Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 September	24 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted A7 by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Clock Strikes Black

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

Non-notable Alice in Wonderland sequel; no hits for "the clock strikes black" "kelly nichols" on Google News and News archives or even Google Books. CtP (t • c) 23:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is ultimately an Alice in Wonderland fanfiction and hasn't been "officially" published anywhere except for fanfiction.com. [1], [2] Fanfiction can sometimes be notable, but in this case all a search brings up are various instances of the author spamming the internet to promote her book. I'm not going to say that this is ultimately the author using Wikipedia as her own personal advertising space, but I've seen enough in my search to suggest that this is a self-promotional attempt by the author. The book or the author may one day become notable, but it isn't in the here and now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question: since it seems to exist nowhere other than fanfiction.net, then could it be A7'd as non-notable web content? CtP (t • c) 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I'd never thought of that. I'd give it a whirl, explaining the reason for the speedy in the summary field. It's worth a try, since it's fairly clear that this hasn't a snowball's chance of surviving an AfD unless some extreme circumstance happened in the next day or so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did that. CtP (t • c) 19:11, 26 September 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. De728631 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edexter

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

Not notable (WP:GNG); has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Guoguo12 (Talk) 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking reliable 3rd party refs to establish notability (refs provided are a personal site/blog and a developer's site). Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of secondary sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 29 September 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) 01:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Functional Platform

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

This is an unnotable term, that barely seems to exist outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. It seems to just mean "hardware or software that does a lot of things". For what it's worth, nearly all of the references for this article are broken links. Yaron K. (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 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, Hue Sat Lum 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, though it seems more of niche PR slang. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR; there are sources but they're not talking about the same thing. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:16, 29 September 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; meets also CSD A9 (no article about the artist). De728631 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home (Anthematic single)

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

Non-notable song and I have found zero evidence of appropriate third-party sources to establish notability. I should also note that the author has started Arash Haerizadeh and Anthematic, all three of them containing the same links. The author is obviously a single purpose account with the sole intent of starting articles for this group. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- and if Anthematic and Arash Haerizadeh are deleted this should be speedy deleted under WP:A9 anyway. Ducknish (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 29 September 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. De728631 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Haerizadeh

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

Non-notable singer and I haven't found any appropriate sources to support this article. It is possible that reliable sources may be Arabic but considering that Iran is conservative when it comes to music, it's probably unlikely. I should also note that the author has started Anthematic and Home (Anthematic single), all of them containing the same primary sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, language of Iranians is not Arabic. Regarding reliable sources, the best Internet source for Iranian music is BBC Persian website. I've searched it, the guy is not notable. --Z 14:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. No native-language article to steal refs from. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:18, 29 September 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 Calabasas High School. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ritchie Field

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Only news sources refer to games at the field, not the field itself. The only books that list it are sourced to Wikipedia. No hits at Google scholar search. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Calabasas High School. I agree there probably isn't enough for a stand-alone article but there should be enough for a sub-heading section in the school's article to note that it was the home of the San Fernando Valley Quakes, etc. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Stalwart111. Giant Snowman 08:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: per what Stalwart111 said. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I can agree with Merge and Redirect as the nominator. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:37, 29 September 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. Nominator withdrew delete-request; consensus to keep.

Pontus Schultz

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

~~fails WP:GNG Go Phightins! (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

After seeing the Swedish Wikipedia article, I believe this article is salvageable. I was unaware of this article at the time of my nomination and didn't come across it during the course of my WP:BEFORE investigation. I agree with DGG that it might be a good idea to note articles that have articles on other wikis more clearly on this one. But I hereby withdraw my nomination for this article. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion and especially to DragonflySixtyseven for pointing out that article. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lists his jobs but does not assert why he is notable. The source is just about his death. Electric Catfish² 21:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish Wikipedia + Google Translate => definite notability (award-winning, juror for various other awards, listed as one of the most powerful media people here, one of the most influential media people there, etc etc) ==> definite keep, but article strongly needs to be improved by incorporation of data mentioned in sv.wiki (at the very least). DS (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on native langauge wiki article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the Swedish WP just have to be copied over. Fully enough to meet the GNG. It is a shame that people nominating articles with corresponding articles in other WPs don't first look at those articles & see if at least there are additional sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short of googling "Pontus Schultz Swedish Wikipedia", which I just did, I am not sure how one would know of that article. When I came across this article, this revision existed. The only source was about a bike accident that led to his death. There was no indication of notability. My google search of simply his name led to sources related to his death, nothing about his life. Therefore, I thought I carried out the four guidelines as outlined in WP:BEFORE and went ahead to nominate it for AFD. I apologize for not making the connection to search for it under Swedish Wikipedia. Sorry--Go Phightins! (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you could have known about it from the link in the right hand column that reads "Svenska", which would have taken you directly to the Swedish article. It is put there by the code at the bottom of the page [[sv:Pontus Schultz]] . This is how we indicate the presence of an article in another Wikipedia, and it was present at the time. I guess we need to publicize it more. But the article should also have been marked with the code at the top {{Expand Swedish|Pontus Schultz}}, which produces a message asking that it be expanded with text and references from the longer article in that encyclopedia. I just added that code, and you will see what it displays. This one at least is hard to miss. I guess we need to publicize that also. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the revision when I nominated it. I do not see the Svenska that you're citing here. Now that you added the code at the top, it's hard to miss. Again, I apologize, but I wasn't aware of the article and, to the best of my knowledge, followed WP:BEFORE when I nominated...Go Phightins! (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider withdrawing the AfD by striking through the nomination above and leaving an explaination. Then we're all good for a non-admin closure. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about it...I am leaning toward probably doing it. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:48, 1 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. It looks like there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus as to whether the article should be kept or merged. I suggest opening a merge discussion on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Demand a Referendum

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

Fails notability and political policies. Fails GNG. Fails our policies and consensus on notable lobby/pressure groups. Lobby group without notability beyond the Internet. Has no constant, consistent non-Internet coverage. Article suffers from bias. Not a political group in any definition of the term in the UK, not to mention any of the constituent parts. doktorb _words^deeds 20:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Accusations levelled at the article are baseless.

Proponent claims WDAR has no notability beyond the Internet. Yet the Sun and Express articles, for example, have been published both online and in their print versions. It has also been widely discussed on radio programmes, of which the source quoted in the article itself is just one example. Other high-profile non-Internet coverage includes an interview of a party candidate on the BBC's Daily Politics show alongside UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall.

That video link is by the user "nikkisinclairemp", and therefore a primary source - no good for helping notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original work is by the BBC, which is what should count for the purposes of judging notability. Sinclaire just uploaded the video, nothing else. She clearly didn't stage the interview on a fake BBC set. --Leptictidium (mt) 12:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proponent claims the article suffers from bias. Yet the main contributor to the article (me) is staunchly pro-EU, so accusing me of trying to embellish information on WDAR is ridiculous.

Proponent claims this is not a political group in any definition of the term in the UK. Yet the party has been registered with the Electoral Commission since June this year; if being registered with the EC as a political party is not a definition of "political group", then what is?--Leptictidium (mt) 08:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Nikki Sinclaire, until there's clear evidence this is a real political party that stands in elections, rather than one person's crusade that could peter out before the euro elections. There are some sources, but mostly about Sinclaire[3][4][5] - it's mostly local press from around Sinclaire's constituency. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - sources 1, 3, 5 and 6 are all primary sources, not suitable for testing notability. 3 is a press release, and hence not independent. That leaves an article each from The Sun and the Daily Express, just giving us significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (assuming you believe 2 is "multiple"). And I didn't really want a photo of Katie Hopkins thrown in my face while eating my lunch. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: source 1 has been replaced with a non-primary source, making it at least three independent, reliable sources. Leptictidium (mt) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found out about this party from a BBC show "Daily Politics" which did not feature Nikki Sinclair, but another woman Katie Hopkins (sp?). I vote to keep, since this is now a party with notoriety thanks to the BBC and some newspapers as others have mentioned. I have no political connect to this or any British party. 78.52.102.235 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nikki Sinclaire per Colapeninsula. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to founder, as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All comment relating to the neutrality or lack thereof were discounted as that is an editing issue and not pertinent to a deletion debate. The issue of how many libraries it is in seems to have been refuted as not necessarily indicating notability. Therefore it seems consensus favors he idea that at this time this subject is not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia entry. Willing to userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theory in Action

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG. There have been determined efforts to promote the topic, onwiki and offwiki, so it's easy to find ghits - but there's a severe shortage of substantial coverage by independent sources. Article was created by one of the SPAs from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformative Studies Institute; a different one removed the PROD that I placed recently. bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleting it when it only describes a journal without referring or making judgements about any other thing. It is an informative entry, it adds information to the web and harms nobody, I think that is what Wikipedia is, or should be, about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.236.99 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NJ notes "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries", and this journal has a cited claim about "it is available in over 220 academic libraries worldwide". The publisher and editor seem notable. I don't see this as self-promotional, seems like a neutral entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not a pro wiki editor but believe this is a legitimate entry as a Marxist academic journal, names involved are a who’s who of the Left. It has coverage e.g., listed on the Alternative Press Index, listed by Worldcat as available globally in 220 libraries. Examples of coverage/reference by other independent institutions/sources:http://www2.myacpa.org/social-newsletter/past-newsletters/1965-fall-a-winter-2010-2, http://www.unav.es/adi/UserFiles/CvFiles/Files/17417/Social%20model.pdf , http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/yma03/files/Theory%20in%20Action%20V2%20N2.pdf, http://www.projectcensored.org/about/partners/Robdirect75 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theory in Action (TIA) is a legitimate academic/activist publication that is accessible online, and also in hundreds of libraries worldwide. Not every publication garners 'substantial coverage by independent sources', because most publications are not objects of study unto themselves (i.e. the basis for an article, or the subject of an interview). There is no false information presented in the entry, and TIA is not some newsletter printed & distributed in a grocery store parking lot somewhere in Topeka, KS; it is a journal that is edited by, published by, and features the work of, other respected college professors & activists (radical as some of them might be). I can find no grounds for deletion based on Wikipedia's standards, as well as my own judgement as a full-time college professor, published author, and co-editor of the oldest continuously running publication on the Internet (Bad Subjects). User:Speckdog 10:31 EST, 30 September 2012.
Delete Article creation seems premature. Most of the above arguments come down to "WP:ILIKEIT", with the exception of the argument about library holdings. However, part of these holdings will be through general access services like EBSCO (meaning a library did not really decide to subscribe to the journal, but just lists it because it gets it as part of a package deal), so I'd like to see a bit more solid evidence for notability than that. If the journal is as good as people here claim, it will soon garner either independent sources or be included in reputable selective databases. At the moment, though, we cannot say. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 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) 20:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate Journal of International Affairs

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

Non-notable journal: The homepage is a blogging site and all other links are to the journal's Twitter and Facebook accounts. The article also has a completely unsubstantiated list of notable contributors (not that it would make any difference if they were substantiated, as notability is not inherited. No independent sources, not listed in any selective databases. hence: Delete Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:RS and looks promotional. May be WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 29 September 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) 01:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthematic

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

Seems not to meet WP:NMUSIC-- individual musicians are not notable, no real outside coverage, only released album with an indie label. Ducknish (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable music group and I haven't found any appropriate sources. Unsurprisingly, I also haven't found a Billboard profile for the group, suggesting that they haven't received any significant coverage. I should note that I plan to nominate Home (Anthematic single) and Arash Haerizadeh, two articles that the author started after Anthematic. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find anything to suggest there is "significant coverage" of the subject in any form. Can only conclude it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 29 September 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vibha Bakshi

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

Non-notable producer and director of documentaries and short films. (Side note: Big fat peacock and is edited extensively by SPAs who also keep creating subject's husband's article Vishal Bakshi.) ||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 18:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. The references say everything. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a mention about her in New York Times and Rediff.com. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:17, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The NYTimes references is a simple listing and useless to determine notabiliy. The Rediff source is not even about the same person, just someone who has the same name, so neither pan out and that should have been caught, Vensatry. Checking for news, books and all around finds a shortage of coverage. Maybe someday, but her career is still rather new. The article needs tremendous trimming, but that wouldn't make a difference in her coming up short on the criteria here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than a sentence reading, "Vibha Bakshi was a segment producer in the 2006 HBO documentary Too Hot Not to Handle,[6] there's not much else to include about Vibha Bakshi in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:32, 24 September 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) 01:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web Services Management Agent

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

This product does not appear notable; References from Google search are not independent or detailed coverage. See WP:VRS, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY LES 953 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:19, 10 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Michig (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bollywood debuts in 2010s

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

Trivial classification. Also enlisting following two articles for same reasons.

||Dharmadhyaksha|| {T/C} 18:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Trivial and does not serve any encyclopedic purpose. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:10, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as a trivial intersection of an indiscriminate list. Secret ^account 02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CSC. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 29 September 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) 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lugain Dahdal

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

Chess player of questionable notability, created by a WP:COI editor. Google search on Lugain Dahdal shows only 41 unique results little significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Google news search on the same shows zero results. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not notable enough, no important chess title, not won any major chess tournament. SyG (talk) 08:27, 22 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tough call. If she had not played in the Olympiad, it would be a clear "delete". But one of the criteria for sports people is if they have competed for their country at the highest levels.... Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 29 September 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 Electronic amplifier#Power amplifiers by application. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piezoelectric audio amplifier

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

The article discusses a specific category of products made by Sonitron n.v., which is not notable. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not written like an ad, despite proprietary refs. Greglocock (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers and design parameters discussed in the article refer to specific Sonitron products that are intended for portable devices, hence the talk about DC-DC converters. I'm afraid that if that was cleaned out then there would be not much left of the article. The Maxim reference does not appear to be used as a source. Olli Niemitalo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the guideline that says that a NPOV article cannot use freely available propritary information? If every ghit was for a sonotron device I'd agree with you. It doesn't. So i don't.Greglocock (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my gist. The problem is that the article generalizes a Sonitron product category as a dictionary subject. I get no proper Google Books or Google Scholar hits for "piezoelectric audio amplifier" and only one hit for the unobfuscated "piezo audio amplifier". Olli Niemitalo (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dendent I know nothing about these bloody things but in 5 seconds got to http://www.eetimes.com/design/audio-design/4010012/Amplifier-considerations-for-driving-ceramic-piezoelectric-speakers-Part-1-of-2- which seems to imply that real engineers, if not scholars, are writing about them. What is your vendetta? Greglocock (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Wikipedia:Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". That EE Times article does not count: It has been written by a Maxim engineer and in part 2 it effectively advertises the MAX9788 amplifier with an integrated charge pump. I wouldn't mind seeing a sub/section "Piezoelectric speaker amplifiers in mobile devices" in say Audio amplifier. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah,so it's not Sonotron in particular, it's the use of any named component in an article about it? ridiculous.Greglocock (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Electronic_amplifier#Types_of_amplifier or Audio amplifier. Notability not established. Title makes it sound like the piezo is part of the amplifier but actually it is just an audio amplifier optimized for driving a piezo. This, in my estimation, is not enough of a differentiation to merit a separate amplifier article. -—Kvng 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is fine by me if there's a rewrite to make it clear what are the general considerations and what is manufacturer-specific stuff. I agree with your points. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Electronic amplifier#Types of amplifier, per User:Kvng, apparent failure to meet WP:GNG. -- Trevj (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electronic amplifier#Types of amplifier, per User:Kvng. Only two Google book hits,[7] and its not even clear that piezoelectric audio amplifier is in either book. I didn't find any news article mentioning "piezoelectric audio amplifier." What comes up is piezoelectric transducer, piezoelectric crystal, piezoelectric actuator, piezoelectric acoustic transducers, and audio amplifiers that drive piezoelectric speakers. Piezoelectric audio amplifier is not even listed in any of the 340+ PAA abbreviations at acronymattic.com. The only relevant PAA abbreviation I found there is power amplifier assembly (PAA). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a summary (with ref) of this article to Electronic_amplifier#Power_amplifiers_by_application. I beleive this is about all that needs to be mentioned at this time in the encyclopedia about this topic. -—Kvng 15:28, 1 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 Carnegie Mellon University traditions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie Mellon University Kiltie Band

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

Non-notable college marching band. Some tangential mentions in newspapers, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG's requirement that subjects receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." No evidence of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless further sources can be found, Merge to Carnegie Mellon University#Traditions (where it is already mentioned) or better, to Carnegie Mellon University traditions (where it probably belongs but isn't yet included). —SMALL JIM 21:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a very recent deletion discussion for this article.[8] It seems like it should be linked.--Hjal (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added the usual infobox above. —SMALL JIM 11:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect until expanded. The Find sources template does not work well with lengthy article titles. Googling for "Carnegie" "Kiltie Band" in the News and Books areas turns up sufficient hits to demonstrate notability and to complete an encyclopedic article that is more than a stub.--Hjal (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am failing to find these sources, perhaps you would be so kind as to share them with us, so that they may be evaluated for WP:GNG purposes?--GrapedApe (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The band was formed in 1908, so it seems reasonable that somebody is going to write about it over the last 100 years. Yet, the only thing that comes up is one word mentions in news articles such as obits and interest story in a person (e.g., he was in the Kiltie band). A sampling of what comes up is New York Times July 15, 1990. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette July 22, 1998, Allen Dodds was the first the first bagpiper in the Carnegie Tech Kiltie Band.Dallas Morning News March 27, 2006 -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 1 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 deleted by Plastikspork, CSD A7. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carlton (College football player)

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

Well, I guess I'll go after notability rather than the fact that it is relatively unsourced (unless you want to count the one external link)...he's a fullback whose notability isn't established...he played on a mid-level school and has no other claim to notability. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Miserably fails WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable person. Speedy delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 02:28, 24 September 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) 19:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lover in Law

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

Fails to meet WP:NOTE. Search only turns up two reviews, both by the same person, Chris Beveridge. One of his reviews is already included in the article. Since both reviews are from the same person, they only count as one source. —Farix (t | c) 19:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I found were illegal streaming sites. One review is not enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:00, 29 September 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. Changed my mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Castelao

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

clearly fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 9 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is pretty clear-cut to me...amateur tennis player, no other establishment of notability. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:22, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimsum (organisation)

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

Although it appears to be a noble cause, it also appears to be non-notable and I haven't found any reliable third-party sources. Despite that the article claims the establishment date was 2002, I have found absolutely nothing to support this article's information from third-party sources, but there would be little to support with the article's current promotional state. Despite searching with Google News US and UK and Google Books with multiple terms including "non-profit", "2002", "Chinese culture" and "London", it seems they may never have received news coverage. EDIT: (29 September 2012) Looking through the edit history, I noticed that this 2002 BBC News article was removed nearly five years ago. Although the article is detailed, I believe this is insufficient and reads like an advertisement therefore not useful. I simply wanted to bring this to attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 9 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Guardian website has some mention of the organisation: highlighting the website in a 2008 article,and coverage of their protests relating to the UK 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. The first is effectively a passing mention and the second discussion initiated by the organisation and noted by the Guardian letter ombudsman, so I don't see them as sufficiently substantial in themselves to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 11:02, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to British Chinese or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator asked my opinion. I dod not see the point of such a very general redirect--it would amount to including a list of all British chinese social web sites to the article, and we are not a web directory. I cannot tell whether or not the organization is notable, but this is one of the very rare situations where I can see either a keep or delete, but not something in the middle. (I know I have often said that anything can be fitted in somewhere,even if it doesn't make an article by itself, but I see I was over-generalizing.) DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the best option, for now, is to delete the article as it seems the subject never received significant coverage to support an appropriate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 29 September 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) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vientiane Metro

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

CSD tagged as hoax, but created by a reputable looking editor. Yet I can find no evidence for this future transit system and none is given. Peridon (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- I found so many unreliable references. So IMHO it is not a hoax, at least. But fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:RS. So delete. -- Bharathiya (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually everything I found was a mirror, or referred to the bus system. Peridon (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Considering that the article cites 2013 and 2020 as the opening dates, there is little content to build an article with this. I haven't found any relevant sources with "Vientiane Metro Laos" so it is likely that any reliable sources would be local thus Lao language. If any Lao sources exist, I suggest that the article is transferred to Lao Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 23 September 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 Cellular automaton. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular image processing

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

Part of a collection of seemingly self-promotional articles related to Tao Yang (Wuxi). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Computational Cognition (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaotic digital CDMA and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical linguistics (2nd nomination). —Ruud 10:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that the applications of cellular automata in image processing could be an encyclopedia-worthy topic (see e.g. the results of this search) but not under this name, and the current article is worthless as a starting point. I agree with the nominator that this is more about promoting Yang than about serving any encyclopedic purpose. Better to delete it and start fresh. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Marginal call). The design of machines for processing cellular automata is a valid topic for an article, although the current page is in need of an almost total rewrite. Although the article on cellular automata is comprehensive, there is a distinction to be made between the theory of cellular automata and the design of machines for processing them, which has a long history (e.g. work of Duff, Fountain et al. on the CLIP machines at UCL in the 1970s/80s). 86.7.23.104 (talk) 15:01, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cellular Automaton, which is what this is.. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 29 September 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. I don't actually see a reason to delete this presented at all, so I must agree with Cola that this was not an appropriate candidate for AFD and this is a WP:SPEEDYKEEP, but consensus clearly favors a merge so that's what we will go with. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening of the depots

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

Suggest a merge with 1997 rebellion in Albania, as this doesn't appear to support enough content separate and apart from the 1997 rebellion to justify an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to request a merge, see Wikipedia:Merging and don't bring articles to AfD. AfD is for articles you want deleted in their entirety. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure a merge is necessary, I personally would rather up and delete it, however whenever nominate things for deletion, people ask for a merge, so I figure I'd at least offer. I'll be clear: I think this ought to be deleted, but if someone wants to merge, that's an acceptable second choice. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 16 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now - The article contains useful information so it certainly should not be deleted but there is little content for a detailed article. Merge for now with no prejudice against future creation. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 29 September 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) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Mehta

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

Notability not established. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Notability (doctors). -- Bharathiya (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) is marked as inactive. A better guideline to test this against would be WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My customary google search yields very little other than a Twitter page and a few physicians databases. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. As for WP:PROF, none of the 9 criteria seem to apply here which leaves Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), which is inactive, but he doesn't meet that anyway, so that leaves nothing, and therefore I must vote to delete. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:26, 20 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Insufficiently notable per WP:ACADEMIC which is the only applicable category for his inclusion. He has a number of hits at Google Scholar, but on some he is just one of a long string of authors; and on articles where he is the lead author, the citation rate is not terribly high. I could change my mind based on additional evidence, perhaps from someone with more sophisticated search tools. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 24 September 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) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid 7

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

I put a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "Unreleased film, does not meet notability criteria." The Prod was removed by the article creator with the comment "Filming is to start on September 27, 2012 and all the cast & crew is final." That falls short of the WP:NFF criteria regarding principal photography and public release, so I'm bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the previous Prod. AllyD (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC) AllyD (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NFF as filming not yet started and we lack ANYTHING about this film in any reliable source. Allow back only if/when WP:NF is met. Article content currently supported only by its Official website and Facebook page indicating that principle filming has not yet begun. Waaaaay Too Soon for an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 17 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:NF at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 07:05, 24 September 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 - hoax article created by notorious sockpuppeteer. Giant Snowman 08:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Bozovic (1990)

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER as he does not appear to have played in a professional league. CtP (t • c) 19:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverified, possibly a hoax. The article asserts notability per WP:NSPORT, but claims are not supported by reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 24 September 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) 01:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of Roses

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

Not an encyclopedic type subject. AutomaticStrikeout 18:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced WP:OR. Qworty (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy - The article reads like a personal essay. SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Guoguo12 (Talk) 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with a few references, it still gives off a strong impression of original research and I just can't see any point in having it in the first place. CtP (t • c) 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 September 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) 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Coltrane

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

fails WP:N Go Phightins! (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the holder of a state wide Constitutional office would justify his inclusion, if not then why are the other Commissioners of Agriculture justified, if the rational is that the was appointed then why not delete other the other appointed Commissioners of Agriculture or other state wide office holders who are appointed such as judges. AmyLagata —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any event an article about a State Wide Constitutional Office holder and member of the North Carolina Council of State is justified. AmyLagata —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: sign your posts with four tildes to date the comment. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would also think WP:POLITICIAN is relevant here. Being a statewide office does give some weight, but he was only in the office, really, a few months. I will see what I can find on him to add to the article before I give a definite delete/keep. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, all right. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After doing a little more research, it seems Coltrane is notable, not only as a former Ag Commissioner, but as a key player in NC race relations during the 1960s. I added more sources of info and think it should be a keep now. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found more references: this book, here p. 121, directed state budget per p. 84. The North Carolina Department of Archives and History holds his papers per this book, p. 333. A notable person with enough notable references to fill an article. Churn and change (talk) 16:20, 30 September 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. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hangul consonant and vowel tables

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

Whole tables of syllables are unnecessary for the reader to grasp the idea of Hangul. This article could be replaced simply by stating in Hangul that there are 11 172 syllable blocks. Pokajanje|Talk 17:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Ridiculous! Why would you AfD-ize an article with about 10,000 unique syllable blocks? m'encarta (t) 14:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not about size, but notability. This is not a notable topic. There is nothing in this article that is not covered in Hangul, save the tables of syllables, which are not necessary and can be replaced by a simple number. Pokajanje|Talk 19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The syllable tables are extremely helpful to those who are unfamiliar with the Korean script in explaining how the syllables are formed in Hangul. Abstrakt (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is already explained. See Hangul#Morpho-syllabic blocks. Pokajanje|Talk 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason not to include the tables: that's what WP:NOTPAPER is about.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason not to include. The subject is redundant; the formation of the syllables has been explained in the main article. Pokajanje|Talk 23:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Syllable tables are noteable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why. Claims without evidence are nothing. Pokajanje|Talk 18:45, 23 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, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Needs to be sourced. Somebody please do that. No opinion regarding notability. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Syllable tables like that should not exist in an encyclopedia. --Müdigkeit (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure of the relevance of this argument at first, but I think I get it now. Something like this might be appropriate as an appendix in Wiktionary. Pokajanje|Talk 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment needs a better lede explaining what this is and how to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 September 2012

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

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

The result was keep. The additional sources found are sufficient to justify this initially unlikely article. I assume it will be expanded with them, as promised in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ionithermie

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

This is a non-notable bogus medical treatment "referenced" only to a deadlinked-page on a spammy website. Peacock (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possible rewrite - I reviewed the author's contributions and noticed that they started several useful articles so I believe this is not a hoax. Additionally, Google News received several, although not very useful, results. All of the results are advert-like but they suggest that this indeed exists. Google Books also found several results including this 2008 book that mentions it was developed 25 years ago (1983) in France. I'm willing to rewrite the article, SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if rewritten to eliminate the promotional tone and add references. There is nothing "medical" about this subject - this is a cosmetic treatment for the dubiously existing problem of "cellulite" - but that's not what determines whether we keep the article; if the subject is notable, we keep it. And it probably is notable. I found credulous but mainstream coverage such as this in Vanity Fair, this in the Chicago Tribune, and this in the Sunday Herald. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 24 September 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. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken V. Krawchuk

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

Is a candidate for an office automatically notable, even if he has never held an office? Although this article is long, and has many references, the number of references that meet WP:RS seems small and I'm not convinced this person meets WP:BIO. Remove everything that is not in reliable, nontrivial sources, and the article that remains would say, "Ken Krawchuk was the Libertarian nominee for governor in Pennsylvania. He lost." FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 23. Snotbot t • c » 16:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:POLITICIAN because he never held office, and I can find that nothing that comes even remotely close to satisfying the WP:GNG requirement for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, for several reasons. The political resume is sufficient IMO and not just governor. Elected state party chairman of the third largest political party in America, which qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN as a statewide office. Candidate for vice president adds to that. Also an inventor with three US patents, which meets the notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE and/or Wikipedia:NRVE. Noted public speaker who conducted US presidential debates. Appears in Best Documentary, 2008 Sunscreen Film Festival[9] Re: the WP:GNG requirement, get past the recent novel and YouTube stuff on Google, and there are hundreds of newspaper articles from past races, mostly 2002 and 1998 governor races that meet WP:RS. Lots of reasons to keep it. And I won't mention that Googling only the last name and he comes up as the first person.--User:Tweeger 01:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonambulist (talk • contribs) [reply]

Statewide office for the purposes of WP:POLITICIAN has always been interpreted as being part of a legislature or holding some kind of ministerial role. Being a state party chairman does not fulfil that criteria. Valenciano (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He appeared in a documentary; was that documentary about him? Can you offer links to the best of the 'hundreds of newspaper articles?' Specifically, articles that are about him, not just articles that mention his name. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above reasons -T1980 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very strong delete, actually. We have never accepted someone who tries but fails to get a minor party nomination even for such an important office as Vice-President office as notable for that reason alone, Similarly for candidates nominated and running for offices such as representative to Congress from minor parties--I've advocated this for the 2 major parties in a 2 party system, but I would go beyond this. Similar for the state chairmanship: in the US, I would accept that for the 2 major parties, but not for others. The other writings are trivial. And the argument above that he is the most google-prominent person with the name of Krawchuk is rather ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that such arguments can be made in good faith, but I think in this case it's more of ILIKEHIM. Essentially all mentions of him are just that, mentions. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 1 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) 01:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Irish Molly (horse)

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

The article is proposed for deletion as the horse does not appear to exist. Edwarddutton (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, and probable hoax. There are zero non-Wikipedia ghits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this horse exists. There have been a few racehorses called "Irish Molly" but none of them were remotely notable. This is probably someone's own horse or something from a video game. Tigerboy1966 19:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bizarrely, all I managed to find was a vague reference to a racing greyhound called My Irish Molly. No suggestion there was a notable horse of the same name. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She's a Standardbred trotter [10]. As to importance, I'm unfamiliar with the major harness racing races and can't really determine if she warrants her own article. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Here is her pedigree [11]. It says foaled in 2005, but with the article saying Thoroughbred as well, it's probably all wrong as Logan's Dragon is also a trotter. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 16:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go - who would have thought we had expert editors with an understanding of horse breeding. Brilliant! I think that pretty much says it all - if you have to dig that deep just to find verification of existence, verification of notability is a long way off. Stalwart111 (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I can't find significant coverage of the horse winning anything major, so not notable even though she does exist. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 22:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3: Blatant hoax Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Warsi Entertainement

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

Hoax production/distribution house. Harsh (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, and possibly a hoax. I can't even find any mentions on Arshad Warsi's own website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possible~~ Obvious Hoax Harsh (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Seems to be a clear hoax. Probably a Speed delete -- Bharathiya (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax. There is an Arshid Entertainment in the USA, not connected. No mention at IMDb, which would be unusual if this were real. No mention at Dreamz Unlimited articles here or IMDb, and that became Red Chillies anyway. Peridon (talk) 13:23, 24 September 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. With two relistings, my comment below makes it obvious that the best option is to merge. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CentreGold

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

Suggest a merge into Eidos Interactive. This apparently never amounted to anything, so I fail to see the reason for an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 9 September 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) 01:25, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:28, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Although I have found sources including this and one small mention here. There are other links with small mentions of the acquisition here (only allows one view and then requires registration), here and here (Dutch). There are other small mentions that aren't worth mentioning here so it seems that, like most companies, the most news that they would've received was for an acquisition. I will take the liberty to close this discussion with the result of merge. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 23 September 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) 21:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sali Nallbani

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

fails WP:NTENNIS, it would seem. A look at info on him available online yields nothing to suggest he passes WP:NTENNIS. Mayumashu (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 9 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:29, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tiafoe

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

fails WP:NTENNIS. Junior tennis players pass this notability guideline only for winning junior grand slam events or having top 3 ITF junior combined ranking. Mayumashu (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 9 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:29, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Gjirokastër (1997)

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

Suggest a merge with 1997 rebellion in Albania, as this doesn't appear to support enough content separate and apart from the 1997 rebellion to justify an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:27, 23 September 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) 18:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spinghar TV

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

Fails WP:ORG as I can't find any reliable sources about it. David 1217 ^{What I've done} 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the article, "Spinghar TV is locally available in Nangarhar, Kabul, Parwan, Kunduz, Takhar, Balkh, Peshawar, Mardan, Qutta, Karachi, Swat Trabal Aria and Torkham. It transmits hourly news, current affairs programs, entertainment programs, politics programs, sports programs and criminal incidents programs. Spinghar TV offers a current affairs Programme (نن سبا) from Quetta, the capital of Balochistan. In Pakistan this programme has become popular. The program discusses basic questions regarding the constitution, rule of law, Pashtun affairs and democracy in political parties." If we assume those assertions to be true, a plausible notion, then I'd say that we'd likely be making a mistake by simply deleting the article. It's quite possible that we're either overlooking or cannot even access relevant source material, seeing as it is primarily in an obscure language in a less-than-connected part of the world. We should probably first be having a conversation about whether to redirect the title to a regional article about the general subject, or whether we can find someone more familiar with the Afghan media. Also, for research reference, the station's Facebook page reveals activity and trends that appear commensurate with comparable Pashto stations, and somewhat humorously, their official logo is a direct derivative of Sportiva's. — C M B J 04:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any web sources. If book sources can be found, that's great (where could we look, I wonder?) but if it's too obscure, it should be deleted because it fails WP:V. David 1217 ^{What I've done} 01:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally speaking, I'm of the position that viable non-English articles should be held closer to the inclusion standards of yesteryear until such areas of our project are proportionally mature. In this case, I agree that we've got to at least reasonably establish that the station is roughly what it claims to be — which hasn't yet been done — and that's why I took no position on whether we actually keep the article at this point in time. As for further research, there appear to be several videos on YouTube (e.g., here) that closely resemble what is described in the 'SPINGHAR in Europe' section, though they reference Spinghar.tv (the original dead link in this article) and facebook/spinghartv.tv as opposed to spenghar.com and facebook/spenghar; it's unclear whether or not the former is an affiliate of the latter, though it seems somewhat unlikely because both have unique logos, production values, and ongoing Facebook posts. There are also rudimentary mentions of "Spin Ghar" internews station in a 2005 Afghan Media Commission Interim Report and "Spin Ghar Film" production company in a 2010 USAID Priority District Report, though both reports precede the date of founding described in our article. — C M B J 10:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:37, 9 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:30, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find anything for Spinghar TV. The article probably is misnamed, but I also searched for Spinghar and anything related to television and didn't find anything. Per the Wikipedia article, the station was launched in early 2012, so it makes sense that there has not been much written up on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as practically unverifiable for the time being. — C M B J 14:28, 30 September 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) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of planning journals

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

List that seems to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BenTels (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia contains many lists, including for specialized groups of academic journals. These are a valuable resource, helping define and demarcate a particular field of study. For fields such as Urban and regional planning, such a list would be too cumbersome within the main article on that topic. Redlinks within such lists are an important source for identifying related articles for future development. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some lists are extremely informative and valuable and add much to the encyclopedia (just see some of our featured list articles). Other lists are like this one: a bare enumeration of items, basically duplicating a category (in this case: Category:Urban studies and planning journals) and don't add anything else to the encyclopedia. In addition, there don't seem to be any independent sources that discuss this class of journals as a group. Hence, does not meet WP:LISTN. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the list is barely a month old, so there is substantial room for its further development as an informative article (still a 'stub' list). In addition to helping define and/or demarcate an academic field of study and (through redlinks) identify articles for future development, additional related information can be brought in, including comparative journal citation statistics/ rankings, publishers, editors, areas of focus, etc. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place/institution of publication, years of publication, periodicity... Yes, all of this can be added to annotate the list, make it an informative table above and beyond the category, not that that's necessary to justify keeping it in list form as well. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDUP and WP:CLN generally; navigational lists (i.e., those that index articles) function as a complement to the category system, and both systems have benefits the other does not. WP:LISTN has no relevance to such lists as should be clear from WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and WP:SALAT (and by LISTN itself, which states that it does not apply to all kinds of lists); planning journals is what these notable topics are, so whether or not sources "discuss this class of journals as a group" is not meaningful here. So keep as valid navigational list, per my comments and those of DASonnenfeld. The nom's WP:VAGUEWAVE doesn't merit a response without some explanation as to why this list violates NOTDIR contra its navigational function. postdlf (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per DASonnenfeld. I personally am leaning towards "lists that duplicate categories should be deleted", but I also see such lists as having potential to become useful beyond categories, when we (eventually, I hope) add info like publisher, age, indice rankings and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Česko Slovensko má talent

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

No references, notability not established, virtually no content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable show, I'm not seeing sourcing in a quick flip around the Google... I'm actually a bit surprised to see that the term "Česko Slovensko" is being used these days, but I see that it is. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that there is a fairly massive return for the exact phrase "Česko Slovensko má talent," so I'd be happy to stand down if anyone can find enough reliable sources shavings to make a snowcone off of that iceberg... Carrite (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a native language speaker can convert those ghits into a referenced article. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article topic is, for anyone who hasn't guessed, the Czech/Slovak version of the Got Talent format - in fact, Got Talent currently contains more information about the subject than this article. There are Czech, Slovak and French articles on the topic, all far more detailed than this one - the Czech and Slovak articles seem to be roughly as detailed (and sourced) as, for instance, Eesti talent here on English Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, I would suggest leaving the discussion open for another week to see if anyone improves the article - the topic certainly seems to be just as notable as any popular television show, but the current article adds nothing to Wikipedia and almost all sources for an improved article will be in either Czech or Slovak. PWilkinson (talk) 13:10, 29 September 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. Deletion done by User:TexasAndroid under G7. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China's Got Talent (series 4)

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL; PROD contested by article creator, with no significant improvements made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 September 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) 23:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Pontus

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

Article on a non existent body, written totally in POV, without serious (let alone reliable) sources. Distortion of history. Even "flag" imposed on a "proposed" state (?) which was supposed to be called "Republic of Pontus", by the concerned WP editor who made up the article. E4024 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As seen at [12], the Republic of Pontus was at least a serious proposal for a state that might have been formed due to the territorial changes at the end of World War I. Any problems with the article can be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book by Forster does mention the Republic of Pontus, but I can't access the entire thing from Google Books. A cursory search turns up at least a dozen books that could be used as future references in the article, including works by the American-Hellenic Society, the US War Department, and The Times of London. There's also an article from The New York Times which states "The Greeks of Trebizond asked the Peace Conference to detach Trebizond from Turkey and to form of it a separate State to be known as the Republic of Pontus". The topic is notable and any problems can be solved via normal editing, as Metropolitan90 said. For examples of articles on other non-existent bodies, see List of proposed state mergers and List of United States territories that failed to become states#Proposed but non-existent entities. Braincricket (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification The above referred writer mentions a "desire" to have a republic not a state or a project thereof... --E4024 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90. Topic is notable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although this article involves inaccurate information, we can find reliable sources even in Turkish language. See: (Pontus Cumhuriyeti). I think this case is a kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily a notable topic. This is just a major case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Athenean (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, there are good reasons behind this request that are not just that E doesn't like it. Can anyone find a link source to support this claim: "the Republic of Pontus was never officially proclaimed, but a central government of an embryonic state existed." All I can find is people calling it a "political aspiration" or that there were "plans to declare a Pontus Republic", or "The Greek Republic of Pontus never became a reality, and in the abortive struggle to create it the Pontic Greeks were displaced with enormous loss of life" or, "How and why the Republic of Pontus did not materialize". I'm leaning toward Keep, but proposer is right: 1. Topic has not been the subject of serious, reputable study (there are no English scholarly histories on the topic, just brief mentions on other subjects) 2. And the brief mentions which do exist, seem to make clear that it was a political aspiration and never anywhere close to an "Unrecognized state" or even "embryonic state." I will vote to Keep if someone can show me: A. A major reputable treatment of the subject (without this, there is no notability for a historical entity) or B. Someone shows something that says this wasn't just an idea by a handful of people with good diplomatic connections, but an actually existing entity. Otherwise, the content should probably be merged with Paris Peace Conference page or ~~Trabzon page~~ Pontic Greeks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? There is plenty of material on the subject [13]. Yeah, so it was never implemented, only proposed. That has nothing to do with whether the subject is notable or not. By the way, who is it you are following around? Me, or E4024? If it's me I would prefer it it if you stopped. Athenean (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I open a discussion I always hope many people to follow me and join the talk, not only two or three users. So thanks to everyone who are kind enough to join the discussion. --E4024 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean. Thanks for the comments. No sources in that search, except the Eccumenical one, spend more than a line or two on the Pontic Republic. All of them use the term once, if at all (seriously click on the books and you will only find trivial mentions). Wikipedia:Notability is clear that Notability has to be more than trivial mentions, although not necessarily the full subject of the article. We need a couple of sources that spend a page or two on the Republic of Pontus to clearly say it is notable. United States of Latin Africa which has a few scholarly treatments (although not the article) may be a good example of an imaginary state that is notable. But even if there isn't that scholarly treatment, I said I would be convinced of its notability if it ever was an "Unrecognized state" or even "Embryonic State". If it had an office, I'd probably lean towards Keep. So there are two ways you can convince me: show me a significant treatment of it in a reputable source (I will not be convinced by Google Book hits for trivial mentions) or show me it actually existed. Either one will convince me the topic is notable. I think both are quite reasonable and following guidelines too. Once again, I'm leaning toward Keep, but don't think dismissing the arguments by E is helpful in figuring this out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found one. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But perhaps the article should be renamed to reflect the idea that no republic was formally proclaimed or recognized. Sprutt (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great, finally found a substantive source on it. Had to really look for it. Will be doing my part to improve content on the page. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sprutt: As you will most possibly agree with me, if a state has not been formally proclaimed any supposed recognition is out of question; therefore maybe you should strike that word in your comment. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is to keep in some form. Discussion on whether or not to merge can continue on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental theorem of cyclic groups

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

Non-notable. This is a standard homework problem; no need to have a Wikipedia article for such. Taku (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to cyclic group: This is a property of cyclic groups, not a topic that is notable in its own right. -- BenTels (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a citation to an independent, reliable source. Per the fundamental theorem of notability, the topic is therefore notable. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how there can be any reasonable doubt that the topic is notable: there are a ton of textbooks containing this theorem. And "this is a standard homework problem" is not a reason for deletion. Jowa fan (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two more textbooks that cover this (they don't call it "the fundamental theorem" but we already have one source for the name, and anyway notability is about content not naming). To me the nominator's argument that this is a standard exercise (as it is in some other texts that I found) only strengthens the case for its notability. I'm not convinced that the lengthy and unsourced "proof" sections in the current version of the article are helpful, and two of them seem to be assuming without justification that the group is finite, but they can be cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cyclic group (and trim ....) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then merge. For merging, the detailed proofs should be removed or reduced to their main ideas. D.Lazard (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep, don't merge -- this is a perfectly good free-standing article on a decidedly notable theorem. I agree with David Eppstein that trimming and cleaning the proofs somewhat would probably be an improvement. JBL (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and merge -- I have never heard of it referred to as a fundamental theorem, and it doesn't really seem deep enough to deserve the modifier. The page seems to have developed into a list of proofs, which is not a good thing. I think the other information is good could be crafted into an excellent addition of a more appropriate article. Rschwieb (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into cyclic group. Keep if it has non-trivial uses (E.g. isn't part of the proof of Zolotarev's lemma this fact?) - Virginia-American (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence can be provided that this is a standard name for the result. The result can certainly be mentioned somewhere; that's not a problem. The problem is that we don't want to endorse a name for the result that someone just made up one day (and therefore we don't want to leave a redirect). Whatever content you might want to merge somewhere (I can't imagine it's much), please just re-write it rather than merging, so that no redirect is required. --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The name comes from Gallian's textbook, the first reference in our article. The text was originally published in 1986 and is now in its 8th edition, so it appears to be widely used. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I don't know if every characterization theorem for some class of groups needs a separate article. Yes, you can show that it passes GNG by citing some pages in almost any book on groups. But is it that notable in the real-world sense of the word that it needs a separate article? Does it have some history worth mentioning and so forth that would make it unwieldy in the main article? Compare with, say, the PCP Characterization Theorem aka PCP theorem. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Schaum's Outline of Combinatorics calls it (the) "Characterization Theorem for Cyclic Groups". Tijfo098 (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An important result in basic group theory, well-sourced. -- 202.124.74.77 (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cyclic group. While this is clearly a name for the theorem, there seems no reason to believe that it is the name. There is essentially only one book in Google Books using this name (the alternative name "Characterization Theorem for Cyclic Groups" mentioned above scores two) and 12 hits for the phrase on Google Scholar. Compare with 37,700 hits on Google Books for "Fundamental theorem of algebra". Deltahedron (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are 399 articles that begin with "Fundamental theorem of" [14] I don't have an opinion on this, since I went to a horrible public school in a poor area that couldn't afford to hire teachers so just had people hired off the street that didn't teach us anything. Thus I don't know what any of this stuff is. Is it common though that Wikipedia articles have a side article for the theorems? Dream Focus 17:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the theorem is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Deltahedron (talk) 18:03, 29 September 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 both. Michig (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Lines

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

The article is not sourced and has a lack of established notability from WP:N (music)

I am also nominating the following related page because of said reasoning, plus that it is a two-sentence stub:

Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 16. Snotbot t • c » 08:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The project does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, as I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 02:58, 17 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)} 14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 29 September 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) 22:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Manjunath

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

The sources don't back up the claims, and the claims themselves don't show notability. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 06:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 06:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage verges on WP:BLP1E, and there isn't enough in reliable sources to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 10:29, 23 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)} 14:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads more like a CV than an encyclopedic article. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:07, 26 September 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) 21:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott G. Stewart

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

Subject requests deletion and article fails notability standard Scottgstewart (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand why a political operative like the subject would want to have his unattractive (but cited) past scrubbed from an online enyclopedia. While the Seattle Times link has gone dead and can't be found in archives, this source demonstrates that the source exists and could be found in an offline search. Further, this source shows the subject buying a home with a CR co-worker, now a NC congressman and illegally claiming with him District of Columbia's Homestead Tax Deduction. The USA Today and Las Vegas sources put this subject past the bar of notability, IMHO. On further reading, it seems an SPA scrubbed scandal from a company connected to the subject in 2010, which I've now added back in. This may or not be related. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment – The additional sources which BusterD sited and linked are not reliable independent secondary sources as they are partisan blogs. The additional links appear to be pushing this BLP toward PSEUDO Biography and attack page. The subject clearly fails WP: Notability standard and personally requests deletion.

From the Wikipedia policy on Deletion of BLPs of Relatively Unknown Subjects: Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottgstewart (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck your bolded "delete" above - usually the nominator doesn't "vote", as the nomination itself is already considered to show the nominator's preference for deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:51, 15 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)} 09:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As head for multiple years of the Republican Party's youth section, this is an individual about whom there should be encyclopedic biography. THIS PIECE in a BYU magazine about Stewart and his running mate notes that the national College Republicans organization includes 779 chapters and 80,000 members — a hefty-sized organization. To wheel out once again my often-used rationale: "I favor the lowest possible bar for inclusion of pieces about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology — this is the sort of thing that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia." There do seem to be some possible undue weight issues, which is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The relisting of this BLP appears odd. The additional links provided are partisan political blogs and do not yield sufficient evidence of neutrality required by reliable secondary sources. The Carrite addition of the BYU piece does nothing to show notability as Stewart is not the subject of the article and the BYU student newspaper is not a reliable secondary source. Even he noted that the article is unbalanced. Additionally, since the subject is relatively unknown and has personally requested deletion, is there any chance a consensus could appear? Since such a consensus is essentially impossible, the policy mandates that the article be closed as delete. Scottgstewart (talk) 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.194.34 (talk)
Delete. Fails the WP:POLITICIAN standard as the ancillary party offices are not covered as notable. Also fails WP:PSEUDO as this article is unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potus128 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of non-inherited notability. Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standard and has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources as he is only the subject of one sourced article – USA Today. He is only mentioned in all the other articles and is not the subject thereof. Additional links appear to be Democratic political blogs and fail any real standard of inclusion. Therefore he is not subject of significant media coverage and is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctiedeman (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 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, DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As my close was objected to, I have relisted. I had closed as delete on the grounds of "Delete on the basic BLP grounds of general fairness to living people." I explained further on my talk p.any article would put undue emphasis on inappropriate material . DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like an attack page. Unproven allegations are not the basis for an article. --Michig (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One modestly substantial piece in a newspaper (USA Today) isn't really enough to meet WP:GNG, and the WP:BLP issues make it a clear delete in my view. The lack of general coverage of Stewart means that the article ends up being dominated by the unproven allegations, which (as DGG noted) makes it function as an attack page. I assume that was not the intent of the article's creator(s), but it is the effect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - this is a fairly strange case, not helped by the two SPAs who have chosen this AfD and a related article each as their only articles of interest. I can only imagine there's some serious sock-puppetry going on. I have had a look at the sources - one was broken so I fixed it, another was a dead link and the original article is now behind a pay-wall so I hid it. Strictly speaking, I think the subject does (just) meet WP:GNG on the basis of the articles provided - three articles either focussed on the subject or that mention him specifically and provide more than just passing mentions. I acknowledge that the articles that remain aren't particularly complimentary, but if we deleted every BLP on the basis that notability should be established only by "complimentary" coverage then we would lose many BLP articles over-night. However, given the meeting of WP:GNG is (at this stage) marginal, given the subject has requested deletion and given our want to uphold the principle of doing no harm, I'd be inclined to delete. It is worth pointing out, I think, that one or two more sources could probably put WP:GNG beyond doubt, regardless of whether they speak highly of the subject or not. If the subject were to receive more coverage in the future (regardless of tone) an article could possibly be justified again. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111 says what I wanted to say much better than I did:)

I agree that this is a marginal case, and that more coverage in the future might justify re-creation. However, a re-created article would need to take care not give undue weight to unproven allegations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an attack page. If notability can indeed be established, the article should be rewritten from scratch or the offending revisions removed. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:09, 28 September 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) 20:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top ten albums

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

This has got to be the sorriest dab page I've ever seen, and I've seen eyesores. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This abortion isn't a dab page. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The dab page Top Ten already contains a "music charts" section. Music chart should be linked from there. Braincricket (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to an article this is clearly a notable concept, and constructive work on the page would be a good thing. The reason it doesn't work as a dab page is that none of the subsidiary concepts has an article about it either. Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Confused article that seems to arbitrarily focus on 'top ten', and isn't really about anything in particular. I don't see anything salvagable here. --Michig (talk) 10:27, 23 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)} 14:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisting as the page has been converted to an article since the AfD discussion, and there is not yet enough discussion about the new version to take any specific action yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Top ten. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 29 September 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 convert to disambiguation page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina

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

I am recommending that U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina be deleted. It was originally setup with only focus on the combined section of US 15 and US 501 in North Carolina. Later, it was modified to include both in more detail without breaking them out as two separate pages. Now that two separate pages have finally been created for the two US Routes (that will make it easier to go into more detail regarding history, future, differences, etc.), this page is no longer needed. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning oppose on technical grounds. Was content copied across from the US 15-501 article into the separate US 15 in NC and US 501 in NC articles? If so, this can't be deleted. If the content was copied, under the terms of the licenses used here, it has to be redirected to one or the other article, and then {{copied}} has to be added to the talk pages of the all three articles to attribute the content correctly.
Having said all of that, I support the essential proposal, but a deletion isn't possible. Split and duplicate the content as needed, apply the attribution templates, and then redirect US 15-501 to one of the articles and call it a day. Imzadi 1979 → 12:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a deletion isn't possible, then a redirect to U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina seems the prudent choice of the two, it's the dominant partner in the relationship (using it's mile markers along the route). --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to dab page Delete if possible. If the page needs to stay for attribution, I would turn it into a dab page. Dough 48 72 15:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab page ~~Delete~~ noting concerns above. --Rs chen 7754 15:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina per Imzadi1979. It would be nice to split the material evenly between the two routes, but since US 15 is the dominant of the two routes, I've got to go with redirecting it to US 15. I almost considered directing it back to the main US 15 and/or US 501 pages, though. ----DanTD 23:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it doesn't matter where it redirects; the page history can't be deleted for licensing reasons. The only way around that restriction is to copy a list of every account or IP that edited the article to the talk pages. If such a list is created (doesn't have to be a direct copy of the page history) then the redirect wouldn't need to be retained for technical/licensing issues. Dough's suggestion of making it a dab page is also valid over a redirect. In any case, if WashuOtaku or someone else copied text from this article into the others, some attribution must be maintained. Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible to merge the history from US 15-501 to both US 15 and US 501? If we can, let's do that and delete US 15-501. If not, we could history merge into US 15 and then consider US 501 a fork of US 15. Hopefully, that would take care of the license issue. –Fredddie ™ 13:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer I have refactored this discussion to include the standard deletion templates. Furthermore the discussion was not listed in a daily AfD log, so I am listing it now. Please consider the time of this post as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major thoroughfare of the Research Triangle and an important part of Durham/Chapel Hill local identity. I see over a million ghits for 15-501 -wikipedia (the formal title is too specific for effective searching). As "15-501," the road has significance beyond what can be covered in articles on 15 and 501 separately. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, 15-501 could mean anything; could be part of a phone number, a part number, etc. --Rs chen 7754 05:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to DAB maintaining history per above concerns. --No unique names 04:41, 12 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, — foxj 22:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not Wikipedia's position to second guess publishing decisions of reliable sources. There's hundreds of reliable sources that discuss U.S. 15-501. A recent one is Discussion group to study 15-501 corridor. The topic U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina meets WP:GNG. What about article x? - What about U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina and U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina is not a basis to delete the article U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is - redundancy. --Rs chen 7754 20:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina is not redundant of U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina/U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina in the reliable source world and Wikipedia is here merely to reflect that world. As I noted, there's hundreds of reliable sources that specifically discuss "U.S. 15-501" as a topic. Merely because some Wikipedians choose to write either U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina or U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina to be redundant of U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina doesn't make the topic redundant. It merely means these topic need to write a better representative survey of the relevant literature. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable thoroughfare through a major city. sufficient reliable sources both available and already in the article. Meets notability guidelines for a dedicated article. Additional the article should be renamed, removing "in North Carolina". This is unnecessary. RadioFan (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina and U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina articles already cover this segment of roadway. We don't need three articles saying essentially the exact same things. The challenge isn't notability, it's triple redundancy. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge content specific to the 15-501 section of road from the 15 and 501 articles into the 150, leave a {{main}} link behind so readers can find their way.--RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't make any sense. Where is there another article where you have to stop reading it at one point, go to another article to continue reading about it, and then you have to go back to the first article to finish? –Fredddie™ 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because 15-501 is an entity unto itself beyond highway 15 on one side and highway 501 and can (and has been) covered adequately in a dedicated article. That and mentioning a related topic in one article with a pointer to the more detailed dedicated article is pretty common here.--RadioFan (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But what if someone only cares about the routing of U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina, and doesn't give a rip about 501? --Rs chen 7754 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page. I recognize the term 15-501 is a big deal, but there are significant portions of both US 15 and US 501 that are not part of the concurrency. In this case, redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing, and is definitely preferable to requiring a user to jump back and forth between articles. V C 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. We have U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, U.S. Route 41 in Michigan and M-35 (Michigan highway) that each cover the same 7–8 miles of highway. As well, US 41 and M-28 (Michigan highway) also cover the same 60 miles. Redundancy isn't a problem when it's necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 15:51, 22 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)} 13:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Some of the editors above changed from "delete" to "convert to dab" or "redirect" due to the requirement that the page history be kept. However, it is entirely possible to keep the history and make U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina appear as a red link; all that's necessary is to move the page somewhere. It could be moved to a subpage of the talk page that the material was merged into, or it could be moved to a more likely title and then redirected to one of the relevant articles. After that, we can use the {{copied}} template on the pages that had material merged into them, and the problem would be solved. (See WP:MAD for the full explanation.) My reason for relisting is that once editors realised that this is a valid outcome, then they might want to alter their positions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need to make it a redlink, and this AfD has been discussed for over a month (opened on August 20) so some finality would be appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 15:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to disambiguation page. Since deleting it isn't an option for various reasons, this seems the valid choice. I feel another redundant page would be pointless. ``WashuOtaku (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I checked again and the hundreds of reliable sources that specifically discuss U.S. 15-501 are still there, so my position remains keep. "U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina" is recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. Proposing that U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina should be made into a DAB because there are articles on U.S. Route 15 in North Carolina and U.S. Route 501 in North Carolina is nothing more than the What about article x? argument listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to a merge, splitting of content, etc., per further discussion. This AfD isn't about the notability of the route(s), just whether the topic should be organized as it is now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:02, 1 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, WP:CSD#G4. This repost is not substantially different from the version that was previously deleted. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Bongiorno

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

Same reasons expressed here. Nothing is changed since then, and this entry has been recreated even without prior discussion. The subject of the biography has no encyclopedic value and was involved in a massive spam campaign both in it.wiki and here. The sources in the article just mention him or do not talk about it at all. Or it is just vanity press. The author of the article (Elena d'agostini) and the characters mentioned in it (Costanzo Costantini) are personally and financially involved with Bongiorno himself. Everything that is written in the article is exaggerated and inflated as, at present, Vito Bongiorno has no relevance. Zappa O Mati 13:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC) (Carried over from Talk:Vito Bongiorno for 79.55.245.225)[reply]

Delete and salt. A look at the log shows this to have deleted several times before[15] and a look at the creator's talk page shows this being nominated for deleted over a year ago.[16] Doc talk 13:41, 23 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MiGen

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

The article consists of primary sources, does not meet GNG, and has already had a "delete in 7 days if left" tag remain in place (set by a different wikipedian) long enough for a no questions asked deletion, but was removed by article creator with no improvements to article. Kai445 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. It seems like one of many in and endless list of prospective Kickstarter projects, probably trying to cash in on Ouya's popularity... Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - despite no secondary sources, I think the article is OK. It already has enough information to be decent. Also, the company behind MiGen haven't really released news on the press, therefore there are not many secondary sources. When it releases, maybe we'll see many come... --Gaming&Computing (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's 'no news on the press' how can it be notable? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said, we can wait until the release when it finally will come to the press. Then, the secondary sources would arrive here and it's all okay. Plus, I don't know where else to put information about MiGen once this article would be deleted. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works here on Wikipedia. If there are no third party, reliable sources to establish notability, then an article is to be deleted, and if/when it were ever to become notable, be created then. At this point, it doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Gaming&Computing is both the article creator, and the remover of the PROD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to say that. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. You were supposed to say that yourself, but you didn't. See WP:AFDFORMAT. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 26 September 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) 23:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the inability to identify reliable, secondary material to substantiate the article. Mephistophelian (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if/when they've gotten some media attention. (And ideally after any Kickstarter campaign is complete.) APL (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesnt seem to have enough reliable external coverage. If it gets some coverage after its release it can easily be created again. RPGMakerMan (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAll primary sources hence does not meet WP:GNG Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - They give updates on progress every couple of days via there Facebook and Webpage. If they have gone this far lets see where they will go.WP:GNG [[User:|BrianG52]] (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC

An IP that signs messages in a dubious fashion. Excellent. -Kai445 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 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) 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lipstick

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

This article doesn't meet the requirements for notability of songs. The first section is taken from the album booklet itself which is not a secondary source, while the second two sections are based on insignficant mentions in other sources. Any relevant content can be placed in the main album article. Sailodge (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. WTH? The song has enough information to have a separate article. VítoR™ ^{Talk That Shit} 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having enough information is irrelevant in this context. What the article needs for inclusion is signficiant, secondary and reliable coverage: the four reliable sources provided do not demonstrate this. Sailodge (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Erm why has this been nominated for deleltion? Notbility guidelines state that if a song which is not a single has charted on a major chart or received an award nomination/award, then it is allowed to remain in mainspace. You should better acquaint yourself with notability guidelines. This is nonsense. AARON• ^TALK 14:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sailodge (talk) has only ever made 14 edits to Wikipedia. 5 edits in 2011, 9 edits in 2012. AARON• ^TALK
- Please read the guideline further. It states, "Notability aside (which is charting or winning a major award), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." In this particular article, there is a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, putting aside the information sourced from the booklet, etc. Sailodge (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs" - It's a GA, so it's not a stub. There is enough information. End of. AARON• ^TALK 14:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being a good article is totally irrelevant here, anyone can put that little green icon on the article and list it under the category. What we need here is significant coverage in reliable sources, not just regular information from primary sources such as the album itself. Sailodge (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's completely relevant. If the reviewer thought it was not long enough, it wouldn't have been passed. Simple as. And no, no one can just add the green icon without it being through a review. It's completely irrelevant that the reviews came from the album. That's what an album review is, a review of the songs on the album. Where else will reviews come from? AARON• ^TALK 14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have misread. I am referring to the album booklet as a primary source. By the way, I've removed your harsh closing comment as WP:NPA is Wikipedia policy. Sailodge (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no better source than the album booklet credits to site the credits and personnel. It's direct from the singer. And that wasn't a personal attack in the slightest. I think you need to establish yourself more on here instead of nominating articles for deletion despite you contributing next to nothing. AARON• ^TALK 14:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Album booklets are primary sources and therefore not independent from the subject to establish notability. And I think you need to calm it down and not take this discussion about this article's notability so personally. Sailodge (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sailodge is wrong with regards to GA status; as can be seen here, the article did, indeed, pass through the GA process. CtP (t • c) 22:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. That said (and realizing I might be in the minority), I'm not really a fan of these kinds of articles in general. That is, the song appears to lack any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thereby failing WP:GNG, and WP:MUSIC also states that "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Regarding the line in WP:NSONGS which states "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", if we take this literally, than we can easily craft articles for most every song from every album, provided the album's liner notes - and a couple of album reviews - exist. That reasoning kind of goes against the spirit of the guidelines, IMO. I'm not saying liner notes can't be legitimate sources, but they do not factor in establishing notability. Virtually the entire "Recording and production" section of this article is taken from the album's liner notes, and the bulk of that information is repeated in the "Credits and personnel" section. That leaves the "Composition and critical reception" section, which contains trivial/passing mentions of the song within reviews for the album. I just prefer seeing something where the song is the focus - not necessarily the main subject of a write-up, but at least where it's discussed in some depth. As for the song charting, that alone does not warrant a standalone article, as songs routinely get redirected/merged when the article contains little other information - ie, the album's liner notes were not incorporated. Anyway, I'll support keeping this article since that seems to be the result in similar, recent AfDs involving songs by Lady Gaga. Gongshow ^Talk 07:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was also the case for a few other Rihanna songs, as well as Jennifer Lopez songs. AARON• ^TALK 17:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 September 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. It looks like there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus as to whether the article should be kept or merged. I suggest opening a merge discussion on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¡Tré!

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

Whatever written here is clear copy of what I've written at ¡Uno! and there is no difference other then one or two lines which are either unsourced or unnecessary. Track listing is not released and nor has been any confirmation of songs from the album or singles. It is best to salt this and redirect to Green Day for now. Though not failing GNG, it is clearly copy of other article. It is WP:TOOSOON and I can do much better with this once there are more details out. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's clear by the sources the album exists in some fashion and will be publicly available in a few short months. While the "word-for-word" thing is a problem, it's also easily corrected. I believe this article passes the necessary policies (WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NALBUM) to continue to exist. The album work has been released and was previously on the article prior to it's redirection, which I undid. In short, keep, it more than meets the necessary policies to be kept. Just needs a re-write to keep it from being a word-for-word copy of another article. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 06:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with changing words but can you add more info to differ the article, like 21st and AI are? Even if changed wording, the meaning remains the same as it is in UNO. It is impossible as there are no details available out there, right now. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 07:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're part of a trilogy all announced at once. A lot of the information will be the same, it is inevitable. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 07:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time that both Tre and Dos have a wiki page, we know a lot about the albums already, even some of the songs have been confirmed, so there can be a partial track listing (just without numbers). For example we know 99 Revolutions is going to be on Tre as well as Stray Heart. The first confirmed in an interview when they first announced the trilogy and the latter during the radio interview with Zane Lowe. Also in the end all three of the wiki pages will end up very similar anyway, and its just a starting ground right now. Cruiseshipfan (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Day for now. The album is definitely scheduled for release, and some details are known about it (cover art, names of a couple tracks) but it's still too soon to have a stand-alone article. As the release draws closer one expects more sources and info will become available, at which point it can be un-redirected and expanded. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Green Day. Much of ¡Tré!'s "Recording and release" section is identical to that of the ¡Uno! article. Understandable, but it also shows - along with no confirmed track listing - that there's little individual notability for ¡Tré! at this time, and that it'd be sensible to wait a bit for more specifics to emerge. Gongshow ^Talk 08:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Green Day. Until there's are tracklistings that are confirmed by the band themselves, Dos and Tre don't need articles. Alec scheat (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either Redirect or Clean it Up we should either fix it up add a picture and have a short article on it or wait until after Dos comes out and make the article then and have it redirect for now BlackDragon 01:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Now This page has been cleaned up and now features a cover and tracklist so we should keep it being that is what we said was needed to keep it and it has the themes and styles added BlackDragon 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We got a title, release date, album cover and track listing for the album. More information will come in time, but this is enough for now. Zac 09:27, 30 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Tianlin

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

The only thing I can see from a Google search are Wikipedia and mirrors. The only link in the article is a dead link. No, I am not saying that this is necessarily or even likely a hoax, but there's no verifiable information here. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found an archived version of the dead link and added a few sources to the "further reading" section. One source calls her a "renowned writer and poetess", another says she is "one of China's most promising poets", and she apparently won a national poetry prize. I think that satisfies #1 of WP:CREATIVE and #1 of WP:ANYBIO. The article needs love and the sources could be better, but the subject is "worthy of notice". I wonder if there are alternate spellings or Chinese sources we could be looking for. Braincricket (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources provided in the article following its nomination. Sailodge (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 September 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) 01:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ngoc Minh

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

Does not appear to be a complete hoax, but unverifiable. In particular, this is supposedly a Chinese poet, but the article uses a Vietnamese name (with no suggestion that the alleged poet is from what is now Vietnam or southern Chinese regions that were culturally related to Vietnam). Further, it incorrectly states that Qin Shi Huang died on a search for the islands (he did send Xu Fu, among others, to look for such islands, but never went himself). While it does cite a published source, what is in here is simply too unreliable and too unverifiable to stand. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually consult the source listed before concluding that this source did not verify any of this information? It doesn't sound like it from your comment, even if you end up being right about the information being unverifiable.
The first version of this article (posted anonymously back when that was still possible) had all of its present substantive content, attributed to that one book. The book is listed at Amazon with a "look inside" feature here, and using their search tool for "Ngoc Minh" or just "Ngoc" gets zero results; the index is also visible there and contains nothing relevant to any of this article's content. "Ngoc Minh" + Qin + poet gets nothing relevant via Google Books. This all suggests it was an outright hoax. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's just be polite and say that this is a GNG failure of dubious veracity. A Vietnamese name for a Chinese poet seems unlikely. Started in 2005 by an IP, so good luck getting the creator to lend us advice on sourcing — if this is indeed legit and not a hoax. I'm not seeing anything but WP and WP mirrors in English. Vietnamese WP indicates this is the name of a commune in Bac Me District , Ha Giang Province , Vietnam. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete can't be verified. Perhaps the article rescue squadron could help? LibStar (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Kudpung under criterion G4. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chester See

AfDs for this article:

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

OK...this page was AFDed last fall and the result was delete. Recently the page has been created again and numerous other versions (e.g., Chester Yeah!, Chester Yeah, etc.) have been redirected to it. The underlying problems are that it's a poorly sourced BLP, not notable per WP:N and has an inexplicable Chester Yeah section at the Go Phightins! (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be speedily deleted then. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The author has admitted it being the same content, so this should get speedied. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, though the reason I tagged it for AFD rather than CSD is that it had previously been removed through AFD, so I figured it would be good to ensure consensus before giving it the boot for the second time--Go Phightins! (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to do it that way too, especially because non-admins can't tell what the previous, deleted content was. The text at the bottom "Even though the page Chester Yeah! has been deleted, here is what it said, Chester See should be Chester Yeah!" would be the reason I'd flag it for a speedy, let's see what happens. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this looks an open-and-shut Speedy case given there's no contest about the repetition of a deleted article. Failing that, just delete it as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but as I said in both my nomination and above, I just felt more comfortable ensuring community consensus rather than a simple tag...though it was tagged and a terrific dissension was posted on the talk page...Go Phightins! (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, delete Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 12:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per A7 for practically the bazillionth time. With all the recreations, I wouldn't be surprised if the next recreation would be named "Chester No", "Chester Maybe", "Chester Ees", I mean, the list goes on! Zappa O Mati 13:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, User:Dragon Loy has created some redirects to this page, Chester Yeah, Chester Thing, and Chester Yeah!, which pretty much would extend the Chester See article creation program. Zappa O Mati 13:07, 23 September 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) 01:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MyVaccs

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

An orphan stub article with a single source, which only mentions the website as a small feature of a larger piece. The article has had a 'notability' tag for 17 months, and doesn't appear to pass the guidelines on WP:NWEB.- Donkey1989 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was only able to find one sole news source that actually focused on this product. The other news coverage is the very brief paragraph written in the aforementioned BBC article, meaning that there isn't enough coverage of this product/website to warrant it having a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:NWEB.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only sources I have found is the same BBC News article that is currently displayed and I have searched with both Google US and Google UK news. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, pretty much fails WP:NWEB. -- SUFC Boy 13:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to assert notability Widefox; talk 11:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 September 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) 22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LiveStreet CMS

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

Non notable software. Hu12 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources or indication of notability (links provided are just popularity lists for various software in Russian). created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete - What differences between this article and for example B2evolution, AdaptCMS or even MiaCMS. Which are even less notable than LiveStreet? If it looks like an advertisement — tell me what to do, and I'll edit it. This article exist on Russian and Español wiki, and nobody wanted to delete it. I created it just to mention about it in PHP CMS LIST. If you think there is lots of external links - fell free to delet them.-- W 09:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)— Wihola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pointing out that other articles on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot why anything at all exist here — because of enthusiasts such as me. Feel free to remove all links in the article you think them promotional and I will not make any roll back. I think you just do not want other know about yet another CMS because of some ephemeral "not notable". It will not become notable because of you. I spend some time to translate this article, and I'm not a developer, I'm not earning money from it, I'm from Ukraine but it's russian CMS and I'm not going spend any more time for arguing. So, if I'm even a newbie and guest on em.wiki - very nice meet. But I have been with Wiki for 4 years, here's my account, so I'm not a SPA. See ya -- W 20:46, 17 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - this software product quite evidently does not have significant third-party coverage in reliable sources, obvious WP:GNG fail, probably a vanity article by product's creators. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Needs reliable third party sources. The creator said "It will not become notable because of you" which implies it's an advert. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Sailodge (talk) 14:30, 23 September 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) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Abdoul

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

Subject is a boxer who fails WP:NBOX since he's not even ranked in the world top 100. The article has no sources except for a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoul would appear to pass criterion 6 of WP:NBOX by virtue of his 2006 fight against David Haye being televised on Sky Sports, a premium channel. There are also many artices about him found by clicking on the word "news" in the nomination statement, which would suggest a probable pass of the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a journeyman fighter who's never come close to a top 10 ranking or major world title fight. With all of his fights, it's not surprising he's mentioned in articles. However, the coverage I saw was all WP:ROUTINE and that doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 14:51, 17 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a one sentence article whose sole source is an external link to his fight record at Boxrec.com. My search found no coverage that I think would support WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tambourelli

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

Fails WP:GNG; relies entirely on sources associated with subject. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 13 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:08, 15 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG this sport has failed to achieve significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG with only primary sources and no WP:RS. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 01:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are few sources to support this article aside from the tambourelli.org links and I found nothing useful with Google US and Google UK news. However, I found this Detroit Free Press news article from 1903 that mentions "tambourelli" despite that this Wikipedia article claims it was started in the 1970s. Either way, there is nothing to support this article and it is an orphan so it wouldn't link to any other articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in sources means that this topic fails WP:GNG. Sailodge (talk) 12:41, 23 September 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) 01:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space 1026

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

Highly promotional article; I can't figure out how to rewrite it but perhaps someone can. If not, I don't see any alternative to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It reads tremendously of promotion, however, don't expect that to mean much. Just litter it blisteringly with arbitrary sources, then steam over anyone who wonders about it, and claim everyone who questions the neutrality of the material as biased. Works wonders from what I hear :) Should that fail, it's a candidate for deletion because of it's apparent promotional nature. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:24, 15 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:09, 15 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh. Let's be bold here and stop the relisting and just delete it. Rationales are listed. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 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) 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Byrnes

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not meet the requirements of notability for Wikipedia. The only reference is one site with a very short biography of Tim Byrnes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redofromstart (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real sources to indicate notability of this musician. I'm finding a few hits, but none of them are substantial. The ones that aren't from social networking sites, and thus are unusable, are usually very brief mentions of his name in listings of performers, or just self-written bios. He played the trumpet in a very minor musical, so he gets a few name drops in relation to that, but none of it is actually substantially about him enough to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 22 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not have third party coverage according to searches above, contents of article betray that it is vanity article about non-notable musical performer. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The soundcloud page for the the affiliated band Hazel-rah has about 100 plays over one year. This is a pretty minor band. redofromstart (talk) 14:25, 24 September 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.