to say is that they just "mention" Altoros, which is a) obviously not true and b) Wikipedia's policy has a written rule for situations like this. See: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The article about Altoros satisfies this rule, since multiple reliable independent sources are provided. Furthermore, in the policy there is no such term as "mentions;" the policy says that the mentions should not be a "trivial information." In WP:CORPDEPTH, you can see the list of what considered to be a trivial info: schedules, brief announcements, etc. The last line in the list is about "passing mentions," which you once cited, however in the references to publications at Mass High Tech Journal, Salon, and many others you can see that these articles describe how companies work with Altoros and what Altoros did for them. A "passing mention," according to WP:CORPDEPTH, are things like just mentioning the company in a title or small things like that. The publications I listed in this discussion earlier are definitely not the "passing mentions," since they either describe how companies work with Altoros ([18]), tell the history of how the company was founded ([19]), how it operates ([20], [21]), etc. All of these sources are definitely independent and represent Neutral Point of View (WP:NPV), and the information is not "trivial." Even if you personally think that the coverage is not significant in all of these articles (which is not true), the number of cited references that satisfy WP:V (see above) solves this problem--according to WP:CORPDEPTH. --The-verver (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I see no sources conforming to both WP:IRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. The examples in your comment fail the former. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Dmitrij, 1) please see the quotes from the Policy in the previous comment that explain why it is not obligatory and what should be done in case "the depth of coverage is not substantial;" 2) make sure you've checked my another comment below about the compliance with WP:MANYLINKS--this sole reason is enough to "demonstrate notability." --The-verver (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dmitrij, creating Java Community in Belarus from scratch is an effect, not participation. Launching CloudCamp in two countries and its ongoing organization later on is an effect, as well, not just participation. Launching free educational classes for Ruby on Rails developers in Eastern Europe is an effect, not participation. (I stress that I talk about classes, not just regular meetings, which are also organized by Altoros, BTW!) --The-verver (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if it indeed created Java community (which is evidently not true), there is no real impact behind this acclaimed creation of community unless nobody knew Java before Altoros started its activities. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Dmitrij, by saying Java Community I meant Java User Group in Belarus [22], of course. It's strange you don't know what User Group is. It would be silly to claim that someone rather than SUN Microsystems introduced Java to local developers. However, previously there were no strong-tied community for knowledge-sharing that would gather developers together on a regular basis to give educational presentations to each other, to attend presentations from SUN, Adobe, MySQL (now Oracle) representatives and talk to them in person, to drink beer in a large companionship after the sessions, to discuss the latest news/projects/etc.--the were no things like that prior to ByJUG have formed. --The-verver (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Who noted this accomplishment as significant cultural/education/humanitarian impact on humanity? References, please. If you claim the cultural impact, such impact also should be covered in depth in independent reliable sources. I think you largely underestimate the amount of impact on society the company is expected to impose in order to become notable. The very fact that no editor with noticeable edit history outside this topic voted keep in this discussion shows that this company is of subjective importance at best. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please see my reply above that feature examples and citations from the policy. --The-verver (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes rather odd that each my comment is replied to by a new user with no contribution background apart from Altoros article. Could please someone previously uninvolved give this situation a glance? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dmitrij, Alexander Vergeichik and Allena.vasilenko are my colleagues who had helped to create the article prior to you initiated this discussion. You can view the page's history to check this. That's why they both are aware of the situation. Although they have a right to participate in this discussion (see WP:GAFD, "The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else"), I kindly asked them not to participate in this thread after I saw their comments. As you can see, they didn't post anything since that. Though they act in WP:GOODFAITH and were extremely accused by some of your comments (e.g., calling their first contributions a "Wikipedia spam," etc.), they are still newbies and may not be aware of all policies and how Wikipedia discussions should be held. So I strongly agree that their comments can be discarded and not taken into consideration--even though they have a right to raise their voice, too, according to WP:GAFD#Discussion. --The-verver (talk) 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  - It's OK to defend the article you think deserves its living. Though all of you as the company's employees have a bias, that should be taken in consideration by others. And I indeed believe that even one's first contributions shouldn't be spam, which is the case with this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's why "I strongly agree that their comments can be discarded and not taken into consideration--even though they have a right to raise their voice, too, according to WP:GAFD#Discussion." --The-verver (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I've found one more conclusive reason for keeping the article. According to WP:MANYLINKS, "Even if an article does not appear to have sources making it notable, being linked directly from a significant number of other articles...shows that the information the article contains is valuable...Even the bare mention in other articles demonstrates notability. Deleting the page would then create red links in a lot of other articles," (i.e. Wikipedia articles). Later on, in WP:MANYLINKS, you can see that "it is best to name at least 3 articles that contain links to the page." Here's the proof that at least 3 articles in Wikipedia link to Altoros, which is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of WP:MANYLINKS and "demonstrate notability." For this reason, I'm also removing the WP:ORPH tag. Firstly, it can be placed only "if the article has ZERO incoming links;" and secondly, "three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable," which makes this article satisfy WP:ORPH, as well--along with notability. --The-verver (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep. Its apparent influence on the computing scene in Eastern Europe seems notable, and applying a touch of discretion here would help counter Wikipedia's systemic bias. Having said that, the actual article is a extreme example of reference-stuffing, and if it's kept it should undergo a severe pruning. —SMALLJIM 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the references you might know that its influence on the computing scene is limited to one country where it is dramatically exaggerated by the editors above. Any IT company with a borderline real world influence in ex-Soviet Union gets really massive coverage in mainstream media. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dmitrij, from the references you might know that its notability is NOT limited to one country, which is clearly proved by publications made in US, UK, Canada, Belarus, Russia, etc.--fell free to check the list more carefully. --The-verver (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Smalljim, thank you very much for the comment. I do appreciate that! --The-verver (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the first 11 sources in the article by Cunard (talk · contribs):

"ISellMobile launches free app"An article in the Mobile Magazine by Noble House Media, the famous UK publisher of mobile magazines, mentions contribution of Altoros to iSellMobile, a free app – the article is primarily about ISellMobile. As the article contributors note, Altoros is merely a mention:
The ISellMobile App has been developed for Noble House by Altoros Systems, a software and mobile application development company. Altoros UK MD Tristan Palmer said: 'We are very pleased with the application and particularly excited to be involved with Noble House and the ISellMobile concept. It is a truly useful and innovative mobile sales and communication tool as well as a challenging technical project.'

"When Offshoring Goes Bad", An article by Salon (a part of The Associated Press) about outsourcing, mentioning Altoros as an opposite to bad offshoring (2004) – Altoros is mentioned only once: "For his latest project, an online aggregator site called CompareWirelessPhones.com, he relied on Altoros, a Tampa, Fla., company with a development team in Russia."
"Оффшорное программирование - хлеб белорусских айтишников", CNews.ru, the largest IT news source in Russia (a part of RBC), describes the state of IT in Belarus mentioning the key players, including Altoros.(in Russian) – a review of the article reveals that it is about IT in Belarus and does not provide nontrivial coverage about Altoros.
"Young software exec moves to open source model" Mass High Tech, a business journal in New England, interviews the CEO of Altoros about the history of Altoros Systems and future plans. – the article is about Renat Khasanshyn and Apatar, not Altoros, which is mentioned three times:
1. "Renat Khasanshyn, founder of Chicopee-based PLM software maker and IT services provider Altoros Systems Inc., recently launched Apatar Inc., which develops software that moves data in and out of a variety of sources."
2. "The company employs seven workers and operates in the same Chicopee facility as Altoros, which Khasanshyn founded in Florida in 2002."
3. "Khasanshyn, a native of Belarus, Russia, emigrated to the United States in 2001 and became the CTO of PriMed Inc., a St. Petersburg, Fla.-based insurance company, before starting Altoros the following year."
The passing mentions only provide context about Khasanshyn and Apatar and do not establish notability.

"Над крупнейшим Ruby on Rails-проектом вместе с белорусами работает ведущий дизайнер Yahoo!", An article about a cooperation between Altoros and Hillman Curtis, a legendary Yahoo!'s Web designer, on the largest RoR project in Europe. (in Russian) – this is not a third-party reliable source. From Google Translate:
"If you're still interested, send your resume to cv@altoros.com. More information about vacancies - on page http://altoros.com/vacancy_belarus.html."

High-Tech R&D: Too Vital To Outsource?, Renat Khasanshyn, Altoros' CEO, speaks about R&D Outsourcing and the business model of his company in an E-commerce Times article, a resource of ECT News Network – Altoros is mentioned twice in this article:
1. Likewise, Altoros Systems, a global software development and consulting firm, has seen business increase dramatically since it set up U.S. offices in Tampa, Florida, and Chicopee, Massachusetts, said Renat Khasanshyn, director of North American operations for the company, which has headquarters in Minsk, Belarus. "The fact we're located in the United States became one of the reasons our current clients choose us," Khasanshyn told the E-Commerce Times. "From a client's perspective, it's very difficult to believe a company outside the States. The client is not assured, if something goes wrong. What should I do? Which court do I go to? It's very important for the client to have a service provider in the United States."
2. If cost is a development client's most important concern, then Altoros sends approximately 90 percent of the code-writing work to Minsk, Khasanshyn said, while doing just 10 percent on-site. If, on the other hand, time-to-market is the main concern, the developer may keep about 30 percent of the work inside the United States while turning over 70 percent to Minsk. "This way, we can achieve almost a 24-hour development cycle," he said.
It is mentioned only in the context of the subject of "outsourc[ing] IT activities related to R&D".

"Andrei Yurkevich Speaks About Cloud vs. Regular Hosting for Start-ups at the CloudCamp in Denmark"The presentation of Altoros's President held at the first CloudCamp in Denmark organized by Altoros – a videorecording of a speech made by Altoros' president is not secondary coverage and does not establish notability.
"$1000 за 24 часа: в Минске проходит хакатон hacby’11 web&mobile" A report from the first hackathon in Belarus, which was organized by Altoros (in Russian) – this somewhat promotional article is routine news coverage about a local event; there is little actual content that can be used to write a neutral article about Altoros.
"Это хакатон, детка!" Dev.by, the leading IT professional community in Belarus, posts a report about the first hackathon in Belarus organized by Altoros(in Russian) – there is no indication that this blog post has received the necessary editorial oversight to qualify as a reliable source.
Interview with Renat Khasanshyn, Jeremy Geelan, President & COO of Cloud Expo, Inc., asks Altoros' CEO to give an insight into data integration at the 5th International AJAXWorld Conference – an interview does not qualify as secondary coverage.
"Panel says offshoring good overall" (WebCite) An article published in The Herald-Sun about a panel that featured Altoros, IBM, and Duke University (18-12-2004) – Altoros is not mentioned in the text of the article, though a member of the company appears in the image (see the nametag).

I have stopped after reviewing the 11th source (there are 35 in total) because they look no more promising. The high quantity and low quality of the sources indicates Wikipedia:Bombardment has occurred:

Bombardment is the placement of a large number of references in an article in hopes that this will prevent it from ever getting deleted.

The company, as demonstrated by nominator Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, does not pass Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (companies). I thank Czarkoff (talk · contribs) for his patience in explaining why the company is not notable and the sources insufficient to the article contributors. In his reply to Smalljim (talk · contribs), Czarkoff (talk · contribs) wrote:

From the references you might know that its influence on the computing scene is limited to one country where it is dramatically exaggerated by the editors above. Any IT company with a borderline real world influence in ex-Soviet Union gets really massive coverage in mainstream media. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a reasonable statement with which I agree.

Owing to lack of time, my participation in this AfD will be confined to this post.

Delete. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cunard, thank you for taking your time and browsing through at least several sources. =) I'll comment on your thoughts in a couple of hours, I need to go to work now. I completely agree with you that many of the links may be deleted--and they will be after this discussion will have ended. As for the number of links, I've quoted an abstract from WP:CORPDEPTH#Primary_criteria: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Initially there were just 10 links, which is more than sufficient, in my opinion. As for the rest, please make sure you are familiar with WP:MANYLINKS: "Even if an article does not appear to have sources making it notable, being linked directly from a significant number of other articles...shows that the information the article contains is valuable...Even the bare mention in other articles demonstrates notability. Deleting the page would then create red links in a lot of other articles"--i.e. Wikipedia articles--"it is best to name at least 3 articles that contain links to the page." Here's the proof that at least 3 articles in Wikipedia link to Altoros--this reason alone is sufficient to "demonstrate notability," according to WP:MANYLINKS. --The-verver (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately nobody agrees with this essay, and specifically in parts like this, which contradict the policy. I'll take care of unlinking this company or removing its mentions when necessary after the closure of this AfD. As everybody can see, this won't hurt Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dmitrij, I'm afraid removing information, such as Altoros is a founder of Apatar and other things like that, may be considered as WP:VAN. Appropriate treatments are specified for that in Wikipedia's policy. Along with WP:BITE that you demonstrate through this topic. --The-verver (talk) 14:43, 2 April 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. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Malta

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

delete and merge back to list of businesses in malta.

Ws just a list of non notable hotels and spamlinks, pared down to bluelinked pages, 2 remain, no need for separate article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to me that you failed to do any due diligence on this list. The hotel that was mentioned at the very top of the list before you removed it gets lots of press coverage and is apparently owned by a significant Malta-based hospitality company. Don't presume that an article failing to exist means it is not notable. Some subjects just don't get as much attention from editors. I sincerely doubt that there are not more notable hotels in a major tourist destination populated by hundreds of thousands of people. The list having hotels without articles may actually compel people to look into those hotels and create articles about the notable ones.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:BEFORE for removing an item from the list. If someone wants to put it on the list, they should either make an article about it, or at least add some refs on the list. having lists with hundreds of items on them, where no proof or assertion of notability is required is a good policy to have a bunch of spam lists. WP:V WP:RS WP:N. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:N explicitly state that it only requires there be sources available. Claiming WP:BEFORE doesn't apply to the removal of content within an article would only be credible if you weren't citing the removed content in your argument for deleting the article altogether. Found another hotel called Xara Palace that appears to be highly notable and was removed on the basis of there not being an article about it. I have a feeling there are yet more hotels included in the list that were notable and would probably merit their own articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the person adding content to an article to source it. once removed, if the article is empty, then afd applies. The before is not trans-substantiated. If they are notable and you want to do the research, kudos to you. (However, if you are going to call me out, rather than just saying ones you find that are notable, might also be fair to show how many were not...)Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the instructions at AfD are pretty explicit. You should try to find sources for the article and try to improve it before nominating it for deletion. Obviously no effort was made on your part to do either of these things. There is no "creator's obligation" absolving you of not doing your own due diligence before nominating an article. I have identified at least two hotels that were removed on the basis of them not being notable, based solely on them not having articles, and can say plainly that they are notable. Do I have to find even more before you will be convinced that this should be kept and improved, rather than deleted?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing about BEFORE and AFD. My point is that there is no BEFORE to remove unsourced material from an article. And once an article is empty, and AFD is appropriate. In fact I probably could have just immediately redirected the article over, but was trying to give some opportunity to the community. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it, there is also a Ta'Cenc hotel that gets some significant international coverage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perfectly valid list article. The nom seems to be under the false impression that all items in list articles must be blue links to other articles. Completely false. Per WP:STANDALONELISTS, one of the criteria of lists is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". In this case, there are at least a couple of items that do pass notability criteria.
Also, it's hard to assume good faith when the nom removes over 4,600 bytes of list content so there are only two items left just before nominating this list article for AfD [23] and then goes on to claim in AfD above the article is "empty." I have restored the article to proper pre-AfD conditions. --Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 19 March 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 07:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid list and part of a bigger scheme. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list, just needs to be cleaned up. James1011R (talk, contribs) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As of this post, the article has been significantly cleaned-up. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 25 March 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. —SW— ^confabulate 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Kazemi

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

Journalist biography showing only trivial mentions in reliable sources, created by account who appears to be the article's subject. (Please note that this is different individual than Sayd Mustafa Kazemi, Afghan Minister of Commerce.) Khazar2 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per talkpage discussions - there is just not a decent amount of independent coverage of this person - as a journalist - no awards in his chosen field. - Youreallycan 06:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 23 March 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. Note: article was moved during the AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Carson Park (Escondido, California)

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

This is about a public park in Escondido - so it's not something I've seen pop up in AFD before. (I could have missed previous discussions, but I digress.) While civic pride in a local landmark is a good thing, we need to see why this park is notable - which I'm not seeing in here. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a large notable park with all kinds of different facilities in it, and it makes the news a lot. I have added half a dozen references to the article and more could be added. ~~My one thought about this article is that there should not be a separate article for its sculpture garden, Queen Califias Magic Circle; I would like to see that article merged into this one.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion about the sculpture garden, based on comments here and on noticing that the sculpture garden has been the subject of ongoing reportage, not just news stories when it opened. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge (not delete) to Escondido, California. This is not a neighborhood pocket park, but a 285-acre regional park with a wide variety of amenities including a notable sculpture garden. It gets more than 6,000 hits at GNews and is described as "the city's recreation hub"[24]. So, at minimum, a chunk of this content is worthy of inclusion at the main city article, where the mention of the park currently mentions only the sculpture garden. Given all those sources, the question may eventually arise whether there is enough content to justify a spinoff article. (With regard to Melanie's comment, I'm inclined to think the sculpture garden is notable on its own as a major work of a notable artist, but that doesn't mean it has to have a separate article.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator please note: since being nominated, the article has been moved from Kit Carson Park (Escondido, California) to Kit Carson Park. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a correct application of Wikiprocedure, but for clarity and for any further searchers, perhaps I should mention here that there's also a well-known Kit Carson Park (formerly a state park, and incorporating a historic cemetery where the real Kit Carson is buried) in Taos, New Mexico.[25][26] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article can be moved after an article is created on the other Kit Carson Park. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments from Arxiloxos (above) and EdWitt (below), I would favor returning the article to its original title. Just because there aren't currently Wikipedia articles about the other Kit Carson Parks, doesn't remove the need for clarifying which Kit Carson Park this article is about IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course I would say that as I wrote the original article. It is an important park in San Diego. For example, during the 2007 wildfires the command post was set up in Kit Carson Park, it's that important. By the way, the reason I named the article Kit Carson Park (Escondido, California) versus simply Kit Carson Park was because a wiki search of Kit Carson Park yielded six or seven other parks with the same name in different states. WRT the scupture garden in the park (Queen Califias Magic Circle), that's Niki de Saint Phalle's magnum opus. If you want to take that article down, then you should also remove all the articles for her other works, as well as her bio. EdWitt (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed, this discussion is not about Ms. de Saint Phalle's article or her works, it is about Kit Carson Park. Also, WP:ALLORNOTHING - it's about the individual merit of the park, not the merit of the park because of being used as a command post for wildfires. We need have some reliable and verifiable information on why this park is notable by our standards. That's what we are seeking for every article on Wikipedia. The best advice I can give is this: don't spend time arguing your points, spend time fixing the article. Change our minds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Appologies Tiger, I wasn't familiar with the protocol on these matters. EdWitt (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dennis, have you LOOKED at the article lately? I have been doing exactly what you urge EdWitt to do - adding references with significant coverage from reliable sources. The article now has a dozen references from multiple sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have not, Melanie. But since you mention it, there is quite a bit of work done on it that fixes the issues at hand. Come to think of it, you mentioned it earlier in the discussion. =^_^= Anyone opposed to a withdrawal? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe we should resolve the issue of what to call it first? --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Given this, and the discussion herein, I'm all for keeping the current article name that it's been moved to. I figure that, if other identically named parks come about to being so notable, well, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm OK with that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to meet WP:GNG, is large (285 acre) park with notable attractions (and noted in guidebooks), not out of place in the coverage we have created in Category:Municipal parks in California (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverado Park, Long Beach, California). Small neigborhood parks are usually deleted, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Hearing Park (Hearing Park), but this isn't one of those.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; Wow! Although I have not thoroughly reviewed each and every entry there are over 5K mentions of the subject of this AfD in news articles, and over 600 mentions of the subject in books. Now I don't know if any of these are singularly "significant" however per WP:GNG: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." With these multiple mentions one could argue (and this is my opinion about this particular subject) that all these mentions can add up to significant coverage required by GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 25 March 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} 04:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red and Black Cafe

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

It seems like this company is notable for only one event, kicking a cop out. While WP:BLP1E is policy, we don't have an analogous policy for WP:CORP1E, but the same principle applies.

And, yes, I am the man oppressing the masses. Toddst1 (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You do note that BLP-1E relates to BLP's, not to business entities. I suppose this becomes a (somewhat ironic) case of an IAR nomination vs. a source-counting defense... Which I shall do: this company is the subject of multiple, independent, substantial pieces of coverage in reliable sources and therefore passes GNG. There is no policy-based "One Event" basis for a business challenge such as this... Carrite (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But would the articles on this really be considered extensive coverage? I see a few very brief articles about the event (along with a video and two longer articles) as well as a primary link and a link to a notice that the place is unionized. I don't know that this counts as in-depth and extensive coverage, to be honest. I'll see what I can find, but this is sort of bare bones here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 articles are later and about something else:

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2011/01/27/red-and-black-cafe-aims-for-takeover

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-26312-red_and_black_cafe_aims_to_buy_a_building%E2%80%94.html "...with the Red and Black’s anarchist reputation..."

There's also this: General piece about the unique management structure at the Red & Black http://kboo.fm/node/33058 Interview about the monthly Music For the Working Class event held at the Red & Black. http://kboo.fm/node/32836 Jlanglang (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable references are reliable references. As Carrite pointed out, BLP1E does not apply to cafes or other things that aren't living people. Personal opinion about the importance of a place or events related to it do not trump a preponderance of sources. That's what WP:V is all about. Steven Walling • talk 21:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CORP1E is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. There's significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject, so this passes WP:GNG. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 07:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike most food and drink articles up for deletion, this article reveals a greater issue involving a collectively owned business that revolves an issue utilizing their voice of free speech and collective agreements. Considering the decision was weighted very greatly towards a radical opinion, the article is written in a neutral tone, compiling with the language/opinion requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.65.45 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable restaurant/cafe in a busy Portland area has several Google News hits, along with the sources given which are sufficient to meet notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Borcich

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

Autobiographical article by/about young filmmaker. While his list of works looks okay at first glance, all his films are shorts, all his awards appear to be for contests limited to children, and the article contains no references to independent secondary sources (not even IMDb). Does not appear to meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are SPS or unreliable or trivial. I'm afraid when you haven't even made IMDB yet, you haven't made it yet.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, While the young filmmaker exists, he has not yet achieved notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:34, 28 March 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} 04:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sivakarthikeyan

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

Notability and the Article resembles a fan site. Pearll's Sun^TALK 04:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this cause this page doesn't resemble and article but looks like a fan site, the person for who the page has been created fails notability, he has acted in a movie and is a television anchor, the page is being filled with the shows he has taken part and sure that list is going to increase. Moreover most parts in the article comes from his fan site and from nowhere else. So this person fails Notability. Pearll's Sun^TALK 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable actor. There are secondary sources in the article. I have added two more. Please do a Google search before you nominate for AfD --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I've got nothing personal against him but highly notable? i doubt that. yes i did Google, we cant add everything from Google, I still strongly think that the article resembles a fan site and not a wiki kind. I did thought about editing before bringing to AfD, but that leaves the article with nothing except the header. Pearll's Sun^TALK 05:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to understand what you mean by "article resembles a fan site". The article is written in a completely neutral point of view. If the list of movies and TV shows is what catches you eyes, it is present is almost every actor's page, even in GAs and FAs. Four articles in National newspapers exclusively about him - what else do you think is needed for notability? --Anbu121 (talk me) 07:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find neutrality in this article, it does resemble a fan site otherwise i wouldn't have brought it to the AfD. Pearll's Sun^TALK 16:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain which part of the article you find not neutral. By the way, neutrality is not a valid reason for bringing it to AfD. --Anbu121 (talk me) 02:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the above, I'm sure it gives the answer.I standby it. Pearll's Sun^TALK 02:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

- Well, most of the articles tone resembles a fan site and not a wikipedia type. it seems that you are interested in the article, if the article is improved then im sure this entry can be withdraw from the AFD. Pearll's Sun^TALK 08:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am unable to read the Tamil language sources,[27] but through use of Google translate in addition to the available English language sources, indicate a meeting of WP:GNG and thus WP:PEOPLE.[28][29] Article's tone and sourcing is addressable and the article improvable. Kudos to User:Anbu121. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your vote. There were tags on this article since last year and only attempt to remove tags took place but no improvements happened. Glad to hear that the article meets the WP:GNG. If someone improves the article and its tone then sure im happy about it. Pearll's Sun^TALK 08:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A highly notabable. I'm sure his next film 3 (film), will outreach his notability. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a Highly notable, honored actor, With Four Films on breakthrough through whole 2013. He's got great talent and is a good inspiration. The Wiki about him is totally neutral. Fan sites and Wiki has the same information because it is the real information on him. Just because there is same information on the actor, we can't provide fake information so Wiki seems apart from Fan sites. And also this Wiki about him does not look like a Fan site to me in any manner. To me, it looks like a useful source of Information on the Actor, Siva karthikeyan.-- User:Lina Trinity TALK 04.00, 16 April 2014.

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting the notability standards, and no signifcant changes from the previously deleted and salted article; in fact, this one appears to have exactly the same content...merely less of it. Resalted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood on the Dance Floor (group)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band)

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

Not a notable band. They are unsigned. Emptyviewers (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case it's of interest/relevance, a previous article on this group was deleted after an AfD in May 2010 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band)). --Several Pending (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems that the fan club just cannot take a hint here, this "band" is a straight-forward notability fail; no reliable sources, no major tours, alum releases on major labels or known indie ones, none of the WP:N or WP:BAND criteria is met. If an admin could compare the deleted Blood on the dance floor (band) to the current article, perhaps we can just speedy G4 this and get it over with. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 only applies to articles previously deleted at AfD, not to those deleted under CSD or PROD. This article doesn't qualify. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does an article qualify when the deleting admin says, "Deleted and salted per discussion. Someone please close this AFD; I can never remember how to do it"?[30] --Several Pending (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Malik, it was deleted under a different name format, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band). Tarc (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Was previously deleted after AfD, and then recreated, but same problems still exist. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per being a god-awful boy band popular among 12 year old girls that will die out in about 2 years. This group certainly does not need an article as they won't even matter soon enough along with many other reasons such as the fact that they are unsigned (and won't ever be due to the group's constant statements such as "fuck labels, we're doing this on our own") and have never released a charting a album or attained much media coverage bigger than just a few columns or adds in national magazines. • GunMetal Angel 04:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being "god-awful" is not a reason for deletion. And being popular with 12 year old girls is more an argument for notability and keeping the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that was the reason for the deletion. Maybe you should read the rest of that attestment. I specifically aimed for the fact that they're not signed to an actual label, never will be and barely have a charting label and will die out in less than 2 years nonetheless. • GunMetal Angel 00:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. References say label of "Candyland Records". This may be their own, but no worse than many bands on Wikipedia. this cite also suggest some minor chart success. The article is certainly poor and needs an overhaul to make it less of a fan page, but it looks to me that notability could be established. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with both of those arguments. #1 is a straight-up WP:OTHERSTUFF case for "Candyland Records", a garish website that lists all of one artist, and not this one. If other band articles are resting their notability solely on similar barely-existent record labels then drop me a note on my talk page with a list so we can evaluate. Second, the charts argument is a better shot, but IMO just getting on the sub-lists like Heatseekers isn't really meeting the spirit of WP:BAND #x. If there were other criteria of that guide they were close to meeting, maybe this would tip the scales, but there's nothing else out there. I would not call to keep a band article on just a minor chart appearance. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsigned does not mean non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.32 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would hardly call this trivial coverage http://www.altpress.com/features/entry/blood_on_the_dance_floor_interview_2012 143.92.1.32 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned actually does play a big part in meeting the requirements for notability on Wikipedia for music articles. Also, one Alternative Press story does not take in notability. Here's an Alternative Press news story for the band Upon a Burning Body headlining Mayhem Fest yet notice how they have no article due to not meeting the requirements of notability for Wikipedia. • GunMetal Angel 00:59, 30 March 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 article was deleted by User:RHaworth, under the rationale: "A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIM Rally challenges

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

An empty list which can't easily be expanded since we have no articles on Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme rallies. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total non-list. We've had 3 years to build this up and no one's touched it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a speedy category for this in your bag of tricks? Drmies (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could be an A1 since the only "content" is redlinks to other articles, with no real text to speak of other than the dreaded "this is a list". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm afraid someone will thrown the Legal Code for Nitpickers at me if I do that. After all, it has two sentences in the first section... Drmies (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I meant A3. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 March 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 Huntington Beach, California#Education. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Lutheran School

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

K-8 school with 300 school (a typical number) and nothing apparently unusual about it. Normally pre-high school schools aren't considered notable, and this is no exception D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this school is notable, and it's not a high school. It's a private school, so there's no school system article to merge it into. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Huntington Beach, California#Education where it is already appropriately mentioned in its community article; merge probably unnecessary. Dru of Id (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Dru of Id. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 23 March 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. —SW— ^verbalize 21:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo Savard

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

All of the sources are from non-reliable sources, most of them are clearly by the same person, (and I've already removed some of the article for being clear cut and paste). This person dosen't appear to be notable as covered by valid sources. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep I can't speak for the content issues (I created this as a tiny stub), but the MacLean's article archived at the Canadian Encyclopedia is certainly a reliable source. Articles about notables who a) where not world-famous and b) came to their most notable before the Internet Era are fatally going to be harder to source. I suspect a search in a good Newspaper database (e.g. eureka.cc) will be required to push this article to an acceptable level. Circéus (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently an indulgent, promotional trainwreck, but the subject is notable. In addition to the Canadian Encyclopedia entry, a quick G-search showed several newspaper and magazine articles about her (most in French). Sasata (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative Keep~~. As pointed out, the article needs work -- a lot of it. It's not quite as easy for me as it was for Sasata to find these newspaper and magazine articles, but the subject does seem to have a rather strong presence on the internet, so they could be out there. As it seems to me that Circéus is the author of the article, maybe they could attempt to improve the article with better refs? OldGeorgie (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Blocked as a sock puppet of WizardlyWho. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work per above, but in addition to the considerable coverage in Canadian news over several years I have found some indication of coverage in the United States from the Boston Globe, to note one source. Problem appears to be that the coverage is mostly from the 90's and often behind paywalls.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Savard peak of fame predates the widespread use of the internet. The sourcing is behind pay walls but clearly exists as seen by these examples: [31], [32], [33], [34]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- This is going to get kept anyways (ignoring the sock, there are four keep votes and none for deletion), but I'm going to let it run the full course in the vain hope that someone will fix this mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. There might be some copyright issues here. This article was recently "spammed up" by User:People deserve the truth (a username that sets off alarms) and some of his text looks like close paraphrasing from her website. However, reverting to a previous version leaves us with an unsourced BLP. This needs to be looked over by someone who's a better editor then I am. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be rewritten. I suspect, based on his writings, that Alastair Lennox is a PR worker in JoJo's employ, and this is a case of reliable source farming (think license farming, and you get the idea). Leaving it as is would be tantamount to letting Lennox just write the article entirely, without sources. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reverted to a prior neutrally worded version of the article for the main body text. There sourcing is also rather suspect with almost all the sources coming from sites which allow people to post up articles. Citizen journalism is fine, but I saw no evidence of any sort of editorial oversight or selection. I will also look at adding some proper sourcing to address the issue of it lacking proper sourcing for a biography of a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note - sourcing has been added to the article referencing The Canadian Encycopedia, and some newspaper articles. The news articles are behind pay walls but I have added the relevant quote to the citation. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 23 March 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 redirect, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Springs Middle School

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

Contested PROD. Concern: Non-notable middle school. Eeekster (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County per WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County. No evidence of any notability. -- Donald Albury 11:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 - suffciently close paraphrase of http://danschawbel.com/ —SW— ^communicate 21:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schawbel

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

Non-notable person; article written by "shwibbs" who IS Dan Schawbel: http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/shwibbs Eater (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While not a fan of new economy gurus, I have to say that several of the refs in the article indicate that he is notable in his field. The article itself needs NPOV work (not least to weed out all the "prestigious" and "bestselling" stuff) but that's for normal editing. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's text as it currently stands is almost identical to the biography on Dan's personal page http://danschawbel.com/ and Facebook page, typos and all. Looks like spam to me. Could be kept if rewritten. Eater
Delete Probably notable enough but I see no other option than burning the whole thing and starting over. This could easily be deleted as spam or as a copyright violation of http://danschawbel.com/. Add to those issues the blatant COI and I don't think it makes sense to use the current article as a basis. Pichpich (talk) 20:57, 29 March 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} 04:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Barritt

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

Delete Minimal coverage outside of self published sources. Small body of work. "The book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." No major literally award, no significant cult following. Seems fairly straight forward. -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 17 March 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) 00:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 24 March 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. Post-deletion redirect created to Mercury (programming language) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Somogyi

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. yes he has co authored articles but nothing remarkable to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 17 March 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) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably quite good at what he does and the Mercury programming language does look interesting... but does not meet the WP:PROF notability guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete notability not established. --Kvng (talk) 01:05, 26 March 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} 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Rabbit Gallery

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

Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. There has been very infrequent mention of the subject in Sydney newspapers and art related literature with almost no mention outside Sydney. Interestingly, the article includes the navbox {{Sydney landmarks}}, which doesn't mention this gallery. AussieLegend (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The sources cited merely mention the gallery in passing but do not constitute significant coverage. Terence7 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited are articles about this gallery - far from passing mentions. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claim of no significant coverage is contradicted by a search of sources. The article already cites two articles in which the gallery is the focus. Here is another one at CNN[35] and one at China Daily.[36]. Here's a recent piece in The Australian that describes it as an "astonishing amount of contemporary Chinese art -- it's thought to be one of the world's largest and most significant collections." [37] The gallery website has a long list of other potential sources.[38] forgot to sign, sorry--Arxiloxos (talk), posted at 00:12, 17 March 2012, signed at 07:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 18 March 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) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Arxiloxos has done enough to show notability. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos, who has shown that the gallery passes WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 01:59, 27 March 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} 04:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Campbell

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

The subject of this article does not appear to be notable as defined at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only primary sources are currently cited in the article (the IMDB article appears to be self-submitted and in any case is effectively empty). I did not find anything better available, just press releases. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 March 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) 00:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Ignoring the puffery of the article... which might otherwise have been addressable... we have almost no verifiability and no sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 28 March 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.