Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 October	7 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 Speedy deleted as G5 by Dennis Brown, author was a sock puppet of User:Jude Enemy. (non-admin closure)SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CHao$

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

Not that my annoyance with the cleanup of this page has anything to do with why I think it should be deleted, but this article is a mess. The artist's claims to notability stem from blogs, deleted YouTube accounts, and reliable sources that make zero mentions of the subject. They are not signed to a notable label, the tone is highly promotional ("in honor of the 2nd anniversary of his highly acclaimed mixtape..."), and the name of this group or their EPs do not seem to appear in any of the reliable sources named. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Speedy: UPDATE: Based on below post, seems like repeating of a previously deleted article.

No claim to notability, sources are all horribly unreliable, editor seems like he just wants to promote himself or whoever the article is about. I would recommend some protection as well if the editor keeps adding ~200k character edits of mainly duplicated non-notable material. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Jude Enemy. – Connormah (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks to be already resolved. Based on what I've been able to read from these other editors, seems like a nuisance from a self-promoting SPA. Vcessayist (talk) 01:16, 7 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. Consensus is that there are insufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. -Scottywong | communicate _ 16:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Moore

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

I removed the misleading parts, as she was NOT in the movie, etc. Not notable. Linkedin, etc. Even the official website hasn't been updated since 2008. SPA article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional article. No reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was able to find this newspaper article which appears to be about her when searching, as I was also considering taking this to AfD. I know it's probably not enough, but there's at least something out there about this person. Googling is admittedly ineffective for assessing notability in this case, as "Charlotte Moore" appears to be a fairly common name. CtP (t • c) 02:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is most telling is the lede "Remember the name, because this 23 year old singer actress from Toronto is going to be a star someday", which tells me she wasn't a star then, and I haven't found anything that picks up where this prediction left off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unless further sources can be found. I certainly don't disagree with Dennis Brown here; it looks like this person never had notable success after the publication of the article. CtP (t • c) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, unless further sources can be found. Per Dennis Brown. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student conducting research on Canadian Music Theatre and its influences etc. I wrote this article because I have personally met Charlotte Moore, so that makes it difficult to source. As far as her body of work, her resume on the Talent House website can be found here: http://www.talenthouse.ca/resumes/Moore_Charlotte.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florence Emily (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to show notability is discussion (not just passing mentions) of Moore in independent, reliable sources (see the general notability guideline). The resume unfortunately does not qualify as an independent reliable source, but also be aware if you're having trouble finding sources online that any print sources are also acceptable. CtP (t • c) 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: NACTORS, and has no reliable sources supporting it. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we can find a reference for the award (which indicates notability), otherwise merge into Mavor Moore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a better reference for her 1990 award, and have updated the article with it. PK T(alk) 16:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think her list of credits is substantial enough to believe she's notable, the issue becoming finding more reliable sources to back this up. The award helps establish notability as well, of course. The tricky part here is that there are several Charlotte Moores listed in IMDB, and some of the TV/film credits for the Canadian Charlotte Moore have been mixed up with somebody else. PK T(alk) 16:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a couple more references and added them to the article. PK T(alk) 21:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure her own uploaded bio at Talent House Inc. doesn't quality as a references. And http://tapa.ca/ wouldn't be independent of the "award" they granted here. The key is no one else is talking about her, still. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article references her mother and has no relevant information on the person in question. I do not believe it meets general notability guideline for secondary sources or as a biographical article.Righteousskills (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She appears to be a veteran Canadian musical actress, from the sources I found. There's significant coverage of her in reliable independent sources that are national or regional in scope in Canada (look at this one and here and here). There's been significant coverage of her over the years in a number of reliable sources. I think people might be having trouble finding more sources because much of this coverage is in the 1980s and 1990s. It meets the WP:GNG requirements and the WP:NACTORS guideline on stage performances. --Batard0 (talk) 15:14, 18 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 per G3 by DGG. (WP:NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonukah

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

This appears to be a joke. I can find no WP:RS that confirm the existence of this "holiday". The only things I see all cite this wiki article. As far as I can tell, this is a party some friends have thrown every year in CA, and I guess one of them decided to make a wiki page as a joke. Bachrach44 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Bachrach44 (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. The references are all non-functioning links. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. WP:HOAX; no references, and searching gets me none, except a website that asks for my google password. Churn and change (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. The references include two dead links, a web site that has no relevant content, and a "Diversity Calendar" from the December 2005 Cincinnati Magazine. That issue is available in full view on Google Books, and while it does contain a "Diversity Calendar" there is no mention of Nonukah. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - 3/3 nonfunctioning refs, ask any rabbi and they'll tell you this holiday doesn't exist. The first sentence, "Nonukah is a widely celebrated holiday marking the end of the eight days of Hanukah and the beginning of the 358 days of the year that are not Hanukah" shows that this article is a clear hoax. --Jethro B 00:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. At best, it's WP:MADEUP elsewhere on the internet, and still doesn't have the sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I requested a CSD based on the unanimous support here. --Jethro B 01:13, 7 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. No consensus on whether the available sourcing is sufficient for the band itself to pass WP:GNG, or whether the available sourcing is primarily about Padden or the band. -Scottywong | prattle _ 16:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The One Ensemble Of Daniel Padden

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

Non-notable band fails to meet WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BAND. No reliable sources or significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, where did you look? --Michig (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No significant coverage in Google News archive, Nexis, or Google Books. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple coverage in The Wire, including a review of the Oriole album in the October 12 issue, one from 2007 (there are more), FACT magazine, Allmusic review, Allmusic review, The List, Gigwise.com, Press and Journal. The band has included several notable musicians from other bands, passing another criterion of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these are undeniably passing references, and many don't even mention "The One Ensemble," just Padden. I would say this is trivial coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. The One Ensemble effectively is Padden plus whatever musicians he gets involved, and the review of the One Ensemble album in the latest issue of The Wire and the Allmusic review of Wayward the Fourth are significant coverage of the One Ensemble. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage. Does not meet the WP:GNG. What passes for references, according to Michig, persuade me that no actual references exist. Needs significant coverage on the actual topic, not trivial mentions, according to the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. His website calls the band daniel padden & the one ensemble [1]. Mirror May 20, 2005 calls it The One Ensemble of Daniel Padden. Herald May 19, 2007 calls it "sets by the One Ensemble, Daniel Padden's avant-folk collective." Aberdeen Press & Journal October 31, 2009 calls it "Mr Padden will also be performing, as The One Ensemble, at Aberdeen's Peacock." Herald July 26, 2010 calls it "second support band The One Ensemble, who combine trombone, violin and Japanese drumming with Daniel Padden's voice for some playfully strident mediterranean mediaeval baroque." These quotes provide most of the material available on the topic. What ever the name of the topic is, there is not enough reliable source material for a stand alone article on the topic per WP:GNG. -- -Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the articles in The Wire? What do they say? Or do you believe that everything that exists can be found on Google?--Michig (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like an article-naming issue. There's no doubt that Padden and several variations of these names are notable, per The Wire, FACT, allmusic, etc. Even if you wanted separate pages for all of these (for some reason), this particular one would be notable per reviews in Stylus [2] and The Wire [3] 86.44.49.108 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Appears to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1, with significant coverage in The Wire, Allmusic, Stylus Magazine. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND per Paul Erik's citations. --Batard0 (talk) 14:37, 18 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. Sandstein 08:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Fibreboard

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

No reliable secondary sources, only self published sources which don't adequately demonstrate notability. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Prod contested. Zujua (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zujua (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finnish name of the company is "Suomen Kuitulevy", there are more Google News hits under that name, but nothing major as far as I can see. Asilv (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: mostly trivial mentions out there. Current article is limited to self published information. It's a promotional piece. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been speedy deleted once before [4] under WP:G11 and WP:G12. MKFI (talk) 07:07, 9 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™ 20:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smintair

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

Was a proposed airline was supposed to start operations in 2007, since then nothing has happened. No indication of meeting notability guidelines, Google searches not finding any significant coverage. JetBlast (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tris2000 in the previous AfD. There's plenty of significant coverage in independent RSs (WP:CORPDEPTH), including the BBC, NY Times, CNN, and the Washington Post. Notability is not temporary, and the fact that the company failed doesn't make it less notable. Braincricket (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep – Passes WP:GNG: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Plenty of indication of passing notability guidelines. Please read section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating more articles for deletion. Simply opening the Google News archive link at the top of this discussion yields plenty of sources that consist of significant coverage about this topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep per an abundance of reliable sources from braincricket and NA1000. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:26, 13 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. There are just no indications that this belief system is of interest to significantly more people than the guy who thought it up. Sandstein 08:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archeosophy

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

I can't find significant coverage. Appears to be one guys personal belief, all the sources are authored by that one guy (except for one synthesis to the bible). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM that does not meet the WP:GNG. Needs reliable third party sources that discuss this field with significant coverage, instead of just one guy's belief, or a few mentions. Vcessayist (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one guy was the head of a society, so we're talking one society's beliefs, not one person's. None of its 20+ centers (according to Archeosophical Society) appear to be in English speaking countries, so it could just be a case of looking for sources in the wrong places. Related articles manage to turn up relevant sourcing, Francesco Baroni's "Tommaso Palamidessi et l'Archéosophie" for example. K2709 (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't seem particularly reliable. It's published by a magazine that publishes conspiracy theories etc. I am unable to locate the article. Can you please indicate what significant coverage you found from the source. Bear in mind that Tommaso Palamidessi and Archeosophical Society are not at AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes, Politica Hermetica is significantly more highbrow a source than you're suggesting, but I don't claim to have familiarity with it or indeed that article (yet). It was just intended as a drive-by pointer, a direction I'll start in if I ever get round to researching the topic more fully. K2709 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Politica Hermetica? From "Politica+Hermetica"&source=bl&ots=bj_HofbfGc&sig=rWo72afFYyPw-7UdwnRb06eD4wc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rD1zUPfaDdK4hAeQr4GoDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q="Politica Hermetica"&f=false it appears to be some group about esotericism. The website looks self published. It seems that table of contents is about secret societies, I see it mentions the illuminati. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third party sources can be found. The originator of the philosophy and the Bible are not sufficient. Kooky2 (talk) 16:41, 12 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. Based on the discussion, this is without prejudice to a recreation in a fully sourced, WP:BLP-compliant form. Sandstein 08:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi political families

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

Article is a BLP nightmare, besides a constant target for vandals. Only one of the families listed has an article; the rest is a couple of notable individuals and some (alleged) family members. But the premise of the article is that the families are notable, and that's not proven to be the case for all but one of them. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I do sympathize with sysop troubles, but being "BLP nightmares" and "targets for vandals" aren't deletion criteria. As to notability, a quick glance tells me the Sheikh Mujib and Ziaur-Rahman families both have a father as president and daughter as prime minister. Calling such families not "proven to be notable" is absurd. If other families are not notable, then their entries should be deleted, not the entire article. There seem to be such lists (at times lists and at times articles) for many other countries, and I think the two examples I found are good enough to conclude Bangladeshi politics isn't immune from family-based influences. The quality of the article is low, with parent-child relationships not highlighted in the structure, and the obviously notable families not having WP articles and hence no wikilinks. But that isn't a deletion criterion either. Churn and change (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I need sympathy in the parenting area, not the sysop area. I know what are and what aren't valid deletion criteria, and that this is a BLP should weigh in. But the salient point is that a list of families that should (properly) have only one member isn't a list. That politics in many countries are influenced by families is clear to everyone, but that does not in itself provide a rationale for this article, of this kind. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went and took a hatchet to it per WP:BOLD, leaving only blue links in, and leaving a group in only if it had more than 2 blue links. I can see at least two families in there should really be in there though the family as such doesn't have a WP article, since both of those families have a president and a prime minister father/daughter combination. If the edits get reverted I am not planning to stick around and debate the issue, I will withdraw my vote. If the edits do stick, would you reconsider? Churn and change (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the article is genuinely a net negative to the encyclopædia - if it needs adult supervision by editors who could otherwise be doing good work elsewhere, and if it's an abundant source of BLP violations - then it's surely a candidate for deletion. If the "deletion criteria" really oppose the removal of something which is a net negative to the encyclopædia, the criteria should be fixed. I understand that in principle it's possible to have a decent article on prominent political folk of Bangladesh - possibly at a slightly different title - but that's not what we have now, and it would have to be written (and sourced) from scratch - I have no objection to somebody doing so after the current problematic content has been removed. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well phrased, probably better than I did. Thanks. Churn and change, does this make more sense? Drmies (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the BLP part. I think you should probably strike out the "vandalism" part; deleting an article because of vandalism would be an invitation to vandals to try that tactic every time they want an article gone. Also, note that WP:DEL#REASON doesn't include the reason you two mention; I would support modifying the section to include that. Churn and change (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly using TNT. --No unique names 23:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a huge WP:BLP problem that cannot be fixed through ordinary clean-up. 01:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcessayist (talk • contribs)
Delete: article is a BLP violation. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was so at time of nomination. No longer is. If somebody puts the deleted stuff back, yes, we should blow it up. Churn and change (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article is a serious BLP violation with highly unreliable entries from those seeking free online opportunities of publicity at the expense of Wikipedia's credibility83.81.44.205 (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political dynasties are common in SE Asia. The other place where they commonly occur is the USA and we have at least one article about this: List of United States political families. Wikipedia would lack global perspective if it only covered the topic in the USA. To cover the topic elsewhere, we just need to consult sources such as Dynasties of India and beyond: Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. Warden (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, allow me a few remarks. You point to a list for US families--and properly speaking, our current article should be retitled. As it is, what is suggested is an article on the families, not a list thereof, but the article itself is nothing but a list. That's easily fixed, sure. But it leaves the matter of content: the current article is, and most here seem to agree, a mess. If the article were to be improved without dramatically changing its focus, and retitled, it would still be dependent on the availability of other articles (on those families) that it lists--and since no such articles are available (just one), we can't build it.
Conversely, if we keep the title and change the content to reflect it, we'd have an article about the influence (I suppose) that a number of families have had on Bangladeshi politics, which would make for a nice journal article. I see two problems with that: a general issue is that it suggests an essay of sorts; the more specific one is that the current version of the article doesn't have a sentence in it that would be suited for the revised version. Someone above pointed to WP:TNT (I wasn't familiar with the acronym and its target), and I think that certainly applies here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question has, from the beginning, been explicitly a "listing of political families in Bangladesh". Changing the title of the page to include the word list is a minor matter which would be performed by the move function, not by deletion. WP:TNT is not policy. The applicable policy here is WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and dandy--and you'd have a list of one, which is redundant to the one article linked. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just cleaned up the reliability, notability and BLP issues by removing most of the article (WP:TNT as suggested by User:Nouniquenames) and the list now reflects only what is there in other WP articles. There are only blue links, and relationships reflect exactly what the WP articles on the people state. It is now pretty much similar to other such lists for other countries. The voting is now on an article different from the one the nom started with. Churn and change (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately the reliability and BLP issues still exist because of the incorrect chronological order that is displayed in the latest version by Churn and change). Consensus cannot be established on the contents of this article through random or arbitrary truncation. We have failed to come to consensus about the chronology and rank of the contents that determine reliability and the page should therefore be deleted to save Wikipedia any loss of credibility.83.81.44.205 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)— 83.81.44.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ok, I am withdrawing my vote; if there is a debate, then deletion is the only solution. Churn and change (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insofar the article looks WP:SYNT with one exception which has its own article. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the synthetic proposition here? Are you denying the fact that there are families with political influence in Bangladesh? Are you aware that this topic is the subject of scholarly attention such as the South Asian Journal in which one can read that "One of the defining features of Bangladeshi politics has been dynastic rule ... dynastic politics in Bangladesh has led to violent political conflict between two rival claims for dynasty rule and control over state resources." As your !vote is currently just a WP:VAGUEWAVE without any evidence or reasoning, please clarify your objection. Warden (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are interested in an analytic proposition here and not in a synthetic one. A synthetic one is bound to obfuscate our semantic interpretation of the title and its contents. There is no denial of families with political influence in Bangladesh but the degree to which each of those families listed influenced the political history of Bangladesh (many of them being relatively unknown regional as opposed to national political families) and the chronological period of their political influence have always been a subject of dispute by various rival groups who frequently vandalized that page and could never reach a point of consensus in last two years since a notice was posted for its potential deletion. Unlike most other countries in the world where there is consensus on well established historical facts, there is unfortunately no such consensus in Bangladesh on settled, fundamental historical issues concerning the political figures, historically prominent political families and the birth of that republic, all of which is seriously politicized. It is neither possible nor recommended that Wikipedia becomes the arbiter of disputes of politicization of an inaccurate listing on the political families of Bangladesh that should be deleted to uphold the standard and credibility of Wikipedia. Thank you.83.81.44.205 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What wrong with sources such as Politics in Bangladesh or Understanding Bangladesh which seem, at first sight, to be as reliable as any western political history? Warden (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent in other parts of Southern Asia where internationally known and reputed publishing houses do not exist, any individual with means can simply publish his own book like printing one's own money and sell it in the market with his name on it. The concept of intellectual property does not exist in practice in that country and in that region. Books written by authors in the West are often plagiarized and translated in indigenous languages and published with impunity. Publishing houses that are not international, operate on a patron-client basis and often publish propaganda and literature of self-glorification as books. Internet has allowed local digitization of such low quality work whose sources are not verifiable. Only when a book is published by an internationally known source of publication, usually acquired by libraries, these books are expected to have gone through a process of screening and scrutiny. Unfortunately, none of the families listed on that page use those two books you mentioned as references. The first book's author is not a Bangladeshi but from a country that played a disputed role in the political history of Bangladesh. Therefore a book by an Indian author on Bangladesh is like a book written by a sympathetic Nazi about the Jews. The second book is a general book on Bangladesh and not about Bangladesh's politics, history or political families. The Columbia University Press is a good source of publication but the contents are not relevant as a source for the topic of our page in question. Thank you.83.81.44.205 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of articles about Political familys, this something that gets a lot of media attention. List_of_political_families#Bangladesh, Dhaka Nawab Family, List of United States political families, Political families of Pakistan, Stevenson political family, List of political families in Greece, Quincy political family, Political families of India, List of political families in Sri Lanka, etc. Many exist for a nation or a family. A Wikipedia search [10] shows 1,231 results for "political family" so its a lot to search for. Just change the name to have the word list in front of it, and we're fine. Dream Focus 18:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and look at this. Category:Political families by country Dream Focus 18:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones listed above by Dream Focus are more responsibly managed and edited. Neither of those were subject to kind of problems and inaccuracies faced by this Bangladesh list in question. The vote so far has been overwhelmingly in favor of deletion. Unless the debate is not yet over, WP should follow the majority rule and delete that page as soon as possible. Thanks.82.73.35.159 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily remove anything that people don't agree should be on the list. Agree upon specific criteria for inclusion. Dream Focus 01:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With the BLP and synth removed, the remainder of the article is a not very useful content fork of other articles, and will never become otherwise. Concerns that the article is a magnet for BLP violation and POV pushing are credible and convincing, especially the concern that valuable editor and adminitrator time would have to be invested simply to keep the violators at bay. All in all, a large net loss for the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless fully sourced. I think this could be a good article but without being fully sourced I'm afraid it will remain a magnet for POV editing including and excluding entries. Insomesia (talk) 23:10, 13 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) 19:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main impacts of Norway being outside of the European Union

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

Original research; Wikipedia is not for publishing of personal essays or original work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an essay: introduction, for and against, conclusion. Serious problems with tone (Norway="we" etc). It's certainly not an encyclopedia article (although the topic could be viable). Tigerboy1966 22:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norway–European Union relations which covers this topic more appropriately. It doesn't matter to me whether this article gets deleted before being redirected, but this article is an essay which is not needed in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think a redirect would be a waste of time as I can't see people searching this phrase. When googling even "Norway Eu..." the proper WP article tops the list. Tigerboy1966 08:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTCASE. Articles on Wikipedia are about generally accepted knowledge, and not merely a collection of opinions on particular cases. Vcessayist (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an essay. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 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. Braincricket's argument in particular has not been refuted by the delete voters. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese words of English origin

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

Unnecessary, unsourced, non-notable trivia, as per Wikipedia's notability guideline, and there are only two items on it. Seems pointless. TBr and ley 19:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable trivia. Hue Sat Lum 19:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Changed to Weak keep, see below. Hue Sat Lum 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These articles need to be taken into consideration if such articles are to be dismissed as trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Similar to other articles in this category that Phil Bridger pointed out, but unreferenced and needing cleanup. Hue Sat Lum 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - when such artciles in the category come up, we usually, but not always, keep them. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced contested information (WP:V), also because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there's no indication of the topic's notability. Sandstein 08:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has contested the accuracy of any of the article's content. Are you doing so? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:LISTN, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...." Well, Modern Cantonese Phonology spends about 60 pages on it in the chapter "English loanwords in Cantonese". There's also A Study of English Loanwords in Chinese Through Chinese Newswriting. Seems to be a topic that is discussed in books on Chinese etymology and phonology, so I think it qualifies for a stand-alone list. I suggest expansion, rather than deletion. Braincricket (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Braincricket and Bearian. Under [[WP:OUTCOMES}], "Lists are generally kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." The criterion for inclusion could be stated better within the article, but is evident from the title alone. It is limited in scope, and the content is indeed verifiable; sources do exist that could support it, even though it's in a poor state of development. Expand and reference, don't delete. --Batard0 (talk) 14:27, 18 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 close - moved to WP:RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 7. "Pepper" @ 12:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google.ocm

Google.ocm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also

Gogole.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Google.con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goole.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

random mispellings - not misnomers, don't see that random possible user entered errors should be valid redirects Oranjblud (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, this is where redirection deletion, and this stuff is discussed, not here. TBr and ley 19:34, 6 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poole versus HAL 9000

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

The analysis of the game is WP:OR. You could probably find citations for the moves themselves, but analysis such as White is also worse if the queen takes one of the knights, which could be answered by Nd3 or Bd6 is the opinion of the editor who wrote that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article states that game is a duplicate of an actual game played in 1910; as such the analysis is not necessarily original research and may be an analysis of the actual game (although it is probably in need of better referencing). The 1910 game is supposedly described in "The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess" by Irving Chernev.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed the POV that the nominator noted in his nomination. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the one particular item I quoted, but that was just an example. The entire analysis is inherently OR. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is reportedly annotated in The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess by Irving Chernev and other books, plus chessmaster 3000. I can't verify that though. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some analysis by Matanović for a move that was feared WP:OR. It only needed a little research to add the supporting source material. Which brings to question why the nom wouldn't simply add citation tags to the article, instead of asking for article assassination. (It's my understanding that an article is AfD'd only when the article subject is non-notable. Am I wrong on that?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the noms concerns with original analysis. Delete or cite-needed those passages in the article. The nom however gave a delete rationale of OR for the entire article which doesn't make sense. If the game didn't actually happen in the film, I would understand OR, because it would be OR to write an article about something that never happened. Though one could question if the game actually happened since it was on film with a non-existent HAL, but that's an existential concern. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. As the nominator admits, the topic has notability, and per WP:NOTE, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." This means that if there is original research, that is a reason for article cleanup, not article deletion. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The worst of the OR appears to have been removed, suggesting per WP:ATD that it can be improved through regular editing and is not an appropriate candidate for deletion. Likewise, multiple non-trivial (and presumably independent and reliable at that) sources have been added, demonstrating that the topic is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ihardlythinkso and Jclemens. Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 10 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) 19:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bucari

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

A filmmaker. He has done exactly one failed TV pilot. He is in pre-production for another film. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Outside of interviews and references about the films, I'm unable to find and references that talk about him. Prod was declined for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and insignificant work at this time. Google News found links focusing with his work but the links are insignificant, the links are this, this promotional press release and this. Considering that he has only worked with two films for the past two years, it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FILMMAKER. Non-notable. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - too soon 7 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 9 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) 19:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Kanwal

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

Deprodded by article creator (and subject?) Not notable by our standards. Despite all the refs that seem like "news" cites, they all appear to be user generated in one form or another. The PROD tag was removed with an objection to my inclusion of a blog claiming that Amar Kanwal has vastly inflated his prominence on social media, and I will not reproduce that link and its assertions here, since it is not a reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely insignificant and promotional, the article never indicates his importance aside from his social media presence and a minor and insignificant job as "promotions manager" at a company. Considering he is only 17 therefore a minor, it's not surprising he hasn't achieved significant success. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I point out to him on his User talk page, there is no shame if he simply does not yet meet our notability criteria at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here to shed some light towards the discussion to reach an appropriate resolution. User:Shawn in Montreal has contributed his understanding towards the topic which is greatly respected. He added the PROD tag on grounds of making reference to unsupported statements he found in a blog questioning the individual: Amar Kanwal social following to be "faked". I dismissed the tag after reviewing that the source Shawn had made reference to was a blog highlighting an opinion based thought (which had not been backed up by official sources)that made a claim that shawn took in deep consideration. Both Shawn and myself came to conclusion that his argument cannot be based on an unsupported claim. In respect Shawn has moved the conversation here for community discussion for deletion.

I myself am the major writer of this Wiki with other wiki members efforts: Bonnie, Dumbbot

I have knowledge about this topic as a competing Digital Marketer and it comes to my attention that this wiki establishes a large enough significance to be considered as a notable biography about this individual. With my post i hope to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

The notability of the topic stands establishing a significant Actor and Marketer whom is involved with other major individuals in the entertainment industry. The wiki:Amar_Kanwal itself addressed the importance and significance directly related to the topic with verifiable citations(with over the minimum of two). Each informational source has been referenced with the most applicable citation along with cross checking relevancy with general informative information findable.

Resources that go in hand to verifying his acting credibility. the most credible source on the web for actors is IMDB and the Biography their contains the editorial written biography of this individual and their is a statistical section that validates the work he has done in the Acting industry. In the Wiki it was mentioned he had an outbreak from YTV including a reference directly to YTV Which leads to the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpbJjoF42Dg where he appears from 0.34 and, a second addition to the FT. in another commercial. Wiki authors like myself never mentioned the coverage on every billboard in USA, Canada for TD Bank as i can only google an image of him on the poster, and TD Banks Testimonial(http://amarkanwal.com/index.php/about-me/item/66-tdbankposter)

Aside from that the contents of the wiki, it mentioned general references to things he done like coverage from NDTV. I agree with Shawn in regards to the second reference to chime fm radio and coverage seems like it can be deemed as an individual that cant be proven to be administrator of chime but, the reference has no notability to what it was providing a reference for and could have been added un neededly which with permissions i would or, another author will remove.

With regards to indication to the living person being a marketer the point of interest is his social standing at twitter, but not to exclude Facebook as well. As referring directly to a twitter page is not an sufficient enough to be strong support, many external social statistic based sites make pages for popular individuals and monster their activity to be able to rank them. In conclusion i see there is two references indicating his social popularity to be significant analyses by twitter counter and star count enough to be ranked and placed in references but without to further limit sources like:http://www.tweetrank.com.br/perfil/amarkanwal, http://favstar.fm/users/amarkanwal/recent, http://twtrland.com/profile/amarkanwal, http://topsy.com/twitter/amarkanwal and more statistic based sources monitoring his twitter handle based on popularity which includes almost everything statistical and activity based of his.

Also anyone who creates large amount of buzz on the web globally is listed on Trendsmap and similar to the other sources above they provide statistics but they monitor this account almost every minute of the day and capture all the activity and display when he is trending at that moment. a section of the site is dedicated to keeping track of all of his social buzz http://trendsmap.com/topic/@amarkanwal. It is fair to doubt or have thought provoking claims but, i still make reference to how his credibility is proven on twitter if not visibly looking at his progress. I demonstrated how each of the sources are relevant to each of the references, and i have given the best attempt to un-foil all the contents of the wiki and hope the community can come to an appropriate consensus and grant the Article dismissal of deletion because credibility, notability, and verification has been most appropriately established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontoMovement (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

blocked sock of TorontoMovement, who is also now blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

All three of you are not seeing the bigger picture. The point of Wikipedia is to provide information on someone thats done something notable. All three of you are basing it upon how big each little thing is on this page when it should be, what the end result is after doing all that that makes him significant. Breakdown: Amar Kanwal A.K.A Amar Singh is an Actor who gained enough publicity through majorly YTV fork it over contest that he topped social media on facebook and twitter>then he started working as a marketer with entertainement industry as a promoter and digital marketer> money he made from music artists(sources) and invested/put out an entertainemt venue(club) in toronto claiming he wants to move the industry towards toronto because he wants to promoter closer to home> He used his social power to make public appearances like NDTV but, desifest most recently. Bottom line is because of his social rankings he ranks higher then the average in: Acting, Marketing, Club Owner/Promoting

S.I.M if you can incorperate this information into the page it would make the Wiki Page more realistic and clear cut, it seems if you had these posts earlier it could have avoided a community discussion.

Faze Magazine- Issue 03: Owning Your Own Nightclub By: Robert P. http://www.faze.ca/issue03/owning_a_bar.html

Urban Asian Network: Exclusive interview Nick Pandya says ‘Be Prepared to say HOY!’ Amar Singh Speaks on Collaberation With Asian Artists and what kind of music is best to be marketed. By: Shruti May 22, 2012<http://urbanasian.com/events-gigs/2012/05/exclusive-interview-nick-pandya-says-be-prepared-to-say-hoy/>

Amar Singh Speaks Benifits of operating a nightclub from a marketing approach ehow.com/list_6870307_benefits-operating-nightclub_.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howtoinfojohn (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Howtoinfojohn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being "significant social media presence on Twitter and Facebook" means nothing here. There is an IMDb entry but it gives no details of notable roles and reads like pure puffery. The references are not much use in terms of WP:RS - the chime one is somewhat incoherent into the bargain. Some day, maybe. But in the meantime it must be realised that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a directory or social networking where one's status may be inflated. Peridon (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability crieteria, referneces miss leading as their are no NDTV links and IMBD links are profile created by the author himself Shrikanthv (talk) 07:03, 8 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. Michig (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arnie Runge

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

Declined PROD. Absolutely no usable sources on this actor who in all likelihood has created his own page. The only ones that turn up are a LinkedIn profile and some twitter pages. I also failed to find any significant coverage of the individual through news and book searches. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News provided nothing and all that I have found has been generated by him. Non-notable "actor and singer" at this time. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability simply cannot be established. His significance from The Satin Dukes doesn't have significant coverage to be proven. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NACTOR. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 9 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. Michig (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kent Leppink

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

This article is nominated for deletion for the following reasons: content-fork; one event; person of topic, no notability; other persons included, insufficient notability; single event; biographical of living person; potential libel; off-topic; cited sources insufficient/plot-only; scandal; unverifiable assertions; soapbox; lacks neutrality

This article contains nonfactual and unsubstantiated information about a living person, and states contested assertions as fact, which is libel. The subject was not notable in any way, he was merely killed as are countless people around the globe every day. None of the other individuals discussed in the article are notable, but were reported on temporarily for one event that has passed. The article is off-topic as it is not about the actual death of Kent Leppink. Sources cited as evidence of some claims about a still living individual are unreliable, merely containing accusations without substantiation evidence. News articles are not sufficient when they do not contain substantiation or reliable sources for claims they repeat. The article lacks neutrality, and although the topic is Kent Leppink's death, the article and all of its sources are about someone else, a still living person, so the title is misleading and it appears to be a personal agenda/soapbox article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyhooya! (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination was made by a WP:SPA. It was completely screwed up, and I tried my best to fix it. However, the article (then differently named) was nominated before in 2008 with a result of "no consensus". Historyhooya tosses around a lot of accusations, including inappropriate ones of libel. They also apparently don't want to believe otherwise reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nomination. This looks like a case that received some high-profile coverage. What exactly is the complaint? Everyking (talk) 16:06, 10 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) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Right One/Together Dating

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

Apparently defunct company of dubious notability (if it ever existed at all). Orange Mike | Talk 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability and creator was here for only spam purposes StarM 03:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:31, 1 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) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have sufficient sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:57, 7 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) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Crowell

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

CSD was declined. Only has local awards, does not meet WP:NHOOPS, also written like an advertisement. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 08:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so far does not meet notability standards for either his college or professional careers. Rikster2 (talk) 02:45, 6 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) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination statement; fails WP:NHOOPS. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:27, 7 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) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Roelofs

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

I can't find significant third-party sources about this person - there's nothing currently in the article, and everything else I found was video game credits and a single short interview on a gaming fansite. The usual way of dealing with non-notable game designers appears to be to redirect them to the company article, but his current company does not have one. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I'm still editing it and haven't finished constructing the page. I'm also in a hissing fit with someone else regarding the use of a photograph of him in the Wikipedia page.

Also, the fact that you consider him a "Non-Notable" game designer is something I find very insulting. As a co-creator of Shadowgate along with David Marsh (whose page is currently under submission via the Page Building Wizard), he has several credits to his name worth mentioning, and I went to a lot of trouble doing the research to verify the accuracy of this information.

On top of that, why does 3rd Party information matter in this situation? The fact of the matter is that his company, Zojoi, is starting to make some headlines and deserves to have a Wikipedia page about it, about the creators, and I'm busy working on making them. I'm a big fan of the ICOM Simulations games, and they are making a come back already. If you'd be patient and let me get a chance to finish contributing and editing, you'd see that the page has content worth mentioning here on Wikipedia.

As it stands, ALL the information regarding ICOM Simulations and the people behind it are inaccurate. I intend to rectify that and set the record straight as to who was really responsible for the various IPs that once belonged to ICOM Simulations. This page is one of them.

So please do not delete as this page is not finished yet.

OtakuMan (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:V and WP:N about the minimum standards we expect for any article, and more importantly WP:BLP for bios of living persons. Just because they've developed a notable game doesn't make them notable. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this information is VERY hard to find as I have enough trouble as it is trying to make sure I know the right syntax in order to properly format information on pages. Anyway, if their own website can't be used as a verifiable Third Party Source, then what can? For the Gameography, I tried to include links to videos that contain the credits of Karl Roelofs' games to add additional verification.

For notability, I find it difficult to quantify or measure a person's notability. In addition, I'm not finished editing Karl Roelofs' Wikipedia entry and have even sent him an e-mail to see if I can the right license submitted to Wikipedia granting permission to use his photograph. Just because someone is "Unknown" doesn't mean that their notability is in any way lesser because of it. Like I said, I have done quite a bit of extensive research, dug up articles, and am working quite hard to try and make sure that people know who these developers are. And as I previously said, there is a lot of misinformation regarding who did what in certain games that I hope to fix.

Would GameFAQS be considered a good source for notability and verification? And also, thank you for directing me to the BLP section. I'll be sure to read it, follow the guidelines, and make edits as necessary. OtakuMan (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just listing in game credits does not make for an encyclopedic article so Gamefaqs does not work. You need content from third-party sources that discusses the importance of the developer on the industry, etc. Just because they made one popular significant doesn't impart notability. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's own website couldn't be considered a third party source by the very definition of the term "third party"... Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently fails the WP:GNG. Article creator seems to have given up on improving it. Entirely sourced by WP:YOUTUBE videos that feature gameplay/credits of the game's he's developed, and a Linked In profile. (aka 1st party sources.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 6 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) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. No reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. But I'd encourage the article's creator to stick around and learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Maybe they'll find a way to improve the article, or they can be encouraged to improve other articles in ways that are compatible with our policies. Vcessayist (talk) 00:55, 7 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) 00:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Paige Rae

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

Copyright violation. Orikrin1998 (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails as for WP:N. Also, the most of the content itself is pointless, and written subjectively.--Fauban 14:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked notability, but this doesn't seem to be a copyright violation, as the claimed source is released under a compatible licence, linking here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt I must point out that the CC-BY licence under which the source is released is less restrictive than our CC-BY-SA, so we can use the content. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 1 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) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extras and minor actors may appear in notable television programs quite frequently. But the standard is still the WP:GNG. Unless reliable independent sources talk about this actress, she doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, according to our most basic standards. Vcessayist (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsource minor actor. Eeekster (talk) 03:41, 11 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. Most of the discussion here seems to hinge on the inclusion criteria for the list. How do we define found object art, and how do we know if something is found object art or not? If clear inclusion criteria cannot be agreed upon, then this article may need to be deleted. However, Batard0's argument makes some sense, and could be used as a jumping off point for further discussion. I would also encourage a discussion on the article talk page to move this article to a new title. -Scottywong | talk _ 16:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of found art

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

There is no such commonly used art term as "Found art", therefore the inclusion criteria is unclear (and there was no consensus to rename the list article 'List of art containing found objects', which in itself would have been a messy title). Most of this list is about Duchamp's 'Readymades', which already have a separate article Readymades of Marcel Duchamp. The Man Ray art can easily be mentioned/listed at Found object. Basically this list article serves no useful purpose. Sionk (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason in principle why we couldn't have a "list of found artworks" containing notable examples of found art, if there were enough works with Wikipedia articles to merit a list. But I'm not sure how many of these entries actually are found art (Michael Craig Martin is normally associated with conceptual art rather than found art.) This article currently doesn't add much, if anything, to the articles found object (which contains a significantly better list of artists working with found objects) and Readymades of Marcel Duchamp. So I'm leaning towards delete, but if this could be made into a more substantial list, I might change my mind. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can't object to individual entries on List of found art that appear at Found object. Hyacinth (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's redundant to have them in both places, and if the two lists are essentially the same, one should certainly be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria may be unclear if it wasn't described at the top of the list. Hyacinth (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"List of art containing found objects" would not target the list to found objects because everything from simple collage paintings (such as playing cards in Picasso still lifes) to sculpture/assemblages (Robert Rauschenberg's "combine" sculpture/paintings, Joseph Cornell's shadowboxes) to most installation art "contain" found objects. That would not be a meaningful list at all, as it is too widespread a technique, and may or may not even be a focal point of the work in question; one might as well have a list of art containing the color mauve. The point of this list is instead supposed to be art that is a found object. Duchamp is just the beginning of this form of art (and many art historians would say, actually detached from it as it is known now because he did it for other reasons than contemporary practitioners). I can't say how many individual found art works merit their own articles, and whatever its potential as a list topic, I can't speak much for the current list as worth maintaining for now rather than merging to found object. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not titled nor does it read "List of art containing found objects". Hyacinth (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the very first sentence of the nomination. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the first and second sentences. I didn't intend to re-launch a discussion here about the name of the article. Sionk (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the text you removed and then just use <s> </s> to strike it out. It's bad form to remove comments after other users have already responded to it. postdlf (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No text was removed. I simply moved my reason for proposing deletion so it came before the side-anecdote about the article name-change. Sorry for any confusion! Sionk (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't read it carefully enough! postdlf (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that found art is not a "commonly used art term" seems to be false. Warden (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the words "Found art" pop up in a google search, but they rarely mean the same thing. I've never seen the phrase in a dictionary of art, for example, unlike 'objet trouvé', 'found object' or 'readymade'. Sionk (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Appreciate what the nominator is getting at. "Found art" is something that appears in reliable sources, as per our article on Found object. But trying to determine what constitutes "found", let alone what constitutes "art", is very difficult and subjective in this particular area. We shouldn't put inclusion in this list to the whims of one or two reliable sources. There are literally hundreds and thousands of things that might fit here, or merely dozens, because the inclusion criteria is so impossibly vague. Vcessayist (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all listcruft. What constitutes 'found art'? The inclusion criteria seem to be vague and subjective. A good list has non-subjective and unambigious inclusion criteria. Roodog2k (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if is a commonly used art term, the criteria for inclusion of a piece is far too vague to allow this article to serve any useful purpose. The list of artists on the page Found object accomplishes essentially the same goal as this page in a cleaner and more manageable fashion. --Tdl1060 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is less important to List "found art" than to define it. Furthermore the correct term is "found object" or "objet trouvé". The concept embodied in the term is more associated with Marcel Duchamp than with anyone else. The found object article provides sufficient article space to properly address the significance embodied in the term. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First, I think the definition of found art within the article is sufficiently definite. It simply states that what follows is a list of artworks that are found objects. The question then becomes whether such a list is verifiable. Are there reliable secondary sources that could establish pieces of art as found objects or objets trouvées? Based on a cursory search, I believe the answer is yes. Take, for example this source or this book. There may be debate about whether a particular artwork is objet trouvé, but if there is it can be reflected in the text in an encyclopedic tone, as usual. While this list may not be well-constructed at present, it is verifiable, and it appears to meet the WP:GNG guidelines; there are plenty of reliable sources that directly cover found objects, and there are enough of them to potentially make a list useful to readers. A listing of them in the found object article may be unwieldy. Second, to address a concern raised above, I don't think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to this case. That guideline refers to indiscriminate plot summaries, lyrics databases and listings of statistics. This article is none of those. I would support a move to List of found object art, since it's evident that "found object" is the correct term for this kind of art. But for the reasons above I believe at this time that the verdict should be keep. --Batard0 (talk) 14:15, 18 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 Lugbara language. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lugbara phrasebook

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

Non notable collection of phrases and pronunciation guide. Only reference is to a language dictionary. The language is already covered at Lugbara language. noq (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I look at the Category:English language I see a lot of articles discussing various aspects of the English language in detail, including English phonology. What's wrong with this pronunciation guide? The article is not perfect, but I believe that part of the content is valuable and the rest is fixable. It could be renamed or merged, but I don't think deletion is a good solution. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~ to Linguistic characteristics of the Lugbara language. The article should then discuss phonology, morphology, phonetics, syntax, and semantics. Some of the article will need to be restructured, but the basis is there. Some of the common phrases can be used to discuss the syntax. It would be great if IPA could be used with the pronunciation. Ryan Vesey 16:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, on second thought, Merge: Lugbara language is short enough that as of right now we don't need a new article on the linguistics of it. Ryan Vesey 18:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that is useful to Lugbara language, but if there is nothing substantial to merge I don't think this title is a a particularly useful redirect. Phrase books are something that Wikipedia is not. Cnilep (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up and merge as an article lacking in sources, but that could improve an existing article with more context. Vcessayist (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - sourced information into Lugbara language, which covers the topic to the extent needed, and delete everything else. Apparently, Lugbara phrasebook was moved[11] to Lugbara phrasebook, which was redirected to Lugbara language [12] during this AfD. This made it hard to figure out what was listed for deletion. I undid the changes[13][14] for the purpose of htis AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:37, 14 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judge and Bruiser

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

College mascot, no evidence of notability to justify separate article. See WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is covered under Baylor University#Mascot and is not notable to stand by itself. It is local and part of the University article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 19 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prominent mascot of a major NCAA team. There has also been some controversy made by animal rights activists over the live bears displayed on campus. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source? 'Cause that's not in the article and I'm finding zip in searches.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: Article contains extremist, wacko, nut job opinions. Reasonable people should be advised to monitor their blood pressure while reading. Now that you've been warned, here it is [15]. Don't say I didn't warn you! Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a press release from PETA, which is not a "reliable source" as required by WP:GNG. So, that doesn't count for notability purposes.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Baylor University#Mascot. I could not find the necessary significant coverage about either of these mascots for a standalone article. I could only find local coverage about Bruiser. The only more widespread coverage about Judge was when a previous incarnation of the mascot killed a bear cub back in 1982. Not enough for a standalone article, but leaving the redirect will at least lead people to the information. (The current title is not actually very good for that purpose; better redirects would be Judge (Baylor mascot) and Bruiser (Baylor mascot). --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 3 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, Sandstein 13:32, 6 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. Cleanup seems warranted, but that is not a reason for deletion, and I don't see very much appetite for a merge. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Michael Jackson material

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

I know it may sound like somewhat a joke, me nominating a featured list for deletion, but hold your speedy close horses and listen to my argument. The top part is certainly factual, accurate, reliable and true, but the actual list part? I don't think so. I believe the songs listed are mostly hoaxes, and so a list with such dubious and untrustworthy information should rightfully be deleted Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to be referenced. What is your justification for calling them hoaxes or questioning their accuracy? Do you have a source saying they're fake or the sources are unreliable? I don't see how we can delete this as a hoax without any proof that it is a hoax. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to be referenced. Sigh. Anything can be technically referenced, but the thing is whether the source referenced has any context with the statement it backs up. Example: President Barack Obama likes going to Hawaii.(Reference given: Almanac of the Sun and Norway, page 193 ?!) get my point?! Apparently, you didn't look carefully at the list, you just barely glanced through it. Actual example from the list:

"11 P.M."* Michael Jackson and Bradley Buxer
Written and recorded in 2009 during Michael Jackson's This Is It rehearsal
Also known as "Eleven P.M."

Reference given for this statement: Halstead, pp. 194–195, published BEFORE 2009. So, Halstead predicts the future? Get my point?

If you actually scrutinise the whole list, you will realise its trustability and accuracy.... Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the book, but there is a second edition published after Jackson's death.[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up: it's possible that there is some unverified, even false material here. I doubt it, but it's possible. But AFD isn't clean-up, and there's undoubtedly a ton of coverage about Michael Jackson's unreleased material. Meets the WP:GNG. If anyone needs help removing false or unverifiable material, visit some method of dispute resolution. Vcessayist (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson. There is no way generally a list of unreleased songs can be notable in their own right, therefore any such list must fail WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Michael Jackson is notable but that notability is not inherited by anything and everything he did. Merging, as I have suggested means the information can be kept (subject to necessary pruning of hoaxes etc. as Bonkers the Clown as pointed out) and solves the very arbitrary difference between "recorded" and "released." --Richhoncho (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I second that. Sysmithfan (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I would have opted to go for speedy keep, but I won't as per the nominator's request. AfD is not for cleanup. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This case seems more than just clean up. We're looking at very obvious hoaxes... So. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a second thought on that, and I guess that I am not the best one to comment here. I would like to wait for some other guys with a good knowledge of the topic to comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonkers The Clown: Which ones are obvious hoaxes? The only song you've mentioned so far as a possible hoax is "Eleven P.M." but you did so on the grounds that the cited source was published before the song was recorded. However, the cited source has a second edition which was published after Jackson's death. So, so far, you haven't given us a single bona fide example of a hoax. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Good choice, but there's no need to call in the experts. Look at most of the so-called "unreleased songs" mentioned (i.e. 11 P.M, Silent Spring, Pajamas, Michael's Affirmation, Lady of Summer, Innocent Man, Just Remember, Don't Make Me Stay, etc.) ALL allegedly written during Jacko's 2009 This Is It rehearsal. Wow, Michael sure had some busy rehearsal, writing that many songs in that short a time span! And look, what a great surprise! A source published BEFORE 2009 is used as a reference for songs written DURING 2009! Also notice how a few pages of Halstead's books are being excessively used as a reference. Halstead, pp. 309–332 is used, what, more than 40 times?! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more point. I know afd isn't cleanup, but isn't it fishy, the way some sentences are written... Examples, actual text, no changes (such things make me wonder whether the list was written by a fan):

I Look To You
Written by R Kelly and Recorded in 2007.(The Caps, notice the Caps!)
Originally Known as "Coming To You"
One of the songs Jackson worked on with R Kelly and Then Later gave it To Whintey For Her Next Album.(The Caps! The Caps! And who's "Whintey?")
Later Recorded By Whitney Houston For Her 2009 Album
Not to be confused with Marcus Williams Demo That He Recorded In 2010

People of the World
The song was first released by the Japanese band J-FRIENDS(Now that's news... That's fake.)
Snippet of Michael's Version leaked in 2011 (Notice how Jackson is referred to as "Michael", instead of "Jackson". Certainly a tone of writing a MJ fan would adopt.)
2nd Snippet leaked September 2012, But can't be determine if it's Michael due to the Low Quality.

Point is, the Halstead sources do not divulge on the alleged "2009 This Is It" songs given. Do verify my claim. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I'll agree that some of the material here has drifted to an inappropriate tone. But that's a cleanup issue (and maybe an issue for WP:FAR), not for AFD. On the other hand, I find your objections to the primary content lacking on the merits. As has already been mentioned, the correct citation for the Halstead work should be to Michael Jackson For The Record - 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded by Chris Cadman and Craig Halstead, published September 18, 2009 (isbn 978-0755204786). Time travel is not required. Additionally, the release of "People of the World" by J-Friends is not fake, as a cursory search revealed. That band was a charity supergroup, assembled from a number of other Japanese bands to raise money after the Kobe earthquake. Jackson did indeed write songs for them, including this one (sources claim Jackson also recorded a version, hence its appearance on this list). I'm typically very dubious of these "unreleased material" lists, but this one is by no means a low-hanging fruit. Is there cleanup to be done? Yes. Does that constitute a valid deletion rationale? Not remotely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator claims that these items are hoaxes, but has failed to justify this. One of the reasons he gives is that songs listed are sourced to a book written before the songs were written. However, there is a second edition published after Jackson's death. Another reason the nominator gives is the capitalization used by Wikipedia editors, "The Caps, notice the Caps!". Yet another reason is that "Jackson is referred to as "Michael", instead of "Jackson"". Seriously?? I've seen conspiracy theories more convincing than this. The only thing that is a hoax is this AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if someone were to verify that the songs mentioned in the list were indeed real, I'd say it make more sense to redirect and merge to List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson, as mentioned above, because that page would encompass all songs by Wacko Jacko, released or unreleased. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up As stated by others above LovelyEdit ^talk 21:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, we must get someone to verify that the songs in the list are indeed mentioned in the book. And secondly, I believe one source won't do. When it comes to subjective stuff like these, it's always best to have multiple, reliable sources. We want significant coverage. I would say that the list by itself, excluding the lengthy info above the list and the bottom part on future albums, is 85% referenced by the Halstead book only. (is that considered to be POV?) That means, as for now, the list does not quite pass WP:GNG. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:03, 11 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. Michig (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Sin

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

A specific item in a video game would probably not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; if this item is unusually notable, no reliable sources are cited which would confirm that. Prod removed by creator without the addition of reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how one item from a game that hasn't achieved the notability of (for example) Mario is notable. It might merit a place in the game's article, but no other artefact is listed there yet. No independent references. This belongs on the BoI site at Wikia, not here. Peridon (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:GAMECRUFT advises against articles on individual items from video games, unless by themselves notable. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources available to establish notability per the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not-notable whatsoever. WP:GAMECRUFT. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AutomaticStrikeout 01:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as WP:GAMECRUFT. Even with sources, this would hardly need a separate article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 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) 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Linton Roberson

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

I've nominated this article previously, in 2005, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Linton Roberson. I'm re-nominating to seek a fresh consensus on whether this meets notability standards and autobiography standards. Most of the references are to websites self-published by Roberson or to sites such as Amazon which do not seem to verify the claims made. The Sequential Tart source cited does not prove independent as the reviewer won the copy from Roberson in a competition. The Comics Reporter source is likewise not independent as it is a press release. the http://digg.com source is a dead link, the http://blogcritics.org source indicates the author has had contact with Roberson. The only source I can access which has any independence of the subject is the Windy City Times one which appears to my reading to be a very negative review. The other remaining source links to a book, referencing page 182 in a 192 page work. On balance of probabilities I doubt this indicates in depth coverage. Further, I suspect the only real editors of this article to be John Linton Roberson. Gilesgoat (talk · contribs) and Lulujannings (talk · contribs) slightly overlap in July and August 2006 in terms of contributions, but they both share an edit history almost solely limited to the John Linton Roberson article. Of the arguments raised in the first AFD to keep, I would state that Roberson is not a notable self-publisher of comics, Wikipedia is not about being completist, being published by Fantagraphics is not by itself notable, and the article is no longer in the state determined by two users as encyclopedic [17], and I doubt that state would today qualify as it does not cite any sources. [18]. Hiding T 11:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Hiding T 11:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of sources, per Hiding and the WP:GNG. Consensus can change and Wikipedia's prominance on the web means that it needs to have higher standards than what existed back in 2005. Vcessayist (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite his high G-test stats, I am not seeing PD content with him as the biographical subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Frankly, I'm surprised it's survived this long. Qworty (talk) 01:44, 11 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) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Guru Nanak through Pictures

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

No RS found to prove notability Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any reliable independent sources to establish notability, per the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references online, e.g Rediff. google book etc. It appears someone just needs to work on it further.--99.179.23.228 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book has received an award from the President of India. I have added a ref for the same. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to confirm a "Sardar Mohan Singh Book Award", but did find results on "Mohan Singh Award" and variations, which probably was/is an award in honor of Mohan Singh (poet). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books shows a lot of back refs, most are not "in depth" but that's OK when there is a lot of scholarly references for notability purposes. Winner of major award. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:55, 9 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) 00:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiesta Nightclub (Sheffield)

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

Non-notable nightclub lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC News story in the article seems to demonstrate notability. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 11:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep As well as BBC articles, there's coverage in Sheffield Star[19][20], Sheffield Telegraph[21], Teesside Evening Gazette[22], Toast magazine[23] (there's a book No Siesta 'Til Club Fiesta by Neil Anderson but it's self-published[24]). The Google books search has some promising results but sadly none of them are available to read online - there's an IBA publication describing a TV series filmed there, a bit from Freddie Trueman's As It Was describing doing standup there, something in Sylvia M. Pybus's "Damned bad place, Sheffield": an anthology of writing about Sheffield through the ages, and a couple of other possible results. It also reportedly featured in the 1970 documentary City On the Move (re-released as The Reel Monty)[25]. If it was the biggest nightclub in Europe[26] that might in itself make it notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per this BBC article this was a club where once the Jackson Five, Beach Boys and Stevie Wonder performed. There is a news blog here (admittedly weak as an RS, but useful for research). Neil Anderson has written a book about the place: No Siesta 'til Club Fiesta, which got some local coverage, giving us more RSes: The Sheffield Telegraph. There is enough material in the sources for a better article than the current one. Churn and change (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: appears to have the beginnings of notability. Has WP:POTENTIAL to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep because this topic clearly passes WP:GNG:

"Memories of Sheffield Fiesta". BBC. August 10, 2009. Retrieved October 9, 2012.
The Fiesta’s star burned bright - News - The Star
Tributes to Sheffield’s ‘Mr Entertainment’ - Community - The Star
Drury, Colin (6 October 2012). "The Fiesta's star burned bright". The Star (Sheffield).
"Those Vegas nights". Sheffield Telegraph. Retrieved 6 October 2012.
"Sheffield: City On the Move... The Reel Monty". BBC. Retrieved 6 October 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though sources are so far sparse, it seems evident from the material found so far that this was a significant venue, playing host to internationally-renowned performers over a significant period. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading through some of the articles others have found and linked to, I see it easily passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 07:53, 10 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) 19:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Bangladesh riots

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

The subject of this article is already covered in 2012 Ramu violence. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, per nominator. Appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK, even a WP:POVFORK. Vcessayist (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom because it's a WP:CFORK. There is no unique verifiable information to merge. Braincricket (talk) 12:01, 13 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. Michig (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Landing Gear (arcade game)

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

The article is not sourced. Moerover, the verbatim itself does not provide any indication of the subject's WP:Notability. Moreover, it is a very poorly written stub MountWassen (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment to MountWassen . sorry, i not had been add reliable source. so, i think shown this source for you. taito's inhouse soundteam, zuntata's this game soundtrack's page.

and it has article on japanses wikipedia, as 'http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%83%87%E3%82%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0%E3%82%AE%E3%82%A2_(%E3%82%B2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0)' ランディングギア (ゲーム)

i hope you understand japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winbbs (talk • contribs) 12:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: no sources to meet the WP:GNG... but if it's a game published in 1996 there's a good chance it's been covered somewhere. It takes a lot of means to be able to put out an arcade game and it probably got mentioned somewhere, if only in international sources. Vcessayist (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In fact, one can hardly speak of an article at all. There are headings and nearly nil information is provided, there are no sources and all the author cares to refer to are japanese web pages. This may be alright for the japanese Wikipedia, but here we speak English. That said, I very much concur with MountWassen - the three sentences of which the article basically consists are poorly written, indeed. CamillePontalec (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While sources in foreign languages are not preferred, that does not mean they should be dismissed out of hand, particularly if the non English source contains more information. Please leave your systematic bias at the door. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With no English alternatives, foreign sources are indeed perfectly fine. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how this squares with your vote for delete! Your position is completely inconsitent. But please go ahead and provide an English translation of theJapanese sources! CamillePontalec (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does clarifying details on sourcing have to do with my !vote here? WP:NONENG was linked above that says exactly what I said. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dear Mr.CamillePontalec, I found english review about this arcade game. english review for this game. i think this reference made proper arthicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winbbs (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a user-submitted review, so it can't count as a reliable source. CtP (t • c) 21:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For purposes of WP:GNG, no reliable secondary references with significant coverage are provided and I cannot find any online. Perhaps there are some as mentioned above (being arcade game and all) and the user can userfy the article for now. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In its present form I am inclined to vote for delete. But maybe the auther cares to improve the article a little so that I might be inclined towards a keep? CeesBakker (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD discussions are not about immediate article quality, but about topic's notability, to which there are very clear guidelines -- WP:GNG. Regardless of how article is improved, unless there are quality references establishing notability, it is not suitable for inclusion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely wrong. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, all articles must meet a mandatory quality to make it fit for encyclopedic use. CamillePontalec (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not wrong. Please read WP:Notability first before making personal interpretations of our guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea economy

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

Article is incoherent. It only has 2 references, one to a NYT article on patent trolling and another to a conference called "Ideas Economy". From the references I don't think Idea or Ideas Economy is an actual term rather just the name of an article and the name of a conference Bhny (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Articles of this type can probably be developed with a few spotty sources that mention "ideas" and "economics", but we're trying to write articles about established knowledge, not summaries of opinion pieces and how some hot jargon is used and misused. Go ahead and redirect this to an article about economics if someone finds a suitable target. Vcessayist (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources for the claim to be an economic concept --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the abovementioned reasons. CeesBakker (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 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 close - incorrect venue. All three nominated articles are redirects. If you wish to pursue this deletion, please relist at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douchemark

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

Flagrant,vandalistic,spam, not notable, etc. HowardStrong (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've included Autism Kroner and Dunning-Krugerrand into this deletion nomination. They are both inflammotory and useless.--HowardStrong (talk) 05:35, 6 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 NBC. This is a bit of an WP:IAR close, as there were very few bolded merge/redirect votes. However, many voters on both sides expressed that merging this content to the NBC (or KNBC) article would be an acceptable outcome. Consensus seems to be that this was a brief promotional experiment that got some coverage, but there may not be enough to say about it for its own standalone article. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 17:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Time Begins at 7:30

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

Non-notable subject. Freshh (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~This sounds like a complete hoax~~; NBC produced or distributed none of these sitcoms at all and most stations aired them during the weekend at times other than 7:30pm, and I've never heard of this block or branding to begin with. Sounds like a localized branding for a bunch of shows that are completely unrelated besides being syndicated sitcoms in 1987. Also, the Prime Time Access Rule would have prohibited NBC from this kind of scheduling in the first place, even for stations they owned. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't just decide what it "sounds like", particularly not when there are actually sources in the article (albeit in the external links section) and it's easy enough to google the phrase. Between this, this, and this, it's not only clear that it's no hoax, but that it also received significant media attention at the time. So what lesson have you learned from this about best practice at AFD? postdlf (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, I'm taking back the first part of that, but I stand by my comments that this is hardly a notable "block" of sitcoms, because in the rest of the United States most stations didn't follow this scheduling (notwithstanding the error of the NY Times source that identified WABC-TV as an NBC O&O, adding more confusion). Only 20% of the country knew this block solely as a promotional branding by an NBC O&O piped in from New York; the rest saw these shows at much different times, or in some cases, didn't get the shows at all. This isn't even close to having the bare notability the Prime Time Entertainment Network did. Nate • (chatter) 11:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete As noted, this was an advertising campaign limited to the NBC O&O's, and it only lasted one season. No notability. JTRH (talk) 23:09, 29 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~to KNBC. This appears to have been a local experiment as~~ two of the shows were carried over to regular NBC programming after the end of the experiment at other times, and was covered by the Los Angeles Times [27] but it does not seem to be notable in itself. Plausible search term for someone who actually knows about this block of programing and the information can be added to the KNBC section. Redfarmer (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: there was coverage in the New York Times as well that seems to indicate this was tried in five major markets.[28] As such, it does seem like a national NBC experiment and, as such, I change my vote to Redirect and merge to NBC. Redfarmer (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a "national" NBC experiment, it was in the five markets where they owned stations at the time. It might be worthy of one sentence in the NBC article. JTRH (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was an experiment in five markets (which I acknowledged already) all over the United States which was covered by at least two major newspapers. Redirects are cheap and a paragraph in the NBC article can cover it. None of this is unreasonable and you acknowledge yourself there might be something suitable for the NBC article. Redfarmer (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was just saying that five markets do not constitute a "national" experiment. JTRH (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem with this is that it was an experiment solely by NBC stations, and none of the programs were owned by NBC themselves, but hashed together from a bunch of producers and called a block. There were countless examples of individual stations and station groups creating 'theme brandings' of their shows in the 80's and 90's to make promotion easier, and again, as I said above, I never knew Out of this World to air on a weeknight; it came on at 4:00pm on WVTV Saturdays or 6:30pm Saturday on WXGZ in Appleton for me. Where could it be redirected to in the NBC article? The network didn't own the shows, it was only a year-long experiment, and only two of the five shows got a second season. Redirection doesn't make any sense. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there is enough information for tight article. Newsday July 29, 1987 had about three sentences of info. New York Times August 11, 1987 is significant coverage and a good source for detailed information. Associated Press September 11, 1987 has a sentence of information. Los Angeles Times September 14, 1987 is another significant coverage article. Los Angeles Times January 14, 1988 has a sentence or two worth of information. I like the topic since the promotion said Prime Time Begins at 7:30 and NBC president Brandon Tartikoff "made it clear NBC itself is not starting its threehour prime-time schedule before 8 o'clock." If the article is kept/no consensused, let me know and I'll be happy to revise the article with the above source material. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is permanent, and it is clear that this promotional campaign did get plenty of coverage at the time from significant outlets, independent of NBC. The relative uniqueness of this campaign, as well as the fact that it was an effect of the loosening of the Prime Time Access Rule also gives it more lasting cultural significance than other promotions of a similar nature. --Tdl1060 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to finally say an express keep based on my comments above and the sources found. The main deletion !voter has been from the beginning operating from his assumptions and personal knowledge of the topic rather than any research. At most, this is a merge candidate to the NBC main article, but that should be just dealt with by normal editing rather than ramrodded through by this AFD. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I think the New York Times article cited by Uzma Gamal constitutes significant coverage in a reliable secondary source; a large part of the article is about the 7:30 lineup. Having said that, I think much of the coverage in the other sources amounts to WP:ROUTINE, since changes in scheduling and marketing promotions on TV pretty much require reporters in major markets to take notice, even if they aren't all that notable. A lot of this is lighthearted reviews, which don't necessarily establish notability. My own common sense favors a redirect to NBC or deletion, given the short duration of this campaign, but I think the NYT article, along with the other less significant coverage, gets it past WP:GNG and thus we must keep. --Batard0 (talk) 13:11, 18 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) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sundeep Malani

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

Non notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:DIRECTOR. Most of the given references are not regarded as reliable sources and most of them are just review/news release of the films. So IMHO the subject is not notable at present. Rest I leave to the decision of experienced editors of Wikipedia. Bharathiya (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability. Only collaborated to minor movies/documentaries/short films. --Koui² (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has produced 6 feature length films; that immediately meets WP:CREATIVE. Furthemore, there are multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss him in detail, and thus he meets WP:GNG. Perhaps nominator didn't notice that the page had been vandalized with large chuns removed and formatting disrupted prior to the nomination. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there are just enough sources to establish notability. Three refs from national newspapers is fine to support an article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:10, 1 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not well versed in reliable sources on Indian cinema, but this article seems to have them. Meets the WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Vcessayist (talk) 00:28, 7 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) 00:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devildolls Rock n Roll Street Gang

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

What appears to be an unnotable band who had a few releases under a fairly unnotable record label. Looking for sources gives me very little aside from the standard first party or otherwise unreliable sources. I am only able to find this, a review of a concert in a local paper in which the band is given a three sentence mention, and this, an interview with the band's frontman on a Trakmarx.com. I have never personally heard of this publication, and can't say whether it should count as a reliable source. However, even if it does, it is just a single source, and not the multiple reliable sources needed. The articles claims that the band is tangentally connected to some notable acts, however notability is not inherited. Rorshacma (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: non-notable, extreme lack of external references or citations of any note or value. Additionally, many of the edits are from an unregistered user who has done little else beside edit this article. In fact, this accounts very first edits in 2007 are related to this later article, being largely a biography of this "Billy Nowhere" person, and is likely in fact a WP:COI edit by one of the band members--if not an outright sockpuppet--based on the fact that 2 of the 4 articles it has made any contribution to are the articles for "List of famous people from Ohio" and "Parma, Ohio" where it added references to "Bill Chylik". WP:NOTFACEBOOK Besieged (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 29 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable music group, I found little relevant links aside from this mudkiss.com link. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable indepdendent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:27, 7 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. Michig (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HD Draw

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

Not notable demolished bridge from 66 years ago. NYTimes reference ~~does not exist~~ mentions the bridge but does not confer notability, and there is no significant coverage or other reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article certainly does exist, and there is another reliable source cited, so that's two falsehoods in the nomination already. I don't have access to the full text of either of them so I can't comment on the significance of coverage. I'm surprised that the nominator is able to know that there is no significant coverage without being able to find the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYTimes reference did not load properly, so that was a mistake. However, I read it, and the article was about a ship crash, not the bridge itself. The coverage from that article certainly does not confer notability for the bridge, and it is not notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you read the whole article, or just the few words freely available online? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole article, as I said. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you find it somewhere online? I'd be interested in reading it myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I have a NYTimes subscription, which anyone can purchase. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs more than a trivial mention to meet the WP:GNG. No reliable third party sources offering significant coverage. Vcessayist (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~is it listed as any other name than "HD Draw," or is HD short for something? I suspect we can find more on it. - Theornamentalist~~ (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have ny times access and can look elsewhere for sources as well. Would be good know when it was built to avoid confusion with other possible structures.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is now a very well documented article with 13 inline citations and five other sources, with explanations of its significance and demise by a collision with a coal steamer in 1946. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As important part the of rail infrastructure for major RR and the object of a major maritime accident and district court case, the bridge more than satisfies notability as seen in below:

"Texas Co". Find a Case.
"Petition of Texas Co. 99 F.Supp. 340 (1951) United States District Court S. D. New York". Leagle. July 11, 1951.

Djflem (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is clearly a notable bridge from the many reliable book and newspaper references. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies GNG. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily satisfies our guidelines. What does it being "from 66 years ago" have to do with notability? --Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 13 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) 00:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curling Legs

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

Boutique Norwegian record label that appears not to have any in depth coverage. Appears to have < 150 total releases, although a reasonable proportion of them are notable (an even higher proportion have articles in the local language wikipedia). There is a local language wikipedia article, but it has even fewer references than the English-language article. It's conceivable that there are Norwegian references that I'm not seeing, since I don't speak Norwegian. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my Norwegian isn't great but I can read it. Curling Legs have launched some rather good Jazz artists like Solveig Slettahjell, Morten Halle, and Bugge Wesseltoft. That alone might well be enough to demonstrate a notable Jazz label; Jazz afficionados will I think recognize several more names in the list. In the news, many items are of course mainly about the label's albums, but Dagbladet.no and Ballade.no treat Curling Legs as headline news. There are several other Ballade.no news items including one about its director. Bergen Puls is quite rude about the sort of music Curling Legs puts out, but again it makes headlines. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Chiswick Chap and WP:POTENTIAL. Does not currently meet the WP:GNG but the large number of notable artists released under this label does give a good impression that notability might be established with a bit of work, as per WP:SOFIXIT. Vcessayist (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... note that notability per GNG etc tests whether sources exist - they do - not whether they're in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that a blue link is not the same as notable. The author has created a huge number of articles about Jazz in Norway with questonable notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. AllyD (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few refs for individual issues on the label (there are obviously many more), and they have issued the first recordings by several artists who have become prominent. More quantifiably, recordings on the label have won Spellemannprisen at least 4 times - one article said 4 times by their 50th CD issue in 1999. Repeatedly winning the top national award for recordings documents notability for a record label. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have some notability. Eeekster (talk) 21:02, 10 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) 00:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confluenze

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

Relatively new journal. Rated "class A" by the Italian "National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes", but given the list this is sourced to, this does not amount to much. No independent sources, none of the listed selective databases is major and selective. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As explained previously, the nomination in the ANVUR list could be regarded as criterion 1 of WP:NJournals. The National registry lists many international and national journals, in different subject area, as core journals for every sector. It is indeed a national registry, but the journals it lists are global, and of course it uses impact factor and many other indicators for the evaluation. This is the main reason I think this journal is notable enough for staying in Wikipedia, the others reasons (international audiance, committee, ecc.) are secondary ones and don't suffice alone. --Aubrey (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: for what is worth, here's the list of databases in which the journal is indexed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubrey (talk • contribs) 11:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Non-English journal, so unlikely to be indexed in normal indices, but "In 2012, the journal acquired class A status in the evaluation lists published by the "National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes"" - that seems to give it an equivalent recognition, of sorts at least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some sort of ref at [29]. -- Trevj (talk) 15:58, 4 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Aubrey. There's some WP:POTENTIAL here. I believe that some non-English language sources might exist, based on the evidence. My belief may be wrong. So give it time until we know for sure. Vcessayist (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. If there are no sources, it should be deleted. If sources are published later on, then an article could perhaps be created, if they make it sufficiently notable. As your argument goes, we should abandon AfD, because sources "may" turn up for just about any subject, of course. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 9 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 Pranami Sampraday. Michig (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nijananda sampradaya

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

Doesn't seem notable. Google search returns about 3,000 results. Thegreatgrabber (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of third party sources. Cannot meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the number of hits from a web search is a good metric for evaluating the notability of a long-established South Asian religious sect/community. For that kind of subject books are the place to look for coverage. A more common spelling seems to be Nijanand Sampradaya, with some sources found by that search giving the alternate name "Pranami", about which we already have an article, so redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Phil Bridger's input as to a Redirect to Pranami is persuasive. (Parenthetically, none of this content would seem to merit porting over.) FeatherPluma (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:54, 8 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. Michig (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performance-based advertising

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

No improvement since 2009 and Wiki is not a buzz word dictionary. It's becoming a repository for contents created simply to support adding junk references Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be a notable concept. The external links section alone has numerous reliable sources—valid academic papers published by faculty at major universities that discuss this concept as being significant to the online advertising industry. The nominator should read WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTCLEANUP, which are considered invalid reasons for deletion. postdlf (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:25, 1 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) 01:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. I'm sure this terminology has been used inconsistently by a few people in the industry. But that's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia articles are about objective phenomena that people widely agree what they are. This is an essay at best. No third party sources exist to really establish this as a separate phenomenon. It would be ok with me if someone could redirect this to an advertising-related article with a section on this type of thing. Vcessayist (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable concept, well covered in academic papers from reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per WP:BEFORE. Even a cursory look at possible news and scholarly sources show many possible uses. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 10 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.