Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 October	27 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Critical thinking. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reflection

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

Disputed prod. Quite simply, a large lump of original research. … Sgroupace (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on critical thinking. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect or smerge) as violating WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Taylor Gallery

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

Non-notable company operated by a non-notable art dealer. While it is referenced it is not a topic of an cyclopaedic nature. It is essentially spam masquerading as a genuine article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This gallery has clearly mounted exhibitions by a wide range of well-known artists (see for example [1]). That begs the question of whether WP:NOTINHERITED applies, which in the case of a gallery maybe amounts to whether it is a passive space where things happen or an active place which makes things happen? In this case, I think the Laura Cumming piece (referenced) in The Observer tips the balance towards notability. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is that enough? There are 73,000 ghits. Is that low for a company? I would say yes. And I also say that the bar is set far too low for notability of companies. Need to try and stem the flow of spam by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep - I just don't think there is enough there to justify a "pass" against WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage for which there are links are for articles that mention the gallery in passing. One lists the gallery as the place of employment for a particular manager who herself isn't the focus of the article. Another mentions the gallery building in an article about the architects. Neither is really enough to be considered "significant coverage" of the company itself. Would be happy to consider anything anyone considers would allow the subject to meet the criteria but I'm not seeing it at the moment. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable gallery, their exhibitions are frequently reviewed by important British newspapers, such as The Independent, Evening Standard, Telegraph etc. [2] Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, but the problem with most of those "sources" is that they aren't about the subject - they are about exhibitions on display at the subject gallery. The "reviews" (for the most part) say nothing about the gallery other than a passing mention (in some cases, just an address and phone number) about the exhibition being there. A small independent supermarket doesn't inherit notability from the Coca Cola stocks on its shelves and a farmer isn't notable because he has chosen to buy his tractors from John Deer. In the same way, a gallery wouldn't (in my opinion) inherit notability from the artists whose art they exhibit. An article about an artist talking about the gallery would be a different story - "I chose the [subject] Gallery because...". Take street art for example - having a Banksy print on a particular wall does not make that wall or that street notable. Coverage of the artwork does not make the street notable, unless it is (for example) focussed on how that particular street has become a "magnet" for street art and the coverage is also about the street itself. Otherwise, the coverage just serves to makes the artist and the artwork notable. We need to find sources that give coverage of the gallery itself. Am happy to accept that such sources might exist but I haven't been able to find any and no-one else has provided anything that would seem to fit the bill. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparison with Coca Cola and John Deer tractors is a bit exaggerated. We are talking about a gallery representing artists such as Julian Schnabel and exhibiting big names such as Diane Arbus. The exhibitions of this gallery are regularly reviewed by important newspapers, it is mentioned in thousands of books [3]. An article (The Independent, 2003) about the gallery and its owner calls it ... one of the biggest commercial art galleries in London .. (HighBeam subscription required), another substantial article by Women's Wear Daily is exclusively about the gallery (HighBeam subscription required). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't trying to mount a straw man argument - was just trying to better explain my application of WP:INHERIT in this particular context. As I said above - I'd be keen to consider anything anyone suggests might allow the subject to meet notability criteria. While I don't have a highbeam account, on the surface the references you've given above would seem (based on your analysis) to better fit the bill and would be more like what we're looking for - substantive stuff rather than passing mentions. Because even "thousands" of passing mentions aren't as valuable as a few great sources. We need for the gallery to have received the coverage, not the artists. Stalwart111 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both the sources discuss the gallery and its owner, or more precisely, moving the gallery to 24 Dering Street in 2003. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, yeah, they would be getting closer to what we need. I'm still not necessarily convinced that two articles that discuss a relocation would be substantive enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (that would seem more "WP:ROUTINE" to me, though that guideline is for events). But the combination of those (having assumed in good faith that they say what you say they say) and passing mentions in coverage of related exhibitions (despite my contentions about WP:INHERIT) and some of the general claims of notability which seemed to be backed by the available sources (like the suggestion it is "one of the biggest commercial art galleries in London") is enough to convince me it probably passes. I have changed my "vote" above on that basis. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Abbott

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

A writer who fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. There just isn’t any WP:RS to indicate notability. A “hang-on” comment appeared six years ago [4], and we've been waiting 72 months now for the non-existent sources to be provided. His self-published, non-notable book is concurrently up for deletion as well [5]. There is a COI report here [6] on both of these promotional articles. Both articles have also seen dramatic sock involvement [7], so I would caution all commentators--as well as the closing admin--to look very, very carefully at any accounts making Keep arguments. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promo spam sockfarm involved here WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunzil with likely conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wickedictionary_and_Derek_Abbott. See also AFD for vanity publication Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wickedictionary. — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please see also deletion discussion at Wikiquote, q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott (2nd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject seems to pass WP:PROF. Whether there has been sock involvement is irrelevant to that. The discussion at Wikiquote is irrelevant, as the issue there is mainly the quotability of his quotes.--Collingwood (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Subject fails WP:NOTE, fails test of significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unclear what point is being made. If he passes WP:PROF, there is no need to prove notability under other heads. He passes on two grounds. He is a full professor (in the British sense) so must hold either an established chair or a personal chair. He "has been an author of highly cited academic work"; his paper "A review of 3-D packaging technology" has 230 citations.--Collingwood (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is the source confirming the first point? — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the article: Who's Who in South Australia, Ed. Suzannah Pearce, Publ: Crown Content Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia, 2007, p. 1, ISBN 978-1-74095-142-5; it is also confirmed by the University. No Australian university would use "Professor" in hte American sense.--Collingwood (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's have a better secondary source than "Who's Who", please. LOL. — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL!!! Always good to inject a bit of levity!--Collingwood (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by multiple secondary sources.--Hu12 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid argument. Since the subject passes WP:PROF, there should be a KEEP. Even if he fails other notability criteria, this would not be grounds for deletion.--Collingwood (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody passes WP:PROF or any other biographical guideline without multiple secondary sources. Is this your idea of such a source [8]? Go ahead, read it. He thinks very highly of himself. And according to all of the available sourcing, he's the only person in the world who does. Qworty (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read WP:PROF. "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." There is no indication that "multiple secondary sources" are needed to confirm that he is a professor. His entry in the University's official directory is surely enough.--Collingwood (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merely having an an unverified and unsubstantiated staff profile, which he himself wrote, doesn't confer notability.--Hu12 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you seriously suggesting that a staff profile on a university web site is not a reliable source for the position held by its subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed reasoning. He doesn't pass WP:PROF. Contrary to what is alleged above, there is no evidence whatsoever that he holds "a named chair appointment." Nor does WP:PROF mean that an academic is notable for having written ONE paper, as is absurdly argued above. Qworty (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument. Nobody has said that that is the only paper that Abbott has written and nobody has claimed that his writing of papers confers notability. It's the citations to his papers that are the independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is an IEEE Fellow and in so being passes WP:PROF#C3. With an h-index of 35 and seven papers with 100 or more citations in his Google scholar profile, he is also well above the usual threshold for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Keep. I do not agree with the claim above that Abbott passes WP:PROF criterion 5. That is for positions higher than that of full professor (and yes, I am aware of the differences in the way the word "professor" is used in different countries). However Abbott clearly gets through WP:PROF criterion 1 based on the thousands of citations to his work linked from here (click on the numbers in the "cited by" column to list them individually), the vast majority of which are independent reliable sources confirming the subject's impact in his academic discipline. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the actual source for the IEEE [9]. This "fellowship" is nothing more than a professional organization with thousands of members. This is hardly a source to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE fellowship (not membership) is, and has been for years, specifically listed in WP:PROF as satisfying notability guidelines. Please stop and consider whether your initial prejudice against this article may have been mistaken, rather than argue with every piece of evidence produced to support notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of us are Fellows of professional organizations. It is not easy to get, but does not make us encyclopedically worthy. I am a Fellow of two. Even highly cited papers do not by themselves establish notability. There are too many routine academics put in Wikipedia by themselves or adoring students while many actually notable ones are missing. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clear pass of WP:Prof#1 on citations [10]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Snowy pile-on keep, based on all the above keeps.John Z (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - being from Australia, I think I've actually heard of this fellow (pun?). But isn't he the same guy who was on the New Inventors with his fertility-controlling penis valve? And on ABC Radio making some strange claims about radiation? Also the same fellow who publishes lists of translated animal sounds? He might pass WP:GNG (for those media sources alone) but (and I'm being careful here because we're talking about a WP:BLP) isn't he basically "well known" as a fringe theorist or at least "alternate" science type? There's also this from the 2005 Australian Museum People's Choice Awards with some more rather strange stuff about mathematics and coin tossing. If we determine he does pass, I think we need to be seriously careful about how the article is written. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, wow. If this apparent pattern of eclectic interests is correct then the article would seem to somewhat selective in its coverage and short on neutral point of view. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:5P. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, ...". The creation of this article is so clearly a violation of the first pillar and should be blown away. ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by vanity spam to preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass of WP:PROF#3, which specifically states membership in IEEE counts. Faustus37 (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although he may meet some technical notability criteria, this seems to be the sort of vanityspamsock-infested article it's not worth the continued hassle of keeping. Sandstein 08:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Abbott is mentioned in detail in Taman Shud Case, but there's enough material for a separate biography article on him as well. The following appear to be about the topic, but Derek Abbott is a common name and some of the sources below may include other engineer Derek Abbotts. However, there seems to be enough source material for the topic per WP:GNG: Robots may soon be able to see as well as bees, Reuters, November 10, 1993 has good information from "Adelaide-based research engineer Derek Abbott." Sinocast May 25, 1998 "University of Adelaide electrical and electronic engineering department lecturer Derek Abbott said ..."; The Age January 5, 2000, New York Times January 25, 2000, Australasian Science March 1, 2001, New Scientist January 5, 2002, Dallas Morning News January 27, 2003, Aljazeera December 14, 2004, ABC Premium News December 14, 2004, Advertiser (Australia) July 19, 2005, Herald Sun July 3, 2007, Toronto Star January 20, 2008, Hindustan Times January 29, 2008, United News of India February 5, 2008, Daily Mail February 5, 2008, Sydney Morning Herald February 9, 2008, The Age June 19, 2008, Wales on Sunday September 28, 2008, Pharma Business Week July 27, 2009, Asian News International August 5, 2009, The Age April 12, 2010, Hindustan Times December 1, 2010, Birmingham Mail March 30, 2011, "Wreath for remembrance". Canberra Times. August 30, 2011. p. A12. A Scientist, Derek Abbott, has published a satirical dictionary to be updated via crowd sourcing. The Adelaide-based Abbott's tome features wry definitions for everyday concepts. He considers his creation an updated version of Ambrose Bierce's book The Devil's Dictionary and published it to mark the 100th anniversary of Bierce's work. Like The Devil's Dictionary, Abbott's book is an attempt at humorous and pointed descriptions of everyday terms and concepts. Unlike it, however, the dictionary draws from a variety of sources and will be updated regularly based on reader contributions. Definitions include "Creativity: n. "knowing how to hide your sources" (attributed to Albert Einstein), and Lloyd Irving's definition of morals: "excuses for not behaving badly"; Sunday Mail October 16, 2011, Sunday Mail November 20, 2011, States News Service March 5, 2012. I posted the links on the article talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:16, 3 November 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 Alcohol (novel). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaraj v.Thoppil

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this biography with the rationale "The article references are a variety of listings. No reliably-sourced evidence that this person has attained notability." The Prod was removed by the article creator (a WP:SPA) without comment. I am bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News US and India failed to provide additional sources. The only nearly reliable link is The Hindu article which only mentions him once. Additionally, the article would severely need a complete rewrite as it suffers from NPOV issues including "beautiful and place", "kind human being" and "highly talented". It is certainly possible additional sources may not be English but there isn't a native name to help widen the search. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UPANDCOMING, WP:HAMMER, and WP:CRYSTAL -- he's not yet notable. Also, there is no evidence of significant coverage in a reliable source. The title is written as if it were a court case, which could confuse the newbie. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it should probably be merged into Alcohol (novel) though it appears the book is not notable either. --Pink Bull 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive light sources

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

This is really not an encyclopædia article—it's a parts catalogue, in violation of WP:NOTCATALOG, and it's very difficult to imagine how it could be developed beyond being a glorified parts list. We have Automotive lighting and Headlamp and FMVSS 108 and UN Regulations amply covering the broad subject of automotive lighting and its regulation; I don't think we need to violate WP:NOT to have a bulb catalog on here. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would a redirect to Automotive lighting be acceptable? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I guess so, with a couple of caveats: First off, let's check and make sure such a redirect is actually warranted. This "article" looks to be something of an orphan; I'm not sure it would be missed if it were to go away. Also, Automotive lighting is a very high quality but enormously long article. I think adding the contents of this article to that article would make that article terribly overlong and dilute its quality, so I wouldn't want to see that. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I was not suggesting a merge, just a redirect. As for "make sure such a redirect is actually warranted," what kind of standard did you mean to apply (compare Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap)? SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Good point. Okeh, I'm in. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep This isn't a parts catalogue. The list is not of bulb models, but of their formats. H1, H3, H4 etc. are well known identifiers, but not well understood. These formats are standardized across manufacturers, but the details of what such mean are hidden away from most of our readership inside standards documents with big pricetags.

Maybe rename to List of automotive lamp formats or similar. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Um, no. They aren't "hidden away", and the standards are free for anyone to download; see here, here, here, and here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The standards may not appear "hidden away" to those in the industry who would already know what terms and standards to look for, but assuming the reader is well versed is not in keeping with WP:NOT PAPERS. The references are useful for readers who want to delve more deeply into the topic, but are not a substitute for the article.
Keep per the logical rationale posted directly above by User:Andy Dingley. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good for WP:LISTPURP. Faustus37 (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article summarizes the essentials of the contents of European (and somewhat global) automotive bulb standards. It doesn't go into details what comes e.g. to the exact physical dimensions mentioned in those standards. It is well referenced, but far from just a copy-paste of its references. Sometimes a table format representation is better than body text. I don't know if it follows some specific Wikipedia guideline to the letter, but I would say it follows Wikipedia's spirit. I think it is useful for many Wikipedia readers owning a car or doing basic maintaince of one. (BTW, thanks Scheinwerfermann for letting me know about this deletion debate on my talk page. It was very polite and kind. I haven't had much time to contribute to Wikipedia during the last years and it is easy to miss these kind of debates without e-mail alerts.) MattiPaavola (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tables with specifications should not be confused with a catalog. Coaxial power connector and Universal Serial Bus contain multiple tables that facilitate understanding of the different types and their uses.
Comment I would like to know why Scheinwerfermann is only now nominating the this AfD when he was aware of per edits as far back as June 2010, and only after recently changing the articles name from Automotive Lamp Types to a more vague title (thus moving the page) the day before nominating as well as altering the talk page so that his comments are given primary focus (at length) and prior ones including the originator's are minimized to archive though still pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.97.69 (talk) 13:14, 2 November 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. G6, routine maintenance. the p. has already been moved; I deleted the mainspace article DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSI Nikopol

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

Non notable film, no reliable sources found. Article appears to be self promotion by producer/director. NtheP (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/CSI Nikopol as this is a misplaced AfC draft submission. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator has been notified - I have requested for User:DGG to move the article without leaving a redirect, he should perform the move shortly. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ontic processor

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

No content. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and probably more than just this. I was about to question the wisdom of AFD tagging an article 5 minutes after deletion, but upon further examination, this appears to be part of a recently erected walled garden derived from the futurist writings of author Gia Giavelli -- and nothing else. In fact, this term has a staggering zero non-Wikipedia Google hits. I don't think any of the articles associated with her work pass notability guidelines, in fact (this one, Neural cube, Spider Arm Reactor), and suggest that all three can be bundled into this nomination. The biography itself may warrant separate consideration, but I'm also doubtful there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I spent some time researching Gia Giavelli today and I couldn't find anything which would justify enough notability for an article on Wikipedia. She appears to be an obscure author and an obscure business person. I feel confident that this is a vanity article now so I nominated the Gia Giavella article for deletion as well. Holyfield1998 (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's unsourced and there's a good reason why it's unsourced. It doesn't exist outside of here. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and certainly not a dictionary of fringe terms someone created. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all possible speed this thing someone made up one day.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition of a neologism. No references and no coverage outside of Wikipedia.--xanchester (t) 11:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wickedictionary

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

Page created by likely socks with prior ties to socking on Wikipedia article about book's author, Derek Abbott. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunzil. WP:SPA spam promo accounts heavily associated with this article appears to be: SonOfBierce (talk · contribs), CynicIncorporated (talk · contribs), SatoSato (talk · contribs), Steamturn (talk · contribs), and Californicator (talk · contribs). — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Conflict of interest report listed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wickedictionary_and_Derek_Abbott. — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative, weak keep, but cull.~~ Obviously, the whole example section needs to go, some of the references are unacceptable, the lede wants a rewrite. But I think there are a couple of actual reliable sources with significant coverage. There's one, for certain. The ForeWord Reviews reference is a nontrivial treatment of the book in an independent source. The issue comes down to whether that's all there is. The "book launch" thing is neither independent nor reliable. The 891 ABC Adelaide radio interview is local coverage. The Sacramento Bee coverage is literally two lines of text and so can be discounted as trivial. That leaves me with two sources I do not have access to: the Pace University student newspaper Pace Press, and the British men's magazine Mayfair. I'm not able to evaluate whether the coverage is trivial, so -- for the moment, anyway -- I'll give that the benefit of the doubt. The question is whether they're reliable sources for notability. I'm not sure that's the case for the student-press paper. Mayfair is (or at least was) sort of the British equivalent to Playboy (although the believability of reading it "for the articles" has dropped since its change in ownership); regardless, if the coverage there is substantive, I think this inches past the threshold (with the Bee and Australian radio helping to fill the gaps). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No longer standing in the way of this deletion. The Pace Press material doesn't help us any, and I simply cannot find easy access to a specific back issue of a softcore porn mag not sold on my continent. I still believe the Mayfair coverage, if substantive, clears the notability bar for this, but I'm not willing to contest deletion for it on that faith alone. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanity-press book that utterly fails WP:BK. This article is a WP:ADVERT, as is the article Derek Abbott, which I am going to put up for AfD later today. Qworty (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Abbott. — Cirt (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think at some point we have to say, enough's enough, and stop rewarding self-promotion that violates WP:SOAP, committed by people who blatantly disregard our firmest policies (like socking, especially to this extreme), regardless of notability. There are reasons other than notability to delete or keep an article, and we need to remember that. Gigs (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please see also deletion discussion at Wikiquote, q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott (2nd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The WQ discussion is irrelevant, since there is no reference to this book in the WQ article.--Collingwood (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's most certainly relevant, as socks with likely ties to the subject were spamming the "Wikedtictionary" all over the website as a form of promotion / advert. — Cirt (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether or not that's the case, looking at WQ will not shed any light on that.--Collingwood (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT, WP:ARTSPAM and WP:COI. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: As far as the reviews go I echo Squeamish Ossifrage's sentiments. What concerns me is that there's no mention of this book or of Derek Abbott at LOC. Most disturbingly, there's no mention of it at Amazon either, even though it was apparently published under Amazon's auspices. Faustus37 (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the AfD, but the book was apparently published in Australia -- or at least, that's where the author is. Library of Congress is for American books, the rest of the world has no obligation to submit books to it, so that's no indication either way. The "CreateSpace" Amazon imprint is for their self-published books, and the title is easily found there. Barsoomian (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Roll (film)

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

Does not meet notability requirements. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I might have found some sources, but they're in a format I can't translate with Google Translate so I'm posting them here. [11], [12]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I find some information about Nemes in French media, but I can't for the life of me come up with any sort of review or coverage of Tableau d'honneur in reliable independent sources, as required under WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. The listings in various movie databases are not enough to establish notability under the guidelines. The books cited above appear to be trivial mentions/plot summaries, rather than critical commentary or genuine coverage. I think Charles Nemes has a decent (althought not foolproof) case for notability under the guidelines, though, and would recommend the creation of an article on him and the merging of this material into it. --Batard0 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable film. I'd be more inclined to say keep if the director had a wiki. TV | talk 18:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't found any evidence of news coverage through both Google News US and France. As mentioned above, I would have supported a redirect if an article for Charles Nemes existed. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BIODELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schlager

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

Subject asserts he is relatively unknown and for privacy reasons, requests the page be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanncm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 26. Snotbot t • c » 18:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not sure of the policy on requested deletion. Schlager appears to be somewhat notable given the sources. TV | talk 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Include two sentences on him in article on the Bullfinch companies. The fact is, a competent researcher can dig up lots of the personal facts that appear here on millions of people, but they don't show notability. Obviously created by someone who knows him (username EDS250 = Eric Dean Schlager), so the existence of the article shouldn't be swaying us.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also since this is last day of AfD period, I encourage closing admin not to relist. No one has advocated keeping in this special situation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:07, 2 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biological issues in Jurassic Park

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

Article is 100% WP:OR or WP:SYN: "This happened in the film, and this is the actual fact". That's the very definition of WP:SYN. It appears this has been pointed out several times over the last 5 years, promises were made to fix it at the first AFD, and nothing was done, except even more synthesis was added. After all this time to correct it, and a previous AFD on the same grounds, it should be judged on what is there now.Barsoomian (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can't I argue that dinosaurs are WP:OR? TV | talk 18:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could make an argument that sourced responses of experts to the scientific liberties taken might have a place in the articles for the book and movie, as appropriate. But this is basically something akin to Criticisms of the science of Jurassic Park, only with more novel synthesis. And I don't think we'd do that as a standalone article even without the other problems, on account of due weight issues. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article Jurassic Park (film) as parts of the article are worth saving. Having a separate article is overkill though. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts? I checked several references in the article, none actually mentioned "Jurassic Park". They supported the facts, but the conclusions drawn about "issues in Jurassic Park" were all by the editors, i.e., WP:SYN. Barsoomian (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After going through the article in more detail, it looks any parts I thought worth saving are actually just original research. I have changed to vote to delete. Holyfield1998 (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - isn't this basically just a slightly more WP:SYNTH version of this story. Yeah, there's probably something there that could be merged into Jurassic Park ("Criticisms of scientific assertions" or something) but as a standalone article it's pretty weak. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Herbert

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

Not notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, who? TV | talk 18:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously a case of too soon, his first official album is scheduled for release next month and Google News provided nothing relevant. It appears the only links I have found are affiliated with the subject. Mario Herbert is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah, a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I'd advise the author to try again in a few months once there's an actual discography out. Faustus37 (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon to have an article. He still hasn't released anything or has been notable enough to grant an article. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:35, 2 November 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 as per positive consensus and a spirited effort to bring the article up to WP:GNG standards. There are no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Show

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

Despite being around for more than three years, nobody has added any evidence of notability to the article, or even removed the "our". Spam for non-notable radio programme. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've listened to the show and I think it's notable because of the people that have appeared on it. I think it's something that's "worthy of notice" which is the Wikipedia's notability test. These important space-related people are saying that the show is notable by giving their interviews, otherwise they presumably wouldn't.GliderMaven (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:N - added 2006 NBC and 2009 Fox interviews, 2009 hosting of AIAA Augustine Commission panel discussion, and 2008 book page/review. Also finding citations of the show by others. --Lexein (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage by secondary sources. Aside from the sources already mentioned, the subject has been covered on Space.com and Universe Today, with more trivial mentions appearing on Bloomberg and MSNBC. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 11:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the show is widely known (and notable) in the space community and frequently mentioned in "reliable sources" space press. It's survival for over ten years as a vehicle for space news and commentary is similarly notable. The article could be improved, but the assertions currently made there are reasonably well-sourced. N2e (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been stymied here by not being able to tell which space press are independent and reliable sources, as in WP:42. A short list of the best space news sources, as measured by WP:N, WP:V would be helpful. Google doesn't know everything. This list should be stashed somewhere at WikiProject Space as a subpage. --Lexein (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2015 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup

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

This article appears to be about a future event 2 years away which may or may not happen. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too soon. TV | talk 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm so confused as to why this is up for deletion. Bidding for the tournament is in progress and the tournament will absolutely happen. See Beach Soccer Worldwide's official article on the bidding nations If you are unware of who BSWW are, they are the governing body for beach soccer. This was also reported by FIFA. Also see FIFA's official bidding document here. TurboGUY (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete the page? It has information relevant to an upcoming event. And BTW, Holyfield1988, it is an event that will take place. Deride beach soccer if you will. What's next, delete pages regarding the Rio 2016 Olympics, or the 2014 World Cup? Caperspark (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL TV | talk 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Seeing as bidding has started, then it would meet this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL states that, if preparation for an event has started (and it has in this case with nations announcing their official bids), then the article should be included.--xanchester (t) 20:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Frankie (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks very likely to happen. Giant Snowman 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Planning is obviously underway, thus satisfying WP:CRYSTAL. If we can justify an article on the 2020 Summer Olympics right now, we can certainly handle this. Faustus37 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola Cup

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

The articles fails to specify why this event is notable and lacks any reliable sources. There are actually no sources in the article. A Google search reveals almost no information on this beach soccer tournament. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any sources on this tournament, and the majority of search results referred to an auto racing championship. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be a hoax. If not, still not a notable tournament. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my eyes, for something to have a phighting chance of passing my notability standards yes, there was a pun intended; trying to keep my spirits up prior to the impending apocalyptic (if you trust Al Roker) event moving my way (Hurricane Sandy), at least one reliable source is necessary. Go Phightins! 02:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 2 November 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 transwiki. Jenks24 (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A leopard doesn't change its spots

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

Unremarkable phrase; no citations proving verifiability or establishing notability. – Richard BB 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Transwiki - looks more like it belongs on Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. AutomaticStrikeout 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, Wiktionary is a dictionary, and I suggest transwiki-ing it, since Wiktionary doesn't have it as an entry yet.--xanchester (t) 11:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Xanchester. Go Phightins! 02:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the newbie creator, this is not a horrible item for an article. It was, after all used in some British films and plays, e.g., Beautiful Thing. So it can be documented; it may have been coined by Rudyard Kipling, or perhaps Nathaniel Hawthorne in his Twice-Told Tales. That having been said, transwikify per Xanchester, or merge to You can't teach an old dog new tricks, may be best options, short of deletion. The full line is the mean bullying snark: "... and a slut never changes her knickers." Bearian (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article you proposed to merge to is a redlink anyway. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Motorola Cup

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

The article doesn't specify why this event is relevant and there are no reliable sources verifying any of the article's content. A Google search reveals almost no information about this tournament. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has this even happened yet? 2013? Took? TV | talk 18:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I spent half an hour searching through Google to find out anything I could about this tournament. I can't find any information on it so I don't know if the author meant to say that it will take place or that it really did already take place. Who knows? There's no sources in the article. Holyfield1998 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and non-notable, just like the parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2015 motorola cup

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

This article is about a future event 2 years away which may or may not occur and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Additionally, the article fails to specify why this event is notable. A Google search reveals nothing on a Motorola Cup beach soccer tournmanent.Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and non-notable, just like the parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 2 November 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 Kitarō discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis (Kitaro album)

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

There is no evidence that this is notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ancient Journey. Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kitarō discography. Even if there's no individual coverage of this album, the artist and his collective body of work are notable, and this appears to be a plausible search term for those familiar with our naming conventions. Plus, redirects are cheap. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. This is just a track listing. --DAJF (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge to the already-existing Kitarō discography instead, as per all the others as well. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psyborg Corp

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

Article had been deleted via prod, then restored per request (WP:REFUND). I don't see any evidence that this band is notable; the few "sources" in the article are either unreliable, WP:PRIMARY, or don't discuss the band in detail. The band released 2 albums, but they don't seem to be on a major label, and don't otherwise meet WP:BAND. As such, I concur with the original prod and recommend deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The band has been slow in production, though it's live appearance was massive and relevant (for example opening act of Hocico!). I've removed the broken links. The remaining ones are functional. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. TV | talk 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating notability only on sold albums number or on live audience numbers... then the whole cyber/harsh subculture should be entirely removed from WP. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the notability requirements in WP:BAND and/or WP:GNG. Under which criteria do you think this group qualifies? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirements are (to me) the live acts in the major worlwide cyber/elettrodark-scene and having been placed in rotation widely in the clubs. Sorry I can't provide literature about it. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's all well and good and you are welcome to keep information about the band on your personal website, but what matters here is whether Wikipedia's notability standards have been met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:Band, I would state that point 5 is ok (they released with NoiTekk, that's also hosting Grendel (band) !), that point 7 is ok (they are between the most representative bands in the south-america cyber-scene), that point 11 is ok (considering cyber web-radios, because cyber is never on rotation on the official channels !). ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read #5 corretly, because NoiTekk would need to have a roster of people, many of whom are notable. Point 7 would need to be verified in a reliable source. Point 11 specifically refers to musics stations, not web-radio stations, unless you could show some evidence that the station itself is important. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I do not see any reliable sources that meet the stand alone article requirements at this time. there is myspace for the band to be responsible for its own promotion and when they make it big, we can recreate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND -- Alwhorl (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:BAND. ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails WP:BAND. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of words in English with many vowels

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

This article was split from English words with uncommon properties, which was deleted in November 2011 and userfied (see User:Squidonius/English words with uncommon properties). Personally, I think that article had some encyclopedic value and shouldn't have been deleted. However, this list of 1,000 words with many vowels serves no real purpose, and is unlikely to be of interest to anyone but Scrabble fanatics. I can't find any similar lists in anything that would count as a reliable source, so the concept itself isn't notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire concept of this seems laughable; maybe it would have a place on somewhere like Wiktionary, but not on Wikipedia! A big, bloated list lacking in purpose.Lukeno94 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary would probably exclude this kind of list of words.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleeeeete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information.--xanchester (t) 11:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This title raised a chuckle. I assume deletion because "many vowels" is entirely subjective and this is basically an indiscriminate and unencyclopedic topic on that basis. When I was studying Russian a prof had a funny example of a Czech sentence that had no vowels whatsoever, which is sort of the opposite deal... Carrite (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTN, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Trivial with no indication that this is a notable concept, nor are any English words apparently notable because of this characteristic, so this does not serve to provide more valuable information for any encyclopedia topic nor as a navigational index. postdlf (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Seems more suited for wiktionary. J36miles (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recommended above, WP is not a dictionary. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sun of Fatimah

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

Delete as non-encyclopedic. This article stub appears to be more a statement of faith (type unknown) than anything else. The article has been here five years since October 2007. It has no references, and in its current state without additional context, none can responsibly be added. I do believe in respecting other religions, whether the group of believers is one or many; however, a religious belief has to be notable to have an article in the Wikipedia. This one is not. Deleting or retaining an article should have nothing to do with the merits of a doctrine. However, an editor of an article about a religious belief has to be very careful to keep the text objective. This article fails in that regard. It does not have a neutral point of view. And that would be an edit issue and not really a viable argument for deletion, except that the lack of context and lack of any citation to reliable independent sources, or any sources at all, makes correcting the POV of the article extremely difficult, and in my belief impossible. I think that the best course at this time is to delete this article. If the originator wishes to come back with something more closely approaching an NPOV article with at least a couple of citations, they may do so. --Bejnar (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Improve. It seems to be a fringe theory that the Our Lady of Fátima apparitions which are said to involve the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) are somehow related to Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, simply because the names are tangentially related. There may be more to it than I could find in a brief Google search, but without more references and a more clear article, it should go. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fringe religious nonsense. The article as it stands is barely more than an A1 speedy candidate, but the author "helpfully" has added information about his pet theory all over the place. As SchreiberBike surmised, this is the claim that the Miracle of the Sun at Fátima, Portugal was a manifestation of Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad, because of the similarity of the names involved. No serious religious scholar has ever contemplated this theory. No reliable source even gives it a passing mention. Nor is there any valid etymological basis for this claim. Although the Portuguese city does derive from the Arabic name, it is named for a Moorish princess and not for the daughter of the Islamic prophet. Indeed (based on the identical username), you can see the wordpress blog of the original author and the nature of this material here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show notability. First Light (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards recreation of a clean version. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMSC Order of Merit

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

Contested PROD. Due to WP:NPS and WP:PLAG because the article should be deleted or otherwise fully re-written as the text matches that of http://www.cism-milsport.org/eng/002_ABOUT_CISM/Awards/Awards.asp. Danielj2705 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character of Ali Imran

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

Unnecessary fork from Imran Series and oddly titled. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is more information on the topic in the main article. Also the main point of the series seems to be the character of the main character. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the "character" in the article's title means that Ali Imran is a fictional character, or that the article is about his character as a (fictional) person. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article indeed is about the fictional character of Ali Imran, conceived by Ibn-e-Safi, and the page of Ali Imran already exists. --StarryEyed (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zosia Karbowiak

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

While I believe she has a great career ahead of her, unfortunately there appears to be a lack of significant coverage of her in reliable sources. None of the references in the article are reliable or independent, ~~and while it appears that her songs charted on Polish radio, I couldn't find sources that confirm this.~~ However, this is only a weak delete for me since she participated in the Eurovision Song Contest, which by itself should probably be enough to establish notability but for some reason I couldn't find reliable sources to prove this (only unreliable ones), and I'll happily withdraw this nomination if someone find reliable sources that I may have missed due to language issues or lack of precision in searching. Should this be kept, the article should probably be moved to "ZoSia Karbowiak" since it appears that her name has a capital S, although I'm not sure if that would comply with our Manual of Style, or to "ZoSia (singer)" since it appears that she uses that name professionally. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been confirmed that at least one of her songs or albums charted, I'm now leaning towards a weak keep, but I will let this AfD run its course pending more sources in any language. This is not to be taken as a withdrawal, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet investigated notability further, but can see that this singer is usually known professionally simply as "ZoSia", making searching exceedingly difficult as "Zosia" is a common Polish given name, and that it appears that she only participated in the competition to choose Poland's entry to the Eurovision Song contest, rather than the ESC itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs stand out as obviously reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have worked very hard to obtain additional information, links and credibility. We are hoping to build this page over the next few years. I am hoping you will remove the mark for deletion and give this page a chance to exist. She is a brilliant song writer and lyricist and her career has only begun. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulhus15 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When her career gets recognized in reliable sources, you are welcome to reintroduce this article. For now, I'd suggest userfying it to your userspace so you can work on it in the future without loosing what you've created so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are corresponding articles in the Polish and Swedish Wikipedias. She has indeed charted in Poland, satisfying WP:MUSBIO. The article could definitely use some translation and Wikification, to say the least ... Faustus37 (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking her Polish and Swedish Wikipedia articles, none of the references appear to be reliable except for possibly this one (which might not be independent coverage, but I don't understand Polish and Google Translate is widely inaccurate so I can't be sure), and the rest of the links are not independent (such as links by Eurovision itself, or to official websites). But to be fair, the sourcing requirements for articles, even BLPs, is lower in other Wikipedias. Can someone check if tvp.pl is considered a reliable source? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable website, but the bio doesn't make any claims for notability, other than stating she has published her first disc in the USA... So I think if we cannot find any English sources, she fails at notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sources in any language are acceptable, as long as they meet the criteria of what defines a reliable source. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks good to me. Just added infobox. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 03:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per making Polish charts, though reasons for original nomination were appropriate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:12, 2 November 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 by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment "not even a claim of notability". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 19:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMB

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

The film is wholly unsourced, unremarkable upcoming film, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball according to What Wikipedia is not. The film is not filming yet. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 11:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that there is no coverage for this film in any reliable sources, that the user name here is ZOMB123, and that the fb page for this mentioned the Wikipedia article at about the same time this was created, it's fairly obvious that this is a case of promotion. There's no coverage for this film and might never be. If it does get coverage it can be re-added, but not until that point and I'd recommend that the user go through WP:FILM to avoid any conflict of interest. I'll just say that if Marble Hornets isn't getting enough coverage to merit an entry, then it's unlikely that an as of yet unreleased web series would get it either.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non notable drama series. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just blocked user, plus "There has been Talks, but nothing has been announced." Perfect demonstration of WP:CRYSTAl, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see this article could of been put into the wrong category for what it is and I have see the web series start some great stuff on its YouTube page. i'm saying give it a chance to grow and I disagree with the WP:CRYSTAL act . wikipedia need to support more low-budget stuff.ZacJohn435 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wikipedia is not a crystal ball. not yet released - not yet produced. may or may not achieve notability after release; has none as yet. The author of the article is the director of the prospective series, which raises secondary conflict of interest issues. And ZacJohn435, wikipedia is not here to support low-budget stuff.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus pointing to the subject meeting WP:NSPORTS requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Ruimers

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

Non-notable athlete. Could find nothing substantial to assert notability on the web, apart from trivial mentions on google books. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Very clearly passes WP:NSPORTS as having competed in the Olympic Games of 1908. Sources are more than likely to be in dutch and offline considering the date of participation. For example, the dutch wiki lists an entry for him in the book Olympisch Oranje. Ravendrop 09:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. All Olympic athletes are explicitly mentioned in WP:NSPORTS as notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Bgwhite (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Per WP:NOLYMPICS. J36miles (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per positive consensus that affirms the subject's notability. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schaffrath

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

Non-notable cyclist. Gnews yields little and only trivial and minor results. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:NCYC, lots of results for him in German and enough in English. Severo^TC 10:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He won a metal at the World Championships (1994 UCI Road World Championships). (And not to mention 1 Tour de France, 2 Vueltas and 2 Giros and many other UCI events) If thats not notable, than really almost nothing is. Ravendrop 10:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:NCYCLING. Bgwhite (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Passes WP:NCYCLING comfortably. Really have no idea whether this nomination's author is for real, with two blatantly notable articles nominated for AfD, even if the articles DO need expanding... Lukeno94 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widespread coverage by secondary sources. Won a metal at the 1994 UCI Road World Championships. Meets the notability guideline for sports.--xanchester (t) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hemus Air Flight 7081

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

Notability Petebutt (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my nomination, the incident did not involve casualties or even a real bomb or weapon and the hi-jacker was not ä real terrorist"in his own words, and just wanted assylum.--Petebutt (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources. Rettetast (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage in reliable sources also years after the incident. It resulted in a major political discussion regarding how Norwegian authorities should deal with hijacking, so it is not "just an asylum seeker". Similarly, he also claimed he was under orders to crash the aircraft in Oslo. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A Google search brings up multiple hits showing not only showing media attention at the time of the incident but also coverage following it. Seems like it fits the notability requirements. Holyfield1998 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event was widely covered by the Norwegian media, and led to a political debate over the issue. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 12:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Way too many references in face of WP:WHYN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stichting Dutch Support Tuvalu

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

Contsted PROD; original rationale of "no evidence of notability" remains valid. Giant Snowman 07:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. – Kosm1 fent 08:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search produces little bar wiki-mirrors and social networking links. No real evidence of significant coverage in news outlets either national or global. Fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to When in Rome (band)#Breakup. Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When In Rome UK

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

Not notable band; fails WP:BAND. — ṞṈ™ 07:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It appears that this band formed from the remaining members of When in Rome (band) which was a relatively popular band. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to When_in_Rome_(band)#Breakup - I think redirecting is the best option because it seems this new group hasn't gained enough success to support a separate article. I found relevant results for the new group here, here (the most detailed and useful of all) and here (this certainly shows the band has toured and gained new attention) but this article would remain a stub thus it may be better to redirect. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. I'm not finding enough evidence that an individual article is warranted, but redirecting to When in Rome (band)'s "Breakup" section, which mentions this band name, is reasonable. Gongshow ^Talk 23:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christiaan Boonzaier

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

I don't think he meets notability guidelines. He doesn't meet any of the guidelines for Creative professionals. The article is written by someone with a close link to him - and the article uses newspaper articles written by him as sources Gbawden (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Not notable outside of winning a reality tv series. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, also sources do not meet wikipedia requirements.Righteousskills (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous reasoning ~~below~~ above [changed by Phil Bridger when moving comment to chronological position], on the following grounds: 1) There is absolutely no tie between the contributor of the article and the subject; 2) Within South Africa, the subject is very notable; Wikipedia policy does not state that only global stars get entries; 3) The article is far from done – as the author has no tie to the subject, it takes time to gather sources; 4) In the context of the subject's success, early articles written by the subject are important; note that the articles themselves are not quoted – there is only made reference to them; also, not all of them are referenced Wiki.In.Afrikaans (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to George W. Bush#Acknowledgements and Dedications. Jenks24 (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush Street

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, point 7 (Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). These two streets have nothing in common except being named for the same person. That's not in itself particularly notable or unusual. There arehave been U.S. presidents with many more street named after them around the world, to say nothing of other historical and contemporary figures. This article may open the floodgates for hundreds of non-disambiguation articles about random places sharing a name. Think of all the Pope John Paul II Streets, Columbus Avenues, Constitution Squares, and Liberty Roundabouts... — Kpalion^(talk) 07:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The topic isn't particularly extraordinary. There is no such thing as "A George W. Bush Street", they are just two streets that have the same name. If the streets are independently notable (and I am not saying they are) they should have their own pages with this as a DAB, but grouping them like this isn't the way to go about it. Articles about multiple roads are done like 400-series highway, in that they have similar design parameters, not because they have similar names. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George W. Bush, and the section about international honors given him. That is the real topic of this article, the fact that these two nations chose to honor him by naming streets after him. The streets themselves are not especially notable otherwise. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, in Sunnyvale, California there is a street called Santa Trinita Avenue (That is named after God!!!) which is only a couple of blocks long in an industrial area. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a section on "honors" in the relevant article entry? (-: Lquilter (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I expected there to be one. They are very common in biographies here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one now. Either it was just started or I missed it when I checked the article before. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are too diligent for me. I meant in the "God" article, actually, referencing Kitfoxxe's "Santa Trinita Avenue" ... --Lquilter (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the street is named after a "Church of the Holy Trinity" (in Spanish), not after the Trinity directly. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a story behind those streets and I still don't see how it is connected with the 7th point mentioned above. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 22:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks (from the article text) like there are two separate stories, one for each of the streets, and the stories are in no way connected. That makes the article not so much a unitary topic, but more of a "list". A list with only two items can easily be added to its appropriate major article, and not split off into a separate article. Hence my suggestion (below) that if the content is to be kept at all --Lquilter (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to George W. Bush#Acknowledgements and Dedications (a deservedly tiny section). Not much of a story in either example: city councils voted to rename streets. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability isn't inherited. As User:Kitfoxxe recommends above, the content can be merged to a section on "honors" in the GWB article -- but I would significantly abridge the information. (Note, I also say the content "can" be merged -- this information is interesting, but verging on WP:TRIVIA; I'm not completely convinced about it constitutes enough of an honor to be included. --Lquilter (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content and redirect the page to George W. Bush#Acknowledgements and Dedications. The cited content can be merged, and the title is plausible search term for a redirect. Redirects are cheap.--xanchester (t) 20:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal Artillery

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

This article is written by a blocked user - a sock puppet. The article has multiple issues - and has been tagged for a rewrite. Why are we keeping this? IMO it should be rewritten before being re-submitted by a valid user Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we don't generally delete things that just need rewriting, and I can't comment on the original user, though there's no particular reason for an AfD discussion to be concerned about such matters. The article already has one valid source, and there is no doubt at all that the artillery of the mughals is a notable subject. There are good citations available at History of gunpowder#India, Mughal Empire#Technology, and Mughal weapons. For example CSIR: Rockets in Mysore and Britain. The article richly deserves a rewrite with some of the many attractive images that are available: but that's normal editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation. Template gnomes have noticed a lot of problems with this page, but largely glossed over the biggest of them. Virtually the entire text is copied wholesale from the cited source (available here). This isn't eligible for a G12 copyvio speedy, because that's a public ___domain work (1903 publication date), but it's still very clearly plagiarism, and the sprinkle of reference links doesn't change that. The "author" is a sockpuppet of Sridhar100, who apparently has a long history of copyright violation and plagiarism in this topic area. We may be best served by blowing this up and starting over. Speedy criterion G5 is an option if we decide the direct text dump warrants faster action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not see any wholesale copying. Only reasonably good summarizing of content. It was not there a month ago, and I don't see a list of volunteers willing to redo it after it is blown up. -- :- ) Don 20:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, compare "Personnel of the Military" with the source I linked above, beginning at page 152. I may see if I can produce something myself to replace this, although it will likely not happen until Monday. Regardless of whether we could adopt this through attribution of the public ___domain source, I'm not thrilled with rewarding sockpuppetry with a history of attribution issues. It doesn't help that not all more recent scholars are particularly convinced of the quality or neutrality of the work in question. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. People touching it is what it needs to become a GA. I agree it needs newer sources, and WP:NPV suffers, but it is a good start at a article. -- :- ) Don 16:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I still don't think we should make a habit of retaining text copy-pasted from third-party sources, with minimal attribution, by repeatedly-blocked sockpuppeteers. But I suppose that's a WP:SOFIXIT argument. So I fixed it. The result is far from done; information about the military structure of the artillery core and the training of the artillery soldiers deserves a place in the article, but I'm out of time for the moment. I'd rather not just drop the text from Irvine back into the page, either. He's a source, certainly, but he's a source with some considerable bias, to the point that later authors on the topic remark with concern about some of his conclusions. it isn't, but it's better. When this AFD closes, I'll also see about moving it to the correct titling "Mughal artillery" rather than "Mughal Artillery". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plagiarism is not a reason to delete this article, if it is genuinely from a public ___domain source: see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else? Lots of text on Wikipedia is copied from public-___domain sources. A note should be added to the page explaining its source, but it doesn't need to be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not for cleanup, I don't care who wrote it. Ryan Vesey 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was brought to my attention, and I was asked to check the copyright status by User:Dthomsen8. From all the research, I could find no reason this article could not be done or should not be done. I spent some hours working with the editor, and he seemed to have intentions of doing a good job with formatting, cites, images, etc. I had no idea there was any Sock Puppet investigation, and as someone mentioned in the investigation, it may have been unintended based on a misunderstanding of the rules by the non-native English of the editor. I think the article is interesting, looks nice, and is the kind of eye candy, other culture article the Wikipedia needs.-- :- ) Don 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a complete rewrite, there are no grounds for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with taking things from a public ___domain source. That's how Wikipedia got started after all, the first articles ported in mass from old public ___domain sources, including a print encyclopedia. Clearly an encyclopedic topic we have here. Dream Focus 22:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. all except List of UFC events in 2012. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC events (April to June)

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

Redundant & poorly maintained. Delete for same reason as 2012 in UFC events (January to March). Completely unnecessary as it merely contains some links to already established articles as well as redunant information already contained in those articles. I remember halloween (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is just another iteration of this type of page for the next 3 months]:

Strong Oppose - This is getting ridiculous, people keep making articles and deleting them, WP:MMA has been turned into a complete mess, there is duplication but it's being caused by event articles being deleted, merged, and moved on a constant merry-go-round. Please see this thread, consensus needs to be reached as to how the event articles are to be organized to put an end to all this wiki warring. Once that's achieved articles in need of deletion can be renominated.--Phospheros (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThese omnibus year articles were a knee jerk result of the TreyGeek/Mt King attempted routing of all MMA articles. Eventually they folded and agreed single articles were the way to go, but for some reason a few people continued to very sparingly and inconsistently update thes 2012 omnibus articles. Now we have a move toward solidifying the single article structure which is moving along quite well and a half hearted effort to sort of keep these mini-omnibuses current. It's wasted duplicate effort which makes it much more confusing while trying to find the material you are looking for. Deleting these will make accessibility to data much easier for all users.I remember halloween (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TreyGeek did not agree single articles are the way to go. TreyGeek was harassed and bullied out of the MMA WikiProject space. Lets at least try to be truthful about the situation. I still maintain that not all UFC events are notable and deserve their own separate article. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus to give all UFC cards individual articles, would it then not make more sense to first recreate articles such as UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall prior to deleting there omnibus (2012 in UFC events (April to June)) articles?--Phospheros (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my subject area, but List of UFC events in 2012 seems like a rather different list than the others, an obvious index of (mostly) notable topics as many of the individual events have their own articles. So why should that one be deleted too? postdlf (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a list of UFC events, what is the point of having one only for 2012? It just creates more redundant garbage that has to be updated (and won't be) that makes finding what you are looking for more difficult.I remember halloween (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SIZE? Dividing it by year would be an obvious way to deal with that. If you're confident that the main list is not too big, however, just redirect the year-specific one. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redirect to list of UFC events would be fine, but why bother even having that. No one will ever happen across the list of 2012 UFC events page. It just doesn't make any sense to even have it.I remember halloween (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per I remember halloween.
LlamaAl (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Postdlf about List of UFC events in 2012. UFC on Fox shouldn't be deleted as it's a TV programme, not the event per se.--LlamaAl (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 07:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what appears to be essentially an editorial decision, I would normally weight the headcount quite strongly, and so I'm reluctant to do so with so few heads. Wily D 07:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except List of UFC events in 2012. Most of these articles to me appear to be somewhat arbitrary. We're simply deciding on our own to have separate articles on UFC events for a certain time period that we come up with. That is WP:OR, but more importantly it fails WP:GNG because there's no substantial coverage of the subject in reliable souces (the subject being UFC events in one specific time period). I think all of these should be deleted for failure to meet WP:GNG except for List of UFC events in 2012 because there's actually been coverage of these as a group in reliable sources as required under WP:LISTN. See here for one example. This, in any case, seems like a practical solution. You have a list article that simply lists the events, then can navigate to individual event articles presuming they meet WP:N. Is there an issue here with events that may have some reliable sourcing but don't meet WP:N for a standalone article? I.e. are people having problems because they want to put in a sentence or two about not-so-notable events but don't have a place to put that? Just trying to understand what's going on. --Batard0 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically there was a push to put semi-notable UFC articles into an omnibus article. However because the UFC now promotes so many shows that was broken up into first yearly articles then further into quarterly articles. All the while there was dissension with some strongly opposed to the omnibus articles (This included offsite organizing to nominate omnibus articles for deletion) and others arguing it was the best way to keep semi-notable events (Some argue all UFC events are inherently notable). As a result articles where being merged, split as "to large", moved, renamed, deleted, & recreated, thus navigability has become a serious problem. I personally don't care how it's organized, just so long as stability is achieved so a user can find what there looking for.--Phospheros (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When this was discussion ad naseum before it was overwhelming that people wanted to remain with the single article per event structure to provide the maximum usability and ease of navigation. We've been working on improving the single articles so that they all are well equipped to stand up to quality criticism and made great improvements so far. What I'm trying to do is eliminate the competiting duel systems of organization which are making finding quality material a disaster. Only 2 people wanted to do the omnibus thing and neither of them have made any contributions at all to them so they have stagnated and are terrible. It makes the most sense from an organizational standpoint and to increase the quality of the user experience to kill all the ominbus, return completely to the single article per event structure and focus all editors efforts on improving those articles.I remember halloween (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of articles that redirect to this one as per outcomes of earlier MMA AfD's. I hope that those in support of the deletion are not doing so in the hope that those articles can some how be reinstated as stand alone articles. I also ask to closing admin to consider carefully User:I remember halloween's comments at this Afd in light of the attempt to deceive the process as evidenced by this post; firstly as the user is fully aware the Omnibus proposal came about as a direct result of a AfD close by User:Beeblebrox and this post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and secondly (as User:TreyGeek posts above) nether TreyGeek or myself ever "agreed single articles were the way to go" I challenge User:I remember halloween to post the dif's or to retract that statement. Mt king ^(edits) 11:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except List of UFC events in 2012 - 2012 in UFC events (April to June) are too narrow of focus without a basis for slicing up the List of UFC events in 2012 that way. List of UFC events in 2012 should have a separate AfD since it is not similarly situated as 2012 in UFC events (April to June), etc. List of UFC events in 2012 should support a List of UFC events article which, in turn, should support the Ultimate Fighting Championship article. The relationsips are not there in the Wikipedia List articles, so eventually they all may be deleted.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think deleting the List of UFC events article is a good idea? That is extraordinarily useful and very highly trafficed.I remember halloween (talk) 19:30, 3 November 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 withdrawn, no other delete votes. Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of literary terms

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

Page is an indiscriminate list of words. Violation of WP:NAD; probably belongs on Wiktionary. The word "index" implies that it is an index of Wikipedia articles on the terms in question, but a significant number of the links are red and are likely to remain that way. It also appears to be open to anyone to add obscure neologisms that definitely will never get their own articles. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)I have withdrawn my deletion request as per my Keep !vote below. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 26. Snotbot t • c » 06:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is valuable for navigational purposes and meets WP:L. It's not an indiscriminate list of words: it's a list of notable literary terms. And it should not be deleted just because some entries don't meet that requirement: there are indeed a few redlinks (which might stay if they are notable topics but should otherwise be removed) but most entries in the list point to notable Wikipedia articles. An article should not be deleted just because it's susceptible to abuse: see WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. WP:NAD doesn't apply because entries are legitimate encyclopedic content (not everything that contains words is a dictionary; and NAD only applies to dictionary-style definitions of word meanings). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well should we start work on removing the red links, then? If the page is supposed to be a directory of Wikipedia articles on literary terms, rather than just an indiscriminate list of words, then having broken links doesn't make any sense. I'll withdraw my delete vote if the page can be cleaned up to conform to Wikipedia policies, but as it stands the page doesn't seem to be any more than an indiscriminate list of words, which is a clear violation. I say we at least remove all the red links: if anyone creates articles for those terms (assuming they are not just terms, for which no reliable information other than a definition and examples can be found), the links to those articles can be added again, and until someone does, the list of links doesn't really deserve its own Wikipedia page. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article fulfils all criteria of WP:LIST so there is no basis to this nomination. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please elaborate. AfDs are not votes. The page you link to does not include criteria that this page meets. The page is not a "glossary" that "includes definitions". In fact it violates Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words as it currently stands. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one to refer to 'votes' here — twice now. What's to elaborate? Is it really too much to expect another editor to go read a linked article? No-one said the page was a "glossary" that "includes definitions." You have made no case at all that has not been completely demolished by editor Colapeninsula. There's a small proportion of redlinks in the article? Then WP:SOFIXIT. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or move to projectspace - There are a lot of these lists. They've been around since the early days. Please see some of the core details summarized at Category_talk:Indexes_of_topics#RfC_on_indexes, and respond to that RfC once you've got the general background. Thanks. —Quiddity (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep w/ work Apparently from Quiddity's link there is this thing called Index for which there is no consensus (the article was originally called List of literary terms and was renamed in 2009 to Index). The nom has good points about red links so recommend all the red links be given "citation needed" to discourage original research and vandalism. It would also be a much better article if each entry had a 1-2 sentence description (with cites). Also needs a lead section telling readers what the article is. Sounds redundant but it will go far to define it ie. "This is a list of well established literary terms accepted by the academic establishment in the fields of literary theory, poetry, etc.." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I indicated above, the red links are my principal concern. However, it also concerns me that among the blue links, many of them are redirects, or link to articles that are about more general (non-literary) concepts. Without putting in a HUGE amount of work, and just looking at a few of the items under "A", I found Analects, which may have a more general literary meaning but the Wikipedia article is about a specific work. If this page included definitions for all of the terms, it would make a good glossary, but at present it is an indiscriminate list of words, and many of the pages it does link to appear to be only peripherally related to the words' usage as literary terms. I can also see an attempt to improve the article by removing all the red links/links to unrelated articles as problematic because then we're going to have to argue over whether "analect" - and potentially hundreds of others - merit inclusion as literary terms even if the Wikipedia articles are unrelated. Other pages, such as "Haiku in English", already have their own Wikipedia articles, but are not "literary terms" per se ("haiku" and the redirect "haikai no renga" are right above "haiku in English"). If this were an index of literary topics that have their own articles on English Wikipedia this would be fine, but the title of the page indicates different. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally (if anyone wants to do the work), nothing useful is eradicated, but simply moved to a more appropriate place, or encouraged to grow in a different direction.

Ie. Convert the bulk of the list into a proper Glossary of literary terms (copy definitions from articles and disambig pages, with notes in the edit summary for attribution), and copy redlinks to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Literature#Literary_terms. There really aren't very many redlinks in the list currently, and especially if given definitions or references, we do want them to retain in the list per WP:REDLINK. Legitimately-wanted-content-Redlinks are good, and encourage some editors to provide the desired content, but anything that shouldn't eventually have a bluelink can be deleted. —Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that I don't think the red links were necessarily added with an understanding that words do not get their own Wikipedia articles per WP:NDICT. If all they are are "terms", and it seems many of them are, they certainly don't deserve their own standalone articles, so I don't think it would be a good idea to post them in requested articles. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In light of new evidence that has been presented to me in the course of this discussion, I no longer think the solution to this page's problems is deletion. I have laid out my new suggestion for this page's improvement on the page's talk page here. I would appreciate input from other users on the issue. Thank you.
(Also, is there any way to withdraw my own misplaced AfD request?) elvenscout742 (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your note here is basically enough, (to get across the message of "Withdrawn by nominator") and any admin or non-involved editor can then close this thread (at their leisure) with that result. (I couldn't remember exactly what the procedure is, so went to WP:AFD and searched for "withdraw" :) To be ultra-efficient (or for next time), it might be helpful to amend your initial-nomination, with either a strike-out or a suffixed message, to make it rapidly clear to whoever closes the thread. But not required. —Quiddity (talk) 03:57, 1 November 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of ABC Christmas television episodes

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

These articles don't meet the criteria for notability for stand-alone lists at WP:LISTN, which states, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...." No sources have been provided to indicate that the topic of Christmas-themed television episodes on ABC, or Christmas-themed television episodes on CBS, or Christmas-themed television episodes on NBC, has been discussed in independent reliable sources. In fact, no sources have been provided at all. (See also the current AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fox Christmas television episodes.) Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Corn cheese (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this illustrates the inadequacy of LISTN as an absolute and singular standard for all lists, which it is not, notwithstanding a few editors who would like it to be. It is a good analysis for some lists, but not all lists. See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on this, and the last, often-ignored paragraph in LISTN further makes clear there is no consensus to apply it and only it to all lists. I'm pretty sure Christmas episodes have been discussed as a group (even if not by network), but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to catalog every last one of them, just as it is not a good idea to make a list of expected voters in Ohio in the 2012 election, even though they have obviously been discussed as a group by multiple reliable sources. So perversely, some of the worst lists would pass LISTN and some of the best lists would fail it.
This list more relevantly fails WP:LISTPURP, in that the overwhelming majority of its entries are non-notable, and subdividing them by network is also not a useful way to subdivide them, so this is not a valid navigational index, split-off list, etc., and WP:IINFO for being indiscriminate trivia, so delete on those grounds. postdlf (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Organising Christmas specials by television network is quite arbitrary. Why not by genre? Or format? Or by decade?--xanchester (t) 19:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This type of list seems difficult to accurately upkeep; most shows will have some sort of Christmas episode each year. Would a category of holiday episodes serve a similar purpose in a better way? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, and there already is one: Category:Christmas television specials.--xanchester (t) 06:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Khana

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

contested speedy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Not only is this article's tone promotional, its content seems utterly unencyclopaedic. It's unsourced and the website of reference is the blog of the individual who created the article Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Salehkhana (which was created after the page for deletion) duplicates the article, but with slightly different text. Ravendrop 06:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Deleted. Ravendrop 02:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete unless WP:V can be found to verify its existence as a village (and more importantly the name - i.e. one word or two?). I searched but could only find a Google Map reference, which isn't necessarily reliable. IF the page is verified then I suggest blowing it up to simply: "(Name) is a village in (District) Pakistan." as absolutely everything else fails WP:V and some of it potentially infringes on BLP violations. Ravendrop 06:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per consensus that all verified populated places are inherently notable per the sources found by editors below. Ravendrop 02:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete the crap in the article Well, Google maps and Google earth think it exists (approximately 33 degrees 50 minutes N by 71 degrees 52 minutes E) ~~- but the US GeoNames server doesn't have anything~~. In any event, the content of the article cannot be verified by Google maps or Google earth. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the US GeoNames server verifies the existence of this village under the name Silah Khana (a plausible alternate Romanization of Urdu script reading Saleh Khana) at 33° 50' 37" N 071° 52' 13" E, right where Google has it. So it's existence is verified by two sources; the naming is a matter of style but looking at the Urdu, I think the current name is closer to the book-correct version. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, have cleaned it up, it seems to exist, have added refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I removed some further unsourced content and reduced it to a stub. Real population center and appears of significant size. --Oakshade (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm formally withdrawing the Afd nomination. Move to speedy keep. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Yunshui under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Masters

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

The subject is not note-worthy, article is not sourced, well, it is sourced but its source is IMDb which is I think an unreliable site, possibly autobiographical Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 06:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Model

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

This article has been tagged with a lot of issues, including notability since 2007. Might fail GNG among other things. SarahStierch (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Demonstrably fails WP:N. The sources are all blog articles (not all of which work) closely linked to the real subject, Ron Edwards. There are no sources meeting WP:RS, and is no suggestion that this topic has ever been covered in a reliable sources, let alone the coverage by reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability. The article has many other problems (and has for a very long time) but five years has failed to turn up any evidence beyond weblog cruft. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no proper references for 5 years (self published + blog != RS). Bjelleklang - talk 13:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy .

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeshifter (EP)

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

Not notable EP that fails WP:NALBUMS. — ṞṈ™ 05:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and Books provided zero relevant results and I found this progarchives.com link that mentions all of the album information but it was probably copied from the album cover itself. Considering the album was self-released, it probably wouldn't have received any significant attention, probably mostly blogs of questionable reliability and significance. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Can I do to keep this page up?
XyphynX9 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references, preferably when you started the article, would have helped. However, as I mentioned with my vote, I haven't found any appropriate references. To learn how to cite references, visit Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this piece of WP:SPAM per WP:NALBUMS. Qworty (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this article but I see now that I can not find many references on this release. I'm willing to accept the deletion of this article.XyphynX9 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph R. Carvalko

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

This is yet another person who paid somebody to write a Wikipedia article for him [13]. As usual, what the person got for his couple of hundred dollars was a schlock job based on a smattering of minor, primary sources that do nothing to establish notability. What we need are significant, secondary sources. You won’t find them here. The most significant thing about Carvalko is that he was once involved in a lawsuit involving Korean War vets. This is a case of WP:BLP1E. He’s a part-time adjunct professor who teaches a single course called “Law, Science and Technology,” so he fails WP:PROF. (In the original version of the article, the paid hack tried to make Carvalko sound like a tenured professor who taught in three different disciplines: Law, Science, and Technology. But as this link [14] shows, it is in fact just a single course that’s called “Law, Science, and Technology." This is just one example of the dishonesty of these paid hacks.) Carvalko also claims to be an author, but he paid to have his books published through notorious vanity press AuthorHouse [15] [16]. The books are utterly non-notable, failing WP:BK, and he fails WP:AUTHOR. He has published a few academic papers, but there’s no evidence that they’re cited anywhere or have made any kind of academic splash. Again, only primary sources are given, not the necessary secondary sources. Finally, he holds some patents, but once again the sources are primary, not secondary, and there is no indication whatsoever that the patents are notable. In sum, this is the case of a non-notable person who paid a “Wikipedia content provider” for an article that utterly fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Mr. Carvalko was ripped off, but it’s very difficult to feel sorry for him. Qworty (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC, WP:PROF, and WP:CREATIVE. General lack of independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't call it a schlock job, whatever that means. It was written by a competent editor who didn't have much to work with. The subject is notable neither as an academic, nor as an attorney, nor as a poet. St Anselm (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to establish notability. One high profile case is not enough, and potentially notable work does not mean that the creator is notable. Gigs (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources are mostly either primary sources or not independent of the subject. The remaining ones do not show notability except for a single event, the case involving Roger Dumas. I have found a lot of sourcing for Roger, tons going way back. Roger's brother has been very active, bringing cases against the US Govt and even wrote and directed a movie about it starring Ed Asner. So I would recommend an article on Roger Dumas (POW) be created, and in that article can be discussed Joseph R. Carvalko in terms of his involvement. That's the only way I see Carvalko in Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's too much here for an A7 speedy deletion, but nothing in the article rises to any real significance, and there isn't any evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Logical Cowboy ukexpat (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Brown (broadcaster)

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

Advertisement/resume, unsourced BLP. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced BLP -- Patchy1 03:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dave Brown being a common name, I could be missing something, but I'm not finding anything on this particular one. Go Phightins! 21:51, 1 November 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. G3: Blatant hoaxes. The sources provided did not substantiate any of the claims made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copiii Pierdere

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

Apparently a hoax (or at best WP:OR); the links provided do not mention this cult, nor do any websites I could find with my limited knowledge of Romanian. All references to the cult in English are in Wikipedia articles by the same editor, Cultastic1512. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, on the same subject with same reference issues:[reply]

Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3/G10. A cult with a purportedly well-documented history, including conflicts with the Catholic church, back to before 1700, that spread to Florida with Pedro Menéndez de Avilés and to Massachusetts in time for the Salem Witch Trials? But that has mysteriously no significant Google hits, even in dodgy pseudoscience sources? No, that's about as blatant as a hoax gets. But if, for some reason, this isn't convincing as a G3 blatant hoax, I'm pretty sure this is also a G10 attack page; the murderous, curse-wielding gypsy is an established antiziganic trope. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've read the articles slowly, I see your point. I'm marking all three for speedy deletion. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society

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

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

Completely unreferenced book reviews. No references in > five years. No evidence of notability in the article nor clear from google searches. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained last time, it is in print and widely read. If it lacks Wiki links that is a defictiency in Wiki. --GwydionM (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Nice to see people still fear the truths he expressed and would like to write him out of history. --GwydionM (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current article is uncited, has neutrality problems, and needs to be cleaned up, but the subject has received significant coverage by secondary sources: Law in the Domains of Culture published by University of Michigan Press, Sex Before the Sexual Revolution by Cambridge University Press, Cultural Materialism: On Raymond Williams published by University of Minnesota Press, Beyond Methods by Yale University Press, New Historicism and Cultural Materialism by Macmillan Publishers. The second book refers to it as a "classic text" on the subject. More than adequately meets the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 19:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Google Scholar lists over 6,000 citations to this book. If that doesn't pass our notability guideline for books then there is something wrong with the guideline, not with the book's suitability as a topic for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Warriors (novel series). Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun Trail

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

Unpublished book. No references with in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of professional full-length reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a thing but you said No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of professional full-length reviews. How can an unpublished book be reviewed or have ever charted ??? there was already a quick delete about it a day ago but I could remove it do to the fact that I was going to improve it. But yes its an unpublished book so there isnt a description yet but there will be soon. What would be the point of deleting it now and making it again later. So whats so wrong with it. I said I had some more to add later but I was busy so I didnt add it yet. So what should be added that not, but I still am adding to it.BlackDragon 22:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Redirect per nom and Tokyogirl79. BlackDragon, see WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL for why. Another reason is to avoid Wikipedia being used as a marketing campaign, not saying that is the case here. BTW I did some random looks through the 50+ book articles attributed to this author and they all had sourcing problems that might not hold up if they were ever AfD. Most of them use sources related to the book (ie. Harper Collins website, Amazon, etc) and not independent reliable sources. See WP:RS for how to source an article so that it will hold up in an AfD. Most likely most of the books would better merged into series articles instead of standalone articles. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warriors (novel series). This is really just a big case of WP:TOOSOON for the reasons stated above. The other big problem is that the individual books in the Warriors series tend to have a problem with getting enough in-depth coverage by reliable sources. The series is still popular, yes, but popularity isn't enough to warrant keeping an individual novel for this particular part of the overall series. What coverage the individual books get (and this book isn't getting any coverage in RS) isn't enough. I have to say that there are a lot of books in this series that need to be lumped together in one big merge or AfD. This isn't a zing against the series, as this is a fairly common problem with children's novels in general, especially any that are part of a long running series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K I see but if anything it should be redirected so that it can be made again when the book gets closer or more info is published on it so that it doesnt have to be made entirely from scratch again BlackDragon 16:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, recommend save the article content somewhere now, before it gets deleted, then merge a summary portion of it into the series article and create a redirect to it using template:anchor. Seems to be the emerging consensus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying the material into RedDragon's userspace would be a good idea. I just want to warn you that the sources must be independent of the author/publisher/agents and must be published in reliable sources, which means no fan pages, blogs, or the like. Routine listings of book releases, signings, etc can't be used to show notability. It's one of the more frustrating things when it comes to trying to establish notability for the children's series like this one, as they so infrequently get that much coverage. I think that it might be best to kind of cobble together sources and slowly create a main article for the mini/sub series that this book is part of. GC or I would be more than happy to help you out on this or let you know if a source is usable or not, if you like.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Milton Keynes

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

No other urban sub-area has an article. The area's boundaries are unclear. It has one reference which seems to just be a map of the northern part of Milton Keynes Eopsid (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Since the extent of the area is unlclear, we really cannot have an article on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most urban sub-areas have articles, but almost all relate to an existing settlement. This one is unusual as being an artefact of the Office of National Statistics. The area's boundaries are given in detail in the external link and stated as: 'The Central Milton Keynes urban sub-area and the North Milton Keynes urban sub-area together approximate to that part of the former Newport Pagnell Rural District that is west of the River Ouzel.' But note for example that the CMK Urban subarea link is to [[Central Milton Keynes#ONS Urban sub-area|Central Milton Keynes urban sub-area]], which is the typical way of showing Urban Sub-areas. Wikipedia should be inclusive and deletions should be highly exceptional. Ephemera like the umpteen episode of Friends are far more appropriate for deletion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

It may be that the ONS plans to cease use of recognisable names for urban sub-areas in the 2011 census, using 'Low level output areas' instead. Also, looking at the map at http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/NeighbourhoodSummary.do?a=7&b=276853&c=MK13+9EA&g=409617&i=1001x1012&j=301090&m=1&p=1&q=1&r=0&s=1350390729399&enc=1&bigMap=true&inWales=false&textLanguage=1 it may be that the ONS have plans to divide and rename this US-a, since the map shows it divided into different LLOAs, 011 and 013. So this discussion should be suspended until we see Census 2011. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:41, 19 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One person has sought its deletion and his/her basis for doing so has been questioned and the challenge left unanswered. The default status for articles is that they should be kept when they are founded on a reliable source. The citation for this one is the Office for National Statistics, which is as impeccable as they get. Leave it alone. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What question has been left unanswered? You pointing out that other urban sub-areas have articles but this is the only one which doesnt relate to an existing settlements is true, but thats really what I meant by No other urban sub-area has an article.. To clarify I meant other urban subareas which have articles relate to existing settlements this is the only one that does not that has an article. Eopsid (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an argument based on the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy. Nearly all of these ONS-defined urban sub-areas are coterminous with areas defined for other purposes, so they don't need separate articles. North Milton Keynes is an exception, so a separate article is needed. If there are other such exceptions then they should also have articles: one of them has to be the first. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was implying that North Milton Keynes is not notable enough to have an article mainly because it doesnt exist outside the ONS data on urban areas and other uses of the term North Milton Keynes may not be coterminous with that area. Eopsid (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of similiar cases according to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom there is also a Normanton South (not to be confused with South Normanton) urban sub area, according to the article's source there is also a Normanton North (which is a seperate urban area). This is a bit of a different case to the Milton Keynes one though seeing as these areas are physically seperate not one urban area however one may refer to a number of villages and looking on bing's ordnance survey maps I think it refers to Altofts. Eopsid (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in Fairfax County, Virginia

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

Topic is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article. The issue of poverty in Fairfax County is hardly noteworthy compared to poverty in most other US cities/counties (including many smaller jurisdictions). This article's only sources are the US Census Bureau, Fairfax County, and the "Phoenix Project" (a local nonprofit). The article also seems to have a bit of a NPOV issue (especially being written by only one author). Some mention of this topic in Fairfax County, Virginia should be sufficient. _scootey ^talk 03:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really an independent topic, but an aspect of Fairfax County, Virginia. Note also that the figures, which are the main material of the article, will change every year. So a new article will have to be written every year..."Poverty in Fairfax County, Virginia in 2012", "Poverty in Fairfax County, Virginia in 2013", etc. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too specific to be an encyclopedia article, more like a personal essay. Also like User:Kitfoffxe said above, it would have to be rewritten every year. JIP | Talk 04:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually said that a new article would need to be written each year. If poverty in 2012 was notable in 2012 it will still be notable in 2013, so a new article on poverty in 2013 will also be needed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic essay. This would be wonderful information to publish and keep up to date, somewhere else. RadioFan (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scope of the article is ridiculously small. An article on Poverty in Virginia is encyclopedic, but an article on a single county is not.--xanchester (t) 12:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly an essay and non-encyclopedic. Merge whatever can be salvaged with Fairfax County, Virginia. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 04:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basab Pradhan

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

Not notable 122.177.153.55 (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maganti Ram Chandran and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shankar Maruwada were created on WP:AFC by the IP, so I've moved both pages to their proper ___location. Steps 1 and 3 have been completed. I have no opinion on the subject — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 22:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 22:59, 11 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is not this [17] a decent source? I can see why notability might be questioned, and some of the sources ought to be removed, but others appear all right. dci | TALK 02:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The VCCircle link talks about a small startup which the person who this WP article is about founded. Does that make this person notable enough to warrant a full WP article? He is not the CEO or Chairman or founder of a notable company; there is nothing on the article that talks about any notable achievement of the person. There are two articles in major news sources (The Hindu, Times of India) cited in the article which talk about this person returning to Infosys. Do these 2-3 references satisfy the notability condition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.119.224 (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to read the other two articles you mention, but if this man's departure (or the circumstances of it) made enough waves to justify that kind of coverage, I'd think it would be a start. He has been known to be involved in ventures [18] that receive some news coverage; he appears to be of indeed slight but still existent notability. dci | TALK 20:45, 19 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 03:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Many sources in the article are self-published, but still there are a couple of reliable independent references. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are some of reliable independent references. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation with suitable sources. Spinning Spark 15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamble Fish

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

Search for reliable, third-party sources turns up mostly illegal scanlations and one review of questionable reliability.[19] However, even if the review site is deemed reliable, this would not constitute "significant coverage" as outlined in WP:NOTE nor are there any other indicators that the subject would pass one of the other criteria in WP:BK. The other Wikipedias also do not offer any reliable sources either. —Farix (t | c) 10:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#1. Nominator nominated the article for deletion then removed 8000 bytes from the article. What this means is that the nominator doesn't think that the deletion nomination is sufficient to result in a delete, which is evidence that there is no deletion argument to consider. Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What utter hogwash. I gave a strong case for deletion, namely that it lacks coverage by reliable, third party sources. And editing the article to remove trivia did not, in any way, invalidate my original argument. On top of that WP:NPASR is not a speed keep rational. All it states is that closing admins can use their best judgment when closing AfDs with little to no participations after 7 days from the nomination. (relist, no consensus, or delete) It has only been 4 days since the nomination was made (3 days since you made your "speedy keep" comment). —Farix (t | c) 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible delete without prejudice for recreation with more sources. This is probably going to be one of the most difficult !votes I will ever make inan AfD. I have known about this manga for several years for various reasons, so it has a place in my heart. Sure I've never actually read the manga, but I still have feelings for it nonetheless. This is the reason for the "weakest possible" part. But here's the thing − it is apparently not the subject of enough, significant, reliable, coverage, whether in English or Japanese. The manga does seem to be rather popular, but without reliable coverage, it can't have an article. I'll change my mind however if someone finds sources that I couldn't Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:58, 16 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:19, 19 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of indepencent reliable sources. Topic does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing under Gamble Fish, Tomu Shirasagi, Aoyama Hiromi, or Yumeichirou Shirasagi. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akita Shoten as a possible search term or Delete per nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I exported the full history of this article to the Manga Wikia. So nothing is lost. Anyone wanting to see their contributions and expand even, go to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Gamble_Fish Note, it may take time to update their server for the entire history. Dream Focus 21:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per initial nom, and primarily a lack of satisfying WP:BK.--十八 21:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blondfox Records

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

No independent reliable coverage to be found about this new record label; fails WP:GNG. Batard0 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon - Although I understand the record label was only recently founded, I would've expected something but found nothing despite searching with Google News. I would list this company as independent and minor at this time, considering that there isn't an official website yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 11 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:15, 19 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 03:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor Rehabilitation of Kentucky, Inc.

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

This appears to fall short of the notability requirement in WP:NONPROFIT that says non-profits are notable if they are national in scale. This appears to focus on activities in one state, Kentucky. Batard0 (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The nomination mis-interpreted policy at a few levels. But wp:notability-suitable sourcing appears to fall just short. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On what levels have I misinterpreted policy? I'd add that it fails WP:GNG if that's what you're after, --Batard0 (talk) 13:54, 19 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 03:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I started leaning towards keep while reading this whas11.com link which mentions the group is "the state’s largest bird of prey rehab center". However, I started leaning towards delete because I've found mostly event listings but nothing substantial such as the history (aside from its 1990 foundation). Unfortunately, Google Books provided nothing substantial either. My news results showed they have appeared at several events and are obviously a noble cause but an article can't only focus with that. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cupertino Union School District. Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Miller Middle School (San Jose, California)

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

I am unsure if the 2 award winning teachers qualify this as a notable middle school, esp. as so few middle schools ever pass notability here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cupertino Union School District per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Like most middle schools, this school is not notable enough to warrant an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cupertino Union School District - Google News archives provided minor results that would not be useful, one of which (the first result) also mentions another "Teacher of the Year" from 1988. Google Books found one result here for a construction announcement. The school achieved a "Blue Ribbon School of Excellence" from the Department of Education but this would be insufficient. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possibly adding the content about the teachers and, if appropriate, Blue Ribbon status to the school district page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as usual for nn schools per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cupertino Union School District. Convention is to redirect middle schools.--xanchester (t) 19:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: If this is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia

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

fails WP:ORG. i could not find any indepth sources. unreferenced for 6 years. google search mainly turns up directory listings or WP mirros. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've cleaned up the article and completely rewritten it. There's significant coverage by secondary sources. The subject has been covered by Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia published by ABC-CLIO, Shadows of the Prophet published by Springer, Islam in an Era of Nation-States: published by University of Hawaii Press, Islam in Malaysian Foreign Policy published by Psychology Press, and many other sources. More than meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 03:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis v Dayton Hudson Corporation, 128 Mich. App. 165

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

Looks like an original research and it violates Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought as one of the contents of What Wikipedia is not. The article is wholly unsourced and the author of the article is the only source. Some info looks like a hoax. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 00:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not per nom. The name of the article itself is a citation to the court decision this posting is attempt to summarize, so calling it unsourced is inaccurate. There is no indication this court decision is notable, however, and this looks like nothing more than a law student's brief of a decision they had to read for class. Which doesn't make it OR necessarily as it is likely an attempt at a straightforward description rather than novel analysis, but it means I don't see anything worth saving here. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. This appears to be a law student's case notes rather than an encyclopedia article. The facts of the case are not a hoax based on the decision found here, although I am not sure that the article creator has explained the court's reasoning correctly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no notability claimed or established. Wikipedia is not a repository of court cases. JIP | Talk 04:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, either in the article or in my own research. The 1983 case has been cited by other cases, but that's what you'd expect from a case decided three decades ago: almost any case more than a year or two old eventually gets referred to (take a quick look at any volume of Shepard's Citations), and that is not an indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJRC. This is not an especially interesting, well-cited, or unique case; cf. Sherwood v. Walker, a well-known case from Michigan law. Bearian (talk)
Delete. For all reasons above along with the fact that there's no reliable secondary sources for such an article. Lord Roem (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SuperLame

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

Unremarkable upcoming film, wholly unsourced, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as one of the contents of What Wikipedia is not. It is not shooting/filming for the film yet according to the article. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 00:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability. And by "zero" I mean "zero links, zero IMDb, zero period". Sidatio (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The name says it all. - Mr X 02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, no references, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for unreleased films.--xanchester (t) 02:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Far too soon, I haven't found any relevant sources with Google US and UK and this isn't surprising, considering there are few details about the film itself. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is just nothing about it anywhere. like zero. No IMDb, No website.NothingZacJohn435 talk 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A film that is not the subject of reliable coverage (yet) and which has not even started filming yet can't possibly be notable. SuperLame indeed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudsourcing

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

A non-notable neologism made up by a non-notable author in an unreliable publication (WordPress). Other than the two links the article no reliable coverage of any kind was found. I previously prodded it, but author removed it without any reason given. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might even want to request a speedy. If we all got Wikipedia pages for making up words, I'd have six. Sidatio (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks adequate sources and is a non-notable neologism. - Mr X 02:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition of an obscure neologism. The citation in the article is a self-published source and is thus unreliable. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. Subject fails to meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 02:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely zero evidence of use aside from the one WordPress blog despite searches with both Google News and Books. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article grossly misreads the coiner's intent! —Tamfang (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xanchester, and as a fork of crowdsourcing and astroturfing. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The AfD was withdrawn by the nominator. Non-admin closure.--xanchester (t) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Helping Kids

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

Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I was unable to find enough independent, reliable coverage for this foundation. All I found were links to sites that either sell their products or do not appear to be independent. While I would support such an organization, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Being an autistic person, I believe that nominating this article is quite a shame. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything that would establish notability. I would probably change my mind however if someone else finds something that I missed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the coverage found below, I am now withdrawing this nomination. I wonder how my Google search failed me this time. Thanks for the sources MrX and Uzma Gamal. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with San Marcos High School (Santa Barbara, California) - there's enough notability in the regional links for that much at least, but far too little to support a standalone article. Seems like a great idea though as far as a charitable effort is concerned. Sidatio (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found 4,219 news articles for "Kids Helping Kids" on NewsBank, and 14 on NesBank and 16 on Google News for "Kids Helping Kids" + "Santa Barbara" (Santa Barbara Independent, Times-Herald , Ventura County Star, San Jose Mercury News). Unless there are other organizations with the same name, this one seems notable, at least on a regional level. - Mr X 02:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be enough source maaterial to meet WP:GNG: [20][21][22]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's sufficient coverage by secondary sources, as demonstrated above. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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