Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 September	27 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Loughlin

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

No evidence of notability. Possible hoax. -—Kvng 23:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a hoax, but I can't find substantial coveerage of the subject. There are one or two stories in local press articles, for example this and this, but not enough to satisfy notability requirements at the moment. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BIO requirements. WP:NOTRESUME, WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:CREATIVE also apply. Besieged (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears to have been written by a family member of the subject, and gives no indication that it satisfies the requirements of WP:BIO/WP:MUSICBIO aside from a few unsourced claims of awards (of questionable notability). If substantial reliable sourcing exists, I'm sure it would have come forward by now. -- WikHead (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Gnabry

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

Does not meet notability guidelines having never played in a fully professional league nor represented his country at the highest level. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might have to retract since article states "Gnabry then made his professional first-team debut for Arsenal on 26 September 2012" but infobox did not reflect this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having played a single season even in professional or "World" level sports does not make one notable: there are thousands of people who have played a single season (or more) of professional sports who are still not otherwise notable in any way, including people who play for many years at a time but never achieve anything to receive or deserve particular recognition. If every person who ever played a professsional sport for a single season were notable, the Wiki would be flooded with irrelevant and unremarkable articles about them. Even playing at a young age isn't all that remarkable, until or unless they achieve some higher level of fame through accomplishment or other event generating wider recognition, such as breaking a long-standing or difficult record. Besieged (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTY oddly enough (it meets the now-defunct WP:FOOTYN). The League Cup is not listed in the List of Fully professional leagues (and is not a league). Hack (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As he has participated in a sanctioned competition for a club in a league that meets the WP:NFOOTY standards, I would say that he meets the criteria. Che84 (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How does he meet the criteria? He hasn't played in a fully-professional league. Hack (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a long-standing consensus that playing in a cup-tie between two teams from fully pro league confers notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – GNG overrides a WikiProject's consensus, and this player fails it. Fails NFOOTY as well. – Kosm1 fent 09:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – He appears to pass GNG now. – Kosm1 fent 09:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Mentoz, there is indeed consensus that playing in a cup competition between two teams from fully-professional leagues is enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL; furthermore, this was an appearance in the League Cup, a competition only professional Premiership/Football League clubs can meet. The article needs improving to meet GNG, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have people even bothered looking for GNG sources? A quick Google search (and I mean quick - the 3 mins between my previous comment 09:33 and this one 09:36!) brings up [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] - among others. Giant Snowman 09:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep make his debut as a Substitution in 72' minute for Capital one cup game against Coventry City F.C (26 September 2012)Capital one cup: Football League Cup._Terenen (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He played in the Captital One Cup against a fully-pro team while he himself played for a fully-pro club. I will get it to pass GNG soon.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unwritten consensus that League Cup appearances = notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamak

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

The listed book do not mention "tamak". I failed to find evidence. Hoax? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clearly to be a hoax to me, particularly since the claimed meaning of the word "Tamak" is "prank". The extensive bibliography includes only books that clearly would not mention this work (they are in English; this is an obscure word from an obscure country), so the bibliography is bogus. I'd give long odds that this is a case of "How long can I fool Wikipedia with a new article I create?" Suggest speedy delete. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: regardless of potential hoax status the article should be deleted based on WP:NOTNEO since it seems to claim that the term is a rather recent invention. Ducknish (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Googling it failed to find evidence that is exsists, when you click on the (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) bit. --TheChampionMan1234 04:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This feels very hoaxsome; John Broughton's point about the bibliography is an excellent one.

Searching for "тамак" at an online Kyrgyz-English dictionary yields no results. Translating "food" from English to Kyrgyz at the same site yields nothing that looks like it'd be transliterated "tamak". However, a similar word, "tamaktar" (тамактар) appears in the "Meals" section of a Peace Corps Kyrgyz language manual (about 2/3 of the way down p. 98), and a blog by a Peace Corps volunteer includes an entry titled "Tamak!" that deals with food.

An earlier version of the article states, "The term Tamak describing a concrete practical joke went viral in Scandinavia on social networking service Twitter because of a mini documentary made in Kyrgyzstan by norwegian talkshow hosts and artist Ylvis aired september 26nd 2012 on Norwegian network TVNorge." Is it possible that this was a Borat-style mockumentary?

Hoax or not, searching Google for (tamak kyrgyz joke) and (tamak kyrgyz prank) yielded no results. The onus is on the article's creators/defenders to find reliable sources for this. Ammodramus (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah's Lore

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

An unnotable non-profit group. The only source present in the article is to the group's web site, which appears to have no content on it. Looking for more sources I have found nothing on this organization, just a few false leads to unrelated things using the same name. The article makes the claim that the notable books Water for Elephants and Marley and Me were "distributed" by the group, however I can find nothing that links either book to an organization by this name. Rorshacma (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: no established notability, extreme lack of references of any value. Besieged (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete lack of secondary sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever (including Highbeam). The org's web page comes up completely blank for me as well. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searches for ("hannahs lore" books) and ("hannahs lore" krom) fail to produce any evidence of non-trivial coverage by impartial sources. Google News and Google News Archives search for ("hannahs lore") turns up nothing at all. Article was created by a SPA, suggesting promotional intent. Ammodramus (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Garrett

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

It is highly suspect that any amount of editing and sourcing to meet the requirements in WP:ALIVE and WP:VERIFY can make this article's subject meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO guidelines, as this person has not made any truly significant contributions of note, lacks major recognition, and is not otherwise regarded as important in their field, as outlined specifically in WP:ENTERTAINER. This article should be considered for merging or deletion as it meets numerous criteria defined by WP:DEL-REASON, WP:BLP-PROD and WP:SPEEDY rule #A7. Besieged (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the article. I just did copyedit per the Guild of Copy Editors. I was the editor who brought the notibility issues to the attention to the Wikipedia communitty. Geraldshields11 (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed, thank you, Gerald. It was your notices that caused me to drill in further to the subject in question and come to the conclusion that this article is probably a good candidate for deletion. Your editing work and attention to detail are highly appreciated, in any event, I just wanted to to be sure no one who was involved heavily in this article would miss their opportunity to comment or vote. Besieged (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 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. Sandstein 13:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours

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

An article about an old joke. While I'm sure we've all seen variations of it before, I'm not finding any sources that actually discuss it in any meaningful way. As it stands, the article consists of nothing except a listing of jokes using this punchline, which of course is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. When I looked for sources that might help actually build an encyclopedic article, I did not find any. I can find plenty of places that tell the joke, but I'm not having any luck finding any sources that actually talk about the joke in a way that would demonstrate notability. The current sources in the article are the same case, they are merely retellings of the joke rather than any discussion about it. As well known as the joke is, without the proper sources to build an encyclopedic entry on, it really can't exist as its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - This is actually the third nomination for this article, however, both previous AFDs were years ago. The first resulted in no-consensus, and while the second one resulted in a "Keep", neither side were really citing any usable policy, so it really came down to a "I Like It" vs "I Don't Like It" type argument. I'm hoping that by nominating it again, a clearer, policy-based consensus can be reached. Rorshacma (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my first inclination was to note that notability is not temporary, but having had a proper look at it, I don't think notability was ever really properly established. Nor do I think it is now established by the sources provided. On balance, I don't think it is of such encyclopaedic value that we need to keep it. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a knwon joke, but no scholarly or noteworthy discussion of it in an encycliopedic way referenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - this article provides nothing of value to this encyclopedia; I don't think even Encyclopedia Dramatica would keep this one. Besieged (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for this article to be worthy of inclusion, it should be able to show why the joke is notable. There's no reason the article meets WP:GNG, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Ducknish (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/attempt at humor I suppose turning it into a redirect to itself is out of the question? ;) Umbralcorax (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Very funny. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While I'm underwhelmed by the perceived need to nominate this as AFD and fighting every impulse to allude to this process keeping several of us idiots busy for hours, I'm also aware that there's nothing in RS, nor is there likely to be. However, a merge of the basic content to Joke#Styles seems a better solution than slashing this content outright. Celtechm (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Joke#Styles, as said above. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 13:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete limited notability. Also, WP:NOT seems to apply. If there was a specific author or source associated with this,it would be different. --John Nagle (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joke#Styles. It doesn't look notable in its own right, but there's no reason we can't merge it. A merge would save the content in the page history, and the redirect would be useful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's explanation that "How to keep an idiot busy for hours" is a humorous variation of the liar paradox is a valuable bit of information and having a few examples is important. The rest isn't needed or sourced. The hierarchy would seem to be Philosophical logic > Paradoxes > Liars paradox crossed with joke humor --> How to keep an idiot busy for hours, so Joke#Styles would seem to be a good place for any of the valuable sourced information. Since there's no valuable sourced information and we don't need the redirect and the redirect would not be a good idea per the turning the redirect towards itself eventuality. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was Keep as per positive consensus and the absence of deletion calls outside of the nominator. The article appears to meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronin Publishing

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements for companies. Yworo (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant publisher of drug literature books, said books frequently cited here as reliable sources, note the number of wikilinks we have to this page. (i know thats circular logic, but it points to notability to a degree, and is intended as a spur to research). i have added works published by them from a list of fairly major authors. the company as it exists now appears to be smaller than it once was, the website is really funky, but they have a storied history. I cannot find more references that talk about them specifically, but i know they were run by Sebastian Orfali and Beverly Potter (orfali has passed away). I have no true COI with the company, only a loose connection with this literature through a previous job, and having met the authors long ago.They lived next to Barrington Hall at its lowest point, and were instrumental in getting it shut down for excessive drug use (not really ironic as they were never advocates of uncontrolled drug use)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple independent sources with in-depth coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As improved, the publisher clearly meets the GNG based on the sources currently present in the article. Jclemens (talk) 08:43, 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) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Parakala

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

Article was restored due to a mindlessly literal interpretation of G4. I'd redelete it myself if it wouldn't be interpreted as wheel-warring. None of the original concerns of the previous two AFDs have been addressed. Rewriting the same problems doesn't make the problems go away, and this person is still not discussed in independent sources. —Kww(talk) 19:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (& delete) - apologies for the restoration. I was particularly chastised at WP:DRV by one editor's interpretation of G4 (and accused of "making up speedy deletion critieria"), so I felt pressurised into restoring the material, which I now regret, and realise was a mistake. Now I'm accused of restoring it due to a "mindlessly liberal interpretation of G4". Last time I deal with such a trivial article which would attract this kind of of mud-slinging. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I wasn't clear, I think that your original interpretation of G4 was absolutely correct, and don't think you should have been requested to restore the article. It is your critics that use an excessively literal interpretation of G4, not you.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, thanks for your clarification Kww, appreciate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability. Here are some sources that may help improve/prove notability.
Jesus Christ, Kww. It's not "mindlessly literal" to interpret G4 strictly. There is a bloody purpose to doing things in the way we do. This is about FairProcess. It's about the fact that justice must be seen to be done. It's about engaging with, and retaining, content contributors. Don't act so butthurt about the fact that you've been made to follow the process and have a bloody discussion like you're supposed to: there are things beside content to consider here.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring an exact copy or its "not a recreation" is not the meaning of G4, S Marshall. The new article did not address any of the reasons that the original article was deleted. That's a recreation under any practical definition.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Of course it isn't.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, stay civil. Secondly, the article I speedily deleted under G4 was pretty much a carbon copy of the that deleted by the 1st AFD. I gave many examples of sentences which were nearly verbatim copies. As Kww said, at the time of the speedy deletion, "the new article did not address any of the reasons that the original article was deleted. That's a recreation under any practical definition." I agree, the newly created article was very much the same as that which was deleted via AFD. Your unhelpful response of "Rubbish. Of course it isn't" doesn't progress the argument at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long and increasingly boring argument about this on my talk page, if anyone cares. The closer of this AfD should note that I've expressed no opinion relevant to AfD; I merely have strongly-held views about where the boundaries of G4 are.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your misinterpretation of G4 is clear for all of us to see. I gave you three clear examples of verbatim copying from the AFD'd version to this one. I could have given you half a dozen more. Instead, here we are, wasting even more time sending this back to being deleted and you've achieved nothing other adding unhelpful comments and uncivil commentary above. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 28 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 27. Snotbot t • c » 12:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just undone that, because it was already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 26 (initially under the old name of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WP:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakal (3rd nomination)). Hopefully that's all in order. -- Trevj (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an admin to please look into the 2nd nomination. It was a request to rename the page from Kumar parakala to Kumar Parakala because of a typo (P in Parakala was supposed to be in upper case and not lower) while moving the article. How would that count for a nomination on AFD? PriyankaLewis (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]
It certainly looks like he's notable given the sources. Not happy with the COI (which is allowed) or the NPOV holography (which isn't), but... Hobit (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see snippets by him in trade press, and publicity articles placed by KPMG. Which of these sources would you consider to be independent sources that directly discuss Parakala?—Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I admit to not having time to look closely, but [6] like a reasonable source and has a detailed bio. Can't tell who sponsors it so I've no idea if it's independent. It appears to see some use [7]. His being the head of the Australian computer society would seem to bare weight. Everything feels _really_ spamy, but he seems notable. He's quoted in newspaper stories and cited in his trade press. Were it not for the COI/spam issue I'd think the sourcing would be acceptable. What am I missing?Hobit (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a conference promoting one of its speakers. Not independent, and, speaking from experience, probably not fact checked. Back at the peak of my career, I regularly spoke at similar conferences, and the bio that was published was usually provided by my own marketing department and published word-for-word.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Struck, likely banned editor. Amalthea 18:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP is known for !vote stacking in AfDs [8]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Being national head of the ACS would be notability , but does the ACS actually have a Chairman, or did it in 2009? He is listed as such in the article and the relevant two references 8, & 9 -- both of which are largely based on PR by him & consist mainly of quotations from an interview with him -- , but their web site's leadership section [9] makes no mention of such as office? According to the it news article he was President, but this is based entirely on a press release. This is at best inaccuracy & casts some doubt on the veracity of all content from sources related to him. Normally we accept first person sources for the routine facts of someone's career, but unless this is resolved, I do not think we can do so. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sourcing Most of the sources in the article are items he has written, which do not prove notability , and are probably not relevant references. Of the ones listed above: The technet.com article is based entirely on sources he has provided & thus equals PR,as proven by the identical wording to the other PR sources. The first Australian articles is a quotation by him in an article on something else,theit.news article is PR from the Society. The next 3 report his speeches, and might show notability if he is widely quoted as an expert. The Computerword articles are based on his own PR. The last 2 are based on PR or interviews with him. DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious WP:SPAM written by a PR company and probably sockpuppetry too (see IP !vote above). Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Yes, he wrote a column here an there. I don't see the substantial independent coverage about him. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a spambio. ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, Parakal was the National Chairman/President of ACS for 2008/9. The ACS website is so bad that they don't even have list of former presidents and google links into the site are broken too. (That suggest it's a society of little real importance.) A couple of snippets from their PR releases "After electing Kumar Parakala as 2008/09 President, the Council elected ... ACS President-elect Kumar Parakala also congratulated the Vice" and "Australian Computer Society (ACS) has hired Anthony Wong as its new national president, replacing Kumar Parakala. Wong is the CEO of ICT" It seems most of their presidents are from the business sector rather than academics. We don't have an article on that Anthony Wong either (unless he switched to acting.) Nor do we have on Richard Hogg who was president of ACS in 2002. And, amusingly, the ACS 2012/13 president is someone who shares a name with another actor--Nick Tate; no Wikipedia article about the IT Tate though. (Like I said, I can't get a full list, so this is a sampling.) This suggests little notability for people in that position. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability. Here are a few sources that may prove notability of Kumar Parakala as ACS Chairman.
IT News article mentioning Kumar Parakala as ACS chairman
Kumar Parakala honoured with ACS Life membership
ACS' Information Age report mentions Kumar Parakala as ACS President and Chairman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.42.182 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — 180.151.42.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - Well, from those sources it looks like the only ACS head to have generated significant outside media coverage was Kim Denham because of the benefits scandal. I'm not convinced Parakal was notable in that position. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the first of the refs above says he has the power, as chairman, to appoint the CEO, which just adds more confusion to the question of who was in charge; the second is irrelevant, for life membership is less of a dignity than being head of the society--and it refers to him as president, not chairman. The third lists him as "President and chairman" However, a page, also from IT news, linked in the left margin of the first ref is illuminating: The society has 128,000 members, but is having difficulties maintaining itself & in the process of reorganizing.

And I do not consider the failure to list past executives a sign of non-notability--many web sites for the most major societies and companies have a similar lack. It's just the failure to realize that an organization website should somewhere contain some actual information. That we do not have articles on other holders of the office is also irrelevant--we lack hundreds of thousands of necessary articles on past officeholders even from unquestionably notable positions in government. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A year ago I would have accepted the article, and merely rewritten it to shorten the list of his interviews and papers, and remove the list of awards, none of which are of any significance. I feel differently now. This was by usual position on people of borderline notability . I feel differently now. I can not justify it by the WP rules, but the article on a person or firm of borderline notability that is here only as a result of a PR effort does not arouse my sympathies, and I judge it somewhat more strictly. I think many of us do. I've been aware of it for some months, and it's my reaction to the greatly increased use of Wikipedia for PR, cause by the public perception of our own significance. I don't see how we can avoid being a target, but we can alter our response. Because I can see how it would be abused, I am reluctant to propose a formal guideline that articles written with COI must show clear and unambiguous notability . (Because we cannot always tell whether something is PR, it would, reasonably. apply to those jobs of PR so poorly done that we could tell.) But I now do pay attention to the origin and motivation of the article, & I also pay attention to the quality of the PR work--when it makes this great an effort to magnify things, it increases my degree of skepticism. How we interpret our rules will always depend on common sense, otherwise known as IAR, and perhaps it's the best guide when the situation is otherwise ambiguous. Perhaps we should call it self-defense. Our biggest danger now is promotionalism. I've heard it suggested we counter it by omitting BLPs, and articles about companies & organizations, which is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I've heard it suggested that we omit non-famous BLPs & companies & organizations. Mine is a lesser move in the same direction. The motivation for it is my increasing sense of desperation from working at AfC and NPP. When it was a trickle, we could ignore it, but not now. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is to throw light on the fact that the person in question is infact notable.

- Regarding the ACS honorary life membership award ACS honorary life membership award

Quoting the ACS siteACS eligibility criteria for Life Membership awards, “To be eligible for classification as an Honorary Life Member, a member must have rendered:

a. exceptional and distinguished service to the Society, or

b. long and valued service to the Society by playing an active and commendable part in the affairs of the Society for at least 10 years. In this respect, service to a society which later became part of the Society may be recognised, or

c. both a. and b.”

- The first reference of the article WCIT 2010 is of WCIT 2010, which was hosted by The European commission and is considered to be an important event in the IT sector.

Other speakers present at the event were Paul Otellini Paul Otellini wiki Stephen Elop Stephen Flop wiki and Maximus Ongkili Maximus Ongkili Wiki All of the other speakers are notable and mostly have Wikipedia pages. Kumar Parakala is listed under the same speaker list as above mentioned.

- ACS Management states [10] - ACS Management Committee consists of the National Office Bearers (President, three Vice Presidents, President-Elect, Immediate Past President, National Treasurer), as well as the Chief Executive Officer and four National Congressional Representatives. This hints at President being of supreme importance.

Since the ACS site has been through a revamp Online development of ACS the previous links to the site are broken and even the President profile have not been included. Also, the terms President and Chairman are interchangeably used, if that is what the confusion above seems to be about.

I admit this article is under WP:COI but i would like to point out that while writing this article, all the issues from 1st nomination of AFD such as no proof of notability and the article reading like a resume etc, was tried to be taken care of. Also, i made sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias and keep a Neutral point of view. I am not sure if i have missed out something. Also, i understand that while contributing to Wikipedia on behalf of someone i have to meet the standards for content here, and am not supposed to insert any kind of promotional material, which i have maintained in the article. In my comment above too, i have tried to state some facts and references so that the editors can get an idea of the person's notability. PriyankaLewis (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts in trying to meet Wikipedia guidelines and policies; however, even the best efforts do not always meet the attempted goals. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DGG. Wikipedia articles are not CVs. The article appears to fail WP:GNG. He wrote some articles, that doesn't give any notability to himself. - Sudo Ghost 13:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTRESUME. Being name-dropped in a smattering specialized and obscure sources does not meet the notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . DGG sums it up well. This is obviously a professionally written vanity piece and a classic example of using Wikipedia as a LinkedIn or any other B2B personal profile site of which most of the sources are (I checked every single one). We should not allow ourselves to be mesmerised by the plethora of sources which are mere scouring of the Internet for evertything that mentions the subject - some of which include only the subject's name. Others are simply links to his writings, or quotes from speeches and interviews. Wikipedia is definitely not a CV and we must really take a firm stance on this kind of thing. The irony is that this person may well be notable outside of Wikipedia, but without reliable sources of the kind that are required for WP:BIO, this article cannot be kept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As many people have already mentioned the current article looks like a personal resume/LinkedIn profile, and I don't really see any seriously notable/interesting work that this person done so far. Rndomuser (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Not notable. Fails WP:RS, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. - Bharathiya (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:5P. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, ...". This is so clearly a violation of the first pillar and should be blown away. ignore all rules to stop the rot. Stop Wikipedia from being overtaken by vanity spam to preserve its integrity. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 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 Mazinger Z and Great Mazinger. Content can be trimmed as needed when performing the merges, as is the usual practice. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Beasts

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

Article is an extreme example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - this 30kb article is largely a list of over a hundred villain of the week characters which cannot all be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. A classic example of fancruft. The content is entirely unsourced, full of plot summary, largely written in-universe in style, and generally not up to encyclopedic standards. Propose deletion or redirection to Mazinger Z (with a rename probably as the current name is ambiguous to those unfamiliar with the series). Some guy (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate this related article, which doesn't have a gigantic list but shares the other issues:

Warrior Beasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some guy (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Warrior Beasts and Mechanical Beasts into Mazinger Z and Great Mazinger respectively. While the lists of "beast of the week" is trivial and would violate WP:IINFO, the main concept of both groups of villeins do play a central role in the television series. But deleting them is affectively throwing the baby, which you want to keep, out with the bath watter. —Farix (t | c) 22:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You have confused the two series in your merge proposal. My opinion is that there is no content of sufficient quality in either article to be worth merging into the series' articles. Some guy (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much detail for non-notable characters. Minor component of fictional work. --John Nagle (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but trim significantly, to Mazinger Z and Great Mazinger respectively. So much fancruft that could make non-fans cringe, but it's not good to entirely throw it into the wind. Rather, their content should be rewritten in order to become more encyclopedic, perhaps with more real-world perspectives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus that problems with the article can't be fixed through regular editing. Discussions about possible renaming or restructuring should continue on the article's talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel

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

I am afraid of the reaction this will get, but here it is: this list is a terrible OR-fest, it contains just about every loosely defined "Jewish leader" in Israel/Palestine, with the apparent aim of proving some sort of continuity that supports the Jewish claims in the region. In the process, any chronological gaps are ignored, religious figures are mixed with secular leaders, and historical persons with semi-mythical figures from the Bible. Constantine ✍ 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Smells like a POV effort to prove continuity of the current Israeli government with historic Jewish peoples of the region. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article could serve interesting information. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork Secret ^account 20:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork of which article? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a terrible list thrown together with a hefty application of confirmation bias to provide a tool for pushing a political agenda that is totally non-partisan really, it's on wikipedia!--Talain (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious about your recent editing history. You did not make a single edit from mid-September 2010 to mid-September 2012, and since your began editing again almost every single edit has been a vote stack at an afd. This has all the markings of a sockpuppet. Are you currently utilizing another user name on Wikipedia? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it's a little bit WP:SYNTH, a little bit WP:OR and a little bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE but it serves a purpose. That said, I'm willing to accept that the "purpose" might be entirely WP:POV which is not appropriate. I think if a more-than-arbitrary link between the sub-lists was more clearly established and defined, it might have some value. I think, though, the POV genesis of the article might be more than WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM can resolve. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what purpose does this list serve? It's pure OR nonsense that combines a bunch of biblical figures with modern figures and trying to figure out what they all have in common other than being Jewish. The article doesn't even attempt to try to define the definition of a "leader" in this context. Secret ^account 07:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, it may be an entirely POV purpose, which would be inappropriate. If that is the case then it should be deleted. But I'm willing to WP:AGF and accept the original article was created because someone thought there was genuinely a verifiable connection, rather than that someone had invented a connection and was pushing POV. But that doesn't save it and I remain of the view that, on balance, it should be deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's wrong with including both political and religious leaders? The name of the article doesn't exclude either one, and putting them together avoids the question of who is a Jew? This article's big problem is its seemingly POV origins and the lack of definition of "leader" that Secret observes. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is breathtakingly POV, drawing a completely ahistorical continuity between the current leaders of the State of Israel with the religious/political Jewish leaders of the ancient Levant. Hell, some of them weren't even leaders in the land of Israel - it clearly lists them as ruling in Egypt or Sinai. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)— HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Gross conflation of completely separate lists, probably with the POV aim that Carrite observes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Land of Israel in the title makes it an inherently POV list. The content issues observed above are not accidental. Greater Israel might have been more appropriate in the title given some of the contents. Basically, religious and political leaders are freely interchanged just to prove a certain point that would be ridiculed in any serious history WP:RS. (This is as absurd as writing List of Polish leaders of Poland starting with some legendary king and ending with the current PM. And when the Poles were occupied and didn't have a state, drop in some religious leaders to fill in the gaps.) Tijfo098 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The problems that AFD proposer mention could be easily fixed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas how? HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're suggesting we split this by topic, we already have that: List of Prime Ministers of Israel, List of Judean rulers, List of Hasmonean and Herodian rulers, List of Sephardi chief rabbis of the Land of Israel, List of High Priests of Israel etc. This aggregate list is just a nonsense mixture of those. I don't see what sub-topic is salvageable from here that doesn't already have a list somewhere else. If you want to write an article about the 3000-year continuity of Jewish of leadership in the Land of Israel, then do it citing secondary sources, not using a WP:OR list. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve because:

This list breaks no new ground and does not violate OR.
This is a list that has been around since 2006.
Suddenly someone decides they don't like it.
It's not a perfect list but it's not much different to any basic outline of history of the Jews in that geographic area known by that name.
See others like this in Timeline of Jewish history -- it's not an easy subject given the vastness of the time and personalities involved.
The nominator's POV is biased. He refers to Biblical characters as "myths" and assumes that everyone shares such views, which they do not.
He also makes the mistake of arguing that because some leaders are "religious" and others "secular" that there is somehow no continuity in the list which a false assumption, all one needs to do is look at modern day Israel where secular politicians makes alliances and wield power with even the most religious Orthodox rabbis. It was always like that in Jewish history.
Another silliness is to get hysterical about the usage of the term Land of Israel which is and was the known legitimate term used in the Hebrew Bible for millennia and is the source for the name of the modern state of Israel.
This nomination also shows a lack of respect for any Jewish editors who are now in the midst of observing the Jewish High Holy Days that continue until the end of Sukkot (1 October 2012 - 9 October 2012). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LONGTIME, WP:NPA, etc. If you want to convince that this list passes WP:LISTN and is not WP:OR please show us a reliable source listing biblical figures, rabbis, and prime ministers in an aggregate list of these proportions. Thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the myth POV issue, see for example the article on Abraham, which says in the lead that he is "a major character in the founding myth of the Israelites", which seems in line with Abraham#Historicity. So, yeah, this list is assuming a mythical POV as reality, at least for the early part. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list is massively OR, since it implicitly asserts that one group of leaders passed on authority to the next group in line, even if the next group is completely unrelated. And don't tell me that no such assertion is made, because then this list has absolutely no reason to exist as nothing else binds these groups together. It is clearly a case where the list's creator asserts that A follows B and then C, and thus we go from Abraham to Natanyahu. The OR involved is clear in cases like the "Rishon le-Zion 1665–1842", which is an excerpt of List of Sephardi chief rabbis of the Land of Israel, which arbitrarily stops in 1842 to pass on the "leadership" to a new group, even while the line of the Sephardi rabbis continues to the present day! Constantine ✍ 10:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Tijfo098 and Cplakidas: WP has produced its own mythical bizarre ecumenical theology that everyone knows does not exist in the real world. Simply because believing Jews and Christians and Muslims accept what the Bible says as fact and not as a myth of any sort, while atheists, Bible critics and many academics do not accept the words of the Bible. WP's job is not to take sides so neither should you. See Wikipedia:Religion that religious topics and thus leaders, especially biblical ones cannot be judged by others' standards certainly not ones that are grand violations of WP:OR by WP ITSELF (yes it is so!). Do I or anyone have to come up with "sources" that JEWISH leaders can mean any one of WP:NOTABLE rabbis, political leaders and Biblical personalities (not myths) going back from modern to Biblical times and those who lived in them? There are plenty of WP articles for that. Jewish history is complex and runs for over 3,300 years and has had all sorts of leaders often in combination, especially coming from different communities. There are always overlaps. Just out of curiosity are you guys denying that the Jews had leaders, of any kind, all the time, in the land of Israel (or whatever makes you feel good to call it)? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per IZAK. The list of leaders adds a useful timeline to Jewish history and WP:OR concerns can easily be remedied. Ankh.Morpork 13:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Izak, and so far it looks like a correct good list and any issues can be fixed. There isn't any reason to get hysterical and allege that it's part of a grand conspiracy - if the information is correct, and the list has a useful purpose, that isn't a good reason to WP:CENSOR. We're not going to delete articles on Jewish history which show an ancient Jewish community in Israel... Historical facts are historical facts. This list will make navigating across a whole slew of other lists much easier as well. The influence of these leaders on the area has had an impact that lasts until today, and specifically the Jewish part has helped form a specific Jewish identity in their history. --Activism1234 15:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the political angst with connecting Jews to the land of what is now the modern state of Israel, the fact remains that Jews have been a part of the land for a long time. There have been Jews, hence there have been rabbis, and hence this list. Issues with a better article name or OR are fixable and give no basis for an AFD.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how you plan to fix them. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't necessary plan to or care to fix them. I am merely making the point that they can be easily fixed and therefore the argument for deletion is invalid.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also have a bridge to sell. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure what that has to do with this, but issues can easily be taken up at the talk page for input from others and fixed. That's how it is with nearly every article here. And indeed, it can work quite well. --Jethro B 19:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me clarify something here, because the assumption some make that this is an anti-Israel or anti-Jewish move is wrong: the rationale behind this list and the methodology chosen are simply blatantly POV-driven, OR and plainly unscientific. We know that Jews have been around in the Holy Land continuously since Biblical times; that is not the subject of dispute here. What is at stake is an attempt to prove some sort of continuity of "authority" which is intentionally not defined, but definitely implied to be political when it begins with Abraham and ends not with a religious leader, but with the Prime Ministers of Israel. This is done through joining a disparate set of groups from antiquity to the present day, with some highly selective cherrypicking among these groups on the way. If that is not WP:SYNTH, then I don't know what is. Constantine ✍ 19:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Then if you have a dispute over "authority," that can be taken to the talk page and discussed and fixed... For example, you may be thinking that during the Persian Period, there wasn't a Jewish leader in control, but rather the Persians, but in reality, characters like Zerubabbel, Ezra, and Nehemiah were appointed by the Persian monarchy as governors ("pehah") and granted authority over the province in religious/secular affairs. A character like Hananiah I would suggest removing from that list, as he didn't necessarily have that position. But all of that can be fixed. The section Geonim in exile doesn't seem to be for this article either, and can be removed as well. The article should - and can - be confined to those rulers who had power or authority over the area, and weren't just a sage. However, to deny that even during periods of conquest there weren't Jewish rulers appointed by the monarchy is simply false. All of those that don't fit this description can be fixed. --Jethro B 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If you can define for me what a "Jewish leader" is in clear and non-OR terms, then I would have no objection to withdrawing the deletion nomination and we can prune the list accordingly. The list is by its very name (originally "Leaders of Israel") conceived in so broad a frame that just about any person of note can be put in it, which indeed is what the original creator (I note that it was a WP:SPA, always a clear sign of POV-driven edits) has done. There is a world of difference between sovereign rulers like the kings of Israel, the kings-archpriests, secular leaders like the modern state's PMs, leaders of Jewish religious communities under foreign rule, or with religious scholars. I am fully aware that historically religious leaders have exercised broad authority over religious/ethnic minorities (as a Greek I know the millet system), but to take the Palestinian Gaonate for instance, "scholastic heads of the Land of Israel" is not the same as "leaders of the Jewish community". Constantine ✍ 21:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Me personally? Any person who was able to exert authority over the region. If there was a religious leader who didn't have actual power, I'd say it shouldn't be included. But that's me. This is the perfect discussion necessary for a talk page - and based on it, we can improve the article. But the discussion is possible and any issues can be fixed. --Jethro B 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We should describe what WP:RS desribe.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my comment above, after further reflection and listening to the debate: this is a POV exercise. "Land of Israel" is not a single governmental or territorial entity; this list pretends that it is — with obvious political intent. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but as far as the Jewish people are concerned, and that is what this about, the land of Israel is one totality, both as a concept in the Jewish religion and as a political and practical entity. What don't I get? Like saying that the land of Gaul is not really French because it has had different rulers and dynasties and borders over thousands of years. IZAK (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's presumptuous for one to speak for all Jewish people. Not all Jewish people are Zionists; fewer still would make the extraordinary claim of thousands of years of organizational continuity that this list implies. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite: No one is speaking for "all" the Jewish people. That is your imagination. But in an article and in books one must start somewhere, just as in a history of Gaul/France one must start somewhere and while over thousands of years at times pagans and then knights and then bishops and popes had as much power as later temporal kings today it is the President of France whoever he may be at any given time who is regarded as the preeminent leader of all the French people. So, this is just a bare-bones outline or timeline trying to be all-inclusive, while not perfect it's a good start and should not be demolished, per the suggestions at WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thrashing Zionists is not to the point. The fact of the matter is that for the last 100 years the secular Zionist JEWISH leadership has had the upper hand and is in almost total political control of the Jews who live in it. Prior to that it was rabbis of various sorts who were at the helm because in those days the majority of Jews were religious. Prior to that there were times such as during the Greek and Roman era, there was constant seesawing for control of the Jews between the more and the less religious or even non-religious leaders, but they were almost all of Jewish stock. Within the land of Israel/Judea/Palestine (whatever any dominant powers of the day called it) there was a continuous line of Jewish leadership. Today the Prime Minister of Israel is the de facto and de jure most obvious and prominent leader of the Israeli Jews (actually by majority of the Jews in the Knesset) so it's actually even a very democratic fact. IZAK (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. What does THIS mean: (quote) "Sorry but as far as the Jewish people are concerned, and that is what this about, the land of Israel is one totality, both as a concept in the Jewish religion and as a political and practical entity..." (my emphasis, end quote) That's EXACTLY what is being done, someone is wrongly pretending to speak for universal Jewish support for the fringe ultra-nationalist perspective implied by this list. That is bunk. This list would be akin to something called List of Latin leaders of the Land of Rome, including Julius Caesar and Diocletian and Benito Mussolini and Silvio Berlusconi and Giorgio Napolitano as if there is any sort of continuity between any of these. Except in the "Land of Israel" case, it is clearly an attempt to legitimize the last mentioned by connecting it with antecedents. This is a POV exercise, plain and simple. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Mussolini was Italian, not "Latin." This list actually has a basis and a foundation rooted in history. What you believe to be some POV exercise actually seems to me as a useful resource for one wishing to learn about Jewish history, a list that can be improved and fixed and made better without getting deleted and provide useful historical information. --Jethro B 04:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's EXACTLY the same thing. A pretended continuity where there is none. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um Carrite, there is no such animal as "Land of Rome" while the entity and name Land of Israel i.e. Eretz Yisrael ארץ ישראל in Hebrew is Biblical in origin and continues through the time of the Hebrew Prophets, Rabbinic eras, and down through secular times, and remains in widely accepted usage by both religious and secular Jews in Israel. So not sure what you are getting hot under the collar about. When you state "someone is wrongly pretending to speak for universal Jewish support for the fringe ultra-nationalist perspective implied by this list" it sounds like baloney because it's a non-issue since we are trying to write an encyclopedia here and we have to bite the bullet somewhere and start somewhere. You are projecting left-wing politics and politically correct views onto ancient nomenclature still used. Sure there are so many types of Jews they cannot be counted, there are Jews who deny they are Jews. There are Jews that eat pork. There are Jews who believe in Jesus. There are Jews who don't even know what it means to be a Jew. There are Jews who are self-hating Jews. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. What does that prove? only that ignorance is bliss (at best). On the other hand, an objective WP:NPOV respectable encyclopedia should state, according to tradition XYZ such and such is the case, but opposing views do not accept this, but not cut down the whole corpus because you don't like the facts or can't deal with them or are incapable of computing them the way they are done in almost all Jewish scholarly circles. Jews are Jews whether they are from the Bible or rabbis or secular, and if they hold supreme power in Israel they are its leaders. Why should that be so confusing? IZAK (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- If there's an issue with the title, why not request a title change on the talk page, rather than delete it?? --Jethro B 01:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Leaders" will mean different things in different centuries. It would be odd if the definition remained absolutely constant for that term over long periods of human history. I don't think titles of articles are 100% exacting that no word is ever slightly imprecise. Besides, a religious "leader" can provide direction for a large group of people, being functionally similar to other sorts of leaders. Bus stop (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LISTN. I can't imagine that anyone is going to argue that this "grouping or set in general" is not discussed in reliable sources. Also per IZAK and brewcrewer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brecrewer but Rename : "Despite the political angst with connecting Jews to the land of what is now the modern state of Israel, the fact remains that Jews have been a part of the land for a long time." Anyway, there were such communities all over Europe and Middle East and there is no reason to focus on "Palestine area" after 70 PCN and before Zionism and Jewish exodus from Arab lands -> "List of Jewish leaders in Levant" (and expand for all Jewish communities of that area). Pluto2012 (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Izak. This AfD is based on attempts to push POV claiming certain figures regarded by the mainstream as historical are mythological, and additionally attempts to suppress encyclopedic information that could be seen as refuting the political narrative of the proposer. Jewish leadership in the Land of Israel is important in the history of the Jewish people because this leadership and their community were typically viewed as representing the Jewish people as a whole and having the highest authority in many matters, thinking that has persisted for millennia although constantly evolving together with the nature of that leadership. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove the biographical details for each person as this is a list and not an article. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not a great fan of Wikipedia lists, but this one is as valid as any other. People who spend their time arguing endlessly over deleting articles they don't like would be doing Wikipedia and its readers a greater service by devoting their excess energy to improving the articles they do like by adding more sourced information and relevant images.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Clearly something which has been a historically and theologically important matter to a major religion. Would we be having this discussion if the list were List of Jewish Leaders in the British Isles? The fact that this list would be a more controversial topic given current politics is not an argument to distinguish them. The OR argument is also extremely weak- most of these figures are people where there are easily sources for where they resided and their importance. The argument about leaders being hard to define is also unpersuasive- the fact that Gaons were highly influential even beyond their own communities is something that can be easily seen in a large variety of secondary sources. The only substantial issue I can see here are I) that the article as written has some POV issues in the introduction (which can be easily fixed) and II) that the title is slightly problematic since defining "Land of Israel" is difficult (even during Biblical times, territory changed over time). I can be fixed by editing. II can probably be fixed by retitling to something like "List of Jewish leaders in Palestine" and making the list explicitly narrow enough to contain only people prior to 1948, or using a title like "List of Jewish leaders in Israel/Palestine" or something else similar. The best solution and exact scope is editorial decision not suited for AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I find the arguments advocating deletion unconvincing and, as IZAK suggested, inappropriate considering this proposal has come up in the middle of the Jewish High Holy Days. It comes dangerously close to trying to sneak one by though I have tried my best to assume good faith. That said, I see tremendous merit in the suggestion made by JFW suggesting a restructuring of content. What problem could I find with making sure this article falls in to line with WP:CLN and WP:L? --yonkeltron (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides a comprehensive list as described, broken down by era and backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would keep this article. As it is now, it is not very good at all, but it is fixable. Everything that is on here should be moved over to the talk page and should be discussed. But I feel that this is pretty useful to have a list of leaders in chronological order. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:17, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thereby

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

Dictionary definition, no encyclopedic content Mean as custard (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Actually, Mean as custard is as fast as Superman as I was just about to AfD this myself. Without stating the obvious about no references or notability, this is something for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I had already suggest in the PROD. Nothing encyclopedic to be said about a basic word of the English vocabulary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not surprisingly, Wiktionary has had its own definition page for this word for almost eight years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 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 as per positive consensus, which affirms that the article meets WP:MUSICBIO requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connan Mockasin

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are unreliable and while they generally disagree, none indicate meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Previously PRODed. Tgeairn (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO as per "2: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.". Can someone actually familiar with the musician please give the article a good going over - when I saw it, it was full of absolute crap which I've tried to tidy up, but not being familiar with his music or career I don't know if it's accurate enough. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has sufficient notability to warrant a keep. NealeFamily (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself", so meets WP:MUSICBIO#1. In addition to the sources already contained in the article, there are many sources available online. Examples of this are an album review from Pitchfork Media and another from Drowned in Sound. — sparklism ^hey! 10:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bit more of the available sources below. Sourcing is even more convincing when you see that it's from multiple countries. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anderson, Vicki (5 March 2010), "Connan Mockasin", The Press (Christchurch)
- Shepherd, Fiona (27 September 2011), "Music Review : Connan Mockasin : ****", The Scotsman
- Gill, Andy (1 April 2011), "Connan Mockasin", i
- Simpson, Dave (22 April 2011), "Connan Mockasin, Forever Dolphin Love (Phantasy Sound) HHH", The Guardian
- "ALBUMS", Sunday Sun, 17 April 2011
- Shepherd, Fiona (17 April 2011), "CD Reviews: Pop / Folk / Classical", The Scotsman

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) 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kilham & Hopkins

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

There is no inherent notability from the buildings they designed/constructed. The references are only passing mentions or historical records. I checked for additional sources but found none that contained any depth. Fails General Notability Guidelines and Organization Notability. UsedEdgesII (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The architects were important in 1912, as documented in a 30 page article from that year cited in the Wikipedia article. And they have since been recognized as important in the listing of at least 7 of their works on the National Register of Historic Places. The article serves both to document these architects, and to serve as a connection between at least 7 mainspace articles sharing the architects. It functions as a "List of works by Kilham & Hopkins" which would be a valid list-article on its own. --do ncr am 17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I do see that they have been listed as having numerous buildings on the list of historic places; however, it is the buildings that are listed as historical, not the architect. Again, notability is not given to the company because of their work. They must have independent and reliable sources about them in order to be considered notable. The buildings would have Inherent Notability by being listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but not the architect. Also, the article was written as a stand alone article, not a list so that point is moot. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from the recognition of the firm's work in multiple registrations to the National Register of Historic Places, the firm and its work were the subject of a 30-page retrospective here in Architectural Record, the official record of the American Institute of Architects. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another scholarly work about the firm: "Early Twentieth Century Reform Housing by Kilham & Hopkins, Architects of Boston," by Richard M. Candee and Greer Hardwicke (1987, University of Chicago Press). Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep given the sources highlighted in Cbl62's comment. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 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. Sources don't meet the requirements of WP:N Wily D 09:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rada Manufacturing

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

Non-notable company. Survived an earlier AfD in 2006, but has been sitting around since then with not a single reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No 3rd party references; no evidence found to verify the firm's notability. AllyD (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you search for "Rada knives" it brings up a lot more references. Notability from original Afd still holds. Article needs to be developed, but that shouldn't be a reason to delete. I've seen a lot worse out there. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That and Rada Cutlery certainly bring up various search returns, but do any of them provide more than evidence of existence - I couldn't see any that substantiate notability? AllyD (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this writer claims they're the best in the world-- http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/rada-the-best-knives-in-the/

Update- I've added 4 references to the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of them a reliable source of the type that would demonstrate notability. One just a directory entry, the others local journalistic coverage of some of those "fundraiser" activities. Nothing here that would constitute serious, non-trivial in-depth coverage of the company as such in a serious published source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not about number of results. There is no extensive coverage about this company that makes this company notable. A few comments and mentions about its community involvement in local press is not the same as notable. Ref #4 is not a reputable source. Its a list of companies. #1 is Manta entry that any company can have. #2&3 are simply a mention that this product, as opposed to something else were used for their fundraisers and it was not about the company itself. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found virtually no coverage ABOUT this company - just lots of newsbriefs along the lines of "the ladies' guild will be selling Rada Cutlery for charity." That's not significant coverage as Wikipedia requires. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 3 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service idiosyncrasy

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

Term doesn't seem to be used anywhere Bhny (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one citation means it's essentially original research. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, completely unverified. I found nothing at all for this term at Google News Archive or Google Books. The article claims, without evidence or any obvious connection, that the concept is related to "asset specificity", which might suggest that article as a redirect target; but the connection is lost on me (and I suspect most readers), and I would oppose any redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism with little if any usage. WP:NEO applies. Another term this may be "hyperspecialization" [11](Harvard Business Review), which got some press and spiked briefly in Google Trends for Q4 2011, then disappeared. --John Nagle (talk) 07:21, 5 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamari attractor

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

There are a handful of references listed in this article - the substantive ones are all books by Ben Tamari, who appears to have also written this article. Those books are self published by Mr. Tamari under the name 'Ecometry Ltd' - the title of his first book. He also lists a book by Julien C. Sprott, but the Sprott text is online and searchable, and does not mention Tamari or Tamari attractors at all. Google scholar turns up only a few trivial mentions. I think this article fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Article is essentially an orphan, linked only to the page on the software Tamari wrote. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tamari attractor (with the Economic Simulator) is application of the theory developed in my book "Conservation and Symmetry Laws and Stabilization Programs in Economics" (1997). The book included in the bibliography of Gyorgy Darvas (2007) "SYMMETRY", p. 437, Birkhauser. And Volkhard Krech and Marion Steinicke (2010) "Dynamics in the History of Religions between Asia and Europe in Past and Present Times" p. 33, Leiden Brill. also in http://web.richmond.k12.va.us/Portals/47/assets/1-2011%20Yale%20Units.pdf#page=153 p. 155. also in http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2044577 working paper. http://www.sinancanan.net.tr/2011/01/kaos-karmasklk-bilimi-ve-yeni-bilimsel.html . The theory is based (not only, for example the feedback/pricing equation design reading Wiener N.(1954) "The Human Use...") on the book: Sato and Ramachandran (1990) "Conservation Laws and Symmetry: Applications to Economics and Finance", Kluwer AP. Quote from my book p. 47 "...in the future, the economy of the USA is expected to face a similar change to that which has been forecast for the Japanese economy from a previous examination (Tamari 1990, p. 232). that is the economy of the USA, if it continues on its current path, will face a significant slowdown". My theory is a new one and needs time, therefore the article should not be deleted - Ben Tamari 27-09-2012. (Ben Tamari (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Tamari (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the Krech and Steinicke reference. I'll quote it here: 'Attractor models are now also being applied in social sciences Cf., for example Ben Tamari' That is the totality of the discussion of Tamari attractors in that book. This is an example of trivial coverage - these types of sources do not help build the case for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As someone who is deep in the academic world, The theory which stands here is of the kind that might fail the judgment of reviewers for grants as "Orphans" due to its innovative ideas - This is the basic error of many reviewers. When a grant proposal submitted, it is needed to be innovative but also to show it "holds water". An idea which is too inventive, might fail due to the fact that no one have ever published anything about it.. but then, anything which is new to science, at the time of invention, have only few or sometimes none at all references. Of course, if there are new terms in this theory, or the theory is named by the author, any reference prior to the new idea publication will not include the new term. The Tamari attractor, and the theory which is based on is indeed new. But as new it might be, it still have some citations. It is not solitary, and it is based not on the books but also on previous works. Just like 3rd floor of a building always relays on the 2nd and the first floors, which they, in their own time relays on the foundation of the building- and so on. Therefore, I would add some references to back the theory, which is already published and cited. For example:

Burmeister, E. and A.R. Dobell, (1970) "Mathematical Theories of Economic Growth" Macmillan.
Gilmor, R., (1981) "Catastrophe Theory for Scientists and Engineers" John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Guckenheimer, J. and P. Holmes, (1987) "Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems and Bifurcations of Vector Fields." Springer-Verlag. NY.

And many more.

Dr. Doron Burshtain — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheElectroChemist (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a new theory, as stated by Mr Tamari above, then how can it be discussed in books published in 1970, 1981 and 1987? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

answer: The basic principle of Scientific theory and research relays on several understandings and concepts.

Two of them are:

a. admit that you don't know, otherwise- why to develop a new theory?

b. based on previous theories and concepts, build the new theory. After all we can't invent everything.

i.e. any NEW theory should be based on previous understandings (even if it is only as contradict, or just an add up).

In science, in many cases, an add-up of a previous knowledge, is not the sum of all but gives us in many cases a whole new

look on things.

Therefore, the somewhat new Tamari Attractor, is based on previous works (which should be citied in order to explain some of the previous understandings) , which did not see the picture as Ben Tamari sees it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheElectroChemist (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

When the "somewhat new" Tamari Attractor has been discussed and vetted in the standard literature it will become notable. Until that time it can only be considered WP:OR, and so, not appropriate for Wikipedia. I stand by my previous recommendation to delete. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not consider a valid ISBN for the author books (and its presence at the USA congress library)

validating them as a "standard literature"? Or is it to your opinion that only if well cited it becomes valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.172.216 (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note to the 2nd paragraph of the Wikipedia "N.O.R" definition: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." I believe that the Tamari attractor, since it is published, and please note that the source exists in a reliable ___location even if not challenged, is a valid Wikipedia article due to that. i.e. the theory itself is published, it is located in a reliable ___location (USA congress library), even if not yet actually attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.172.216 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs don't mean anything, it just means that the self publisher has paid a fee of around $300. It is not enough that sources 'exist', we need to have sources that were written independently of the article subject, and that are about the article subject. None of the sources proposed in this discussion are those two things. See the guideline on notability for details. - MrOllie (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable, as the refs are self-published works or too early. Serious COI concerns as the same person seems to be behind these refs, the theory and the article. So no evidence anyone other than that person has thought this notable enough to comment on.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not demonstrate notability; lack of reliable third party sources; apparent COI. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that those who talked about a "lack of reliable third party sources" are (totaly) wrong.

a simple search at the "Google Scholar" finds quite a few published articles and notes dealing with the Tamari attractor which are not connected to the publisher:

1. Jaeyoo Choy; JOURNAL OF THE CHUNGCHEONG MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY

Volume 22, No. 3, September 2009 (http://www.ccms.or.kr/data/pdfpaper/jcms22_3/22_3_593.pdf)

2. The following Yale publication (also not an article): http://web.richmond.k12.va.us/Portals/47/assets/1-2011%20Yale%20Units.pdf#page=153
3. SHELTON A. GUNARATNE, "World-system as a dissipative structure" Journal of International Communication Volume 13, Issue 1, 2007

(DOI: 10.1080/13216597.2007.9674706; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13216597.2007.9674706) In Reference #3, the Tamari attractor, together with Hénon, Rössler, Lorenz Attractors are all called "Strange attractors"

4. Volkhard Kerch, Marison Steinicke, "History of Religions between Asia and Europe"; Brill 2012

Reference 4 citing Ben Tamari Book "Conversion and Symmetry Laws and Stabilization"; 1997 (Page 33)

5. Miguel A. Barrón and Mihir Sen; Synchronization of four coupled van der Pol oscillators Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol 56, no 4 (2009), pp357-367

So you see, there is no "lack of reliable third party sources" nor it is demonstrate notability - i.e. it is noted and there are indeed 3rd party sources to the Tamari attractor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.154.126 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not reliable third party sources. In every one that I have been able to look up, the Tamari material was a simple mention, no discussion. This is covered in WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE and is not to be taken as a grounds for notability. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I have checked all of those sources and none of them has as much as a sentence specifically about the Tamari attractor. The first three just mention it in lists of attractors and the last two are citations to Tamari's work, without any mention of his eponymous attractor. Nobody is doubting the notability of attractors in general, including strange attractors, the topics actually discussed by those sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those who are calling for keeping this article have obviously tried hard to find coverage in independent reliable sources, but have failed to do so, per the analyses above by myself and others of the sources offered for consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 3 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 The X Factor (TV series). The consensus is that this should not be a stand alone article. Any content which meets our general editing policies can be added to the main article; I leave the specifics up to interested editors. Note that while I'm closing this as a merge, if the decision on the main article is that nothing is worthy of being merged, that is an acceptable result. That is, I'm saying that content can be merged if appropriate, and this should not be construed as a requirement to merge any given piece of info. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and criticism of The X Factor

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

Article is nothing more than re-hashed newspaper articles and interview statements. Any notable criticisms could easily fit into the main articles. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sections into The X Factor (TV series), The X Factor (U.S.), etc. Some of these events, e.g. the legal dispute, certainly should be mentioned. I don't know why the proposer demands it be deleted and then suggests merging content, though - which does he/she want? --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge was the wrong word for me to use. Any notable criticisms (which I don't think there are any others may disagree) can go in the article. As it stands all the events in the article are just transient news stories with no long term significance. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a woefully short and forgettable article, in comparison with Controversy and criticism of The X Factor (UK), but aren't most Wikipedia articles "re-hashed" news? The controversies are newsworthy and of popular interest. Sionk (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have you ever read any of the scientific topics on WP? Or technology, military, etc? Anything of the pre-2000 stuff? *cough* They are hardly re-hashed news. Assorted topics: Uranium Solar system Eugene Stoner Fermat number Disambiguation (disambiguation)(j/k). If you think my topics are biased, click "Random article" 10 times and look at what shows up. The notion that "most Wikipedia articles [are] "re-hashed" news" is way off. It is neither the way it is nor the way it should be. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've either misunderstood my comment, or the purpose of this AfD discussion. Many WP articles are based on 'rehashed' published news sources, particularly those involving reality TV. Sionk (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Controversy and criticism of The X Factor (UK). I think they can stand as a separate article, but I think the separate page for the UK version is full of almost fancruft-esque material. --Shadow (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment~~Delete~~(see my delete position below) - POV fork of The X Factor (UK), which is where such information belongs. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:40, 26 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)} 14:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Controversy and criticism of The X Factor (UK). Both articles are rather shaky individually, so adding the contents of the UK criticisms page to the page currently being discussed should create a more comprehensive and useful page overall. --SUFC Boy 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no Wikipedia reliable sources independent of the Controversy and criticism of The X Factor topic to show that the topic meets WP:GNG. In other words, third parties commenting on the The X Factor television show do not themselves provide source material that is independent of the Controversy and criticism of The X Factor topic, merely because they are independent of the The X Factor topic. The sources for the above AfD nominated topic need to be independent of the Controversy and criticism made about The X Factor to count towards WP:GNG. In other words, you would need newspaper articles, books, magazines articles, etc. that write about those commenting on The X Factor to make this topic meet WP:GNG to justify a stand alone article. For example, the "BBC News (BBC) 23 November 2005" reference used in the Wikipedia Controversy and criticism of The X Factor article may provide comment on controversy and criticism of The X Factor, but that does not make it independent of the comments they provide. For this topic, you would need another reliable source that writes about the information provided in the BBC News (BBC) 23 November 2005 news article. There is not enough sources indpendent of those commenting on the controversy and criticism of The X Factor to justify a stand alone article under WP:GNG. Accordingly, delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork. Establishing the notability of the main series requires a discussion of both praise and criticism. Isn't this what the main article should be about? Spinning off a pure criticism article is both a WP:POVFORK and WP:UNDUE weight. A more balanced and proportional way to cover this is in the main article, in context with praise, and in context with the program as a whole. Vcessayist (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hammer

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

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. has not been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 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) 02:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from WP:GNG, the album itself has to meet WP:NALBUMS, which I doubt it does. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:18, 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 no consensus. Permission given to speedily renominate. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalScholar

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

There is noting very notable about this company. Companies get VC funding all the time, but that doesn't imply notability by Wikipedia's standards. RBrideau (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

GlobalScholar's acquisition of Excelsior opens door to new markets
GlobalScholar.com To Acquire Excelsior
Partnership Expands Open Source Curriculum Offerings
GlobalScholar lands $27 million in VC plus new purchase
Kal Raman's learning startup stepping out
School of Thought
InfiLearn changes name, launches tutors
Also, here are some news articles with mentions: [12], [13]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 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, Der yck C. 14:12, 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) 13:44, 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 per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GARAGE. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Kasland

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines. Twitter and facebook are not WP:reliable sources - no significant coverage in any of the given references. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have been added. Kasland is a notable hip hop recording artist who has been included in soundtracks for various video games, was included on a hit single reaching the billboards top 100 alongside with Soulja Boy, and is a verified celebrity on Twitter. Kasland is also the founder of the charitable campaign known as Saints For Strokes to help raise funds and awareness for strokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.175.187 (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — 24.9.175.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am failing to see the reliable sources you added. The two references currently in the article either are his own website or a page that does not mention him. noq (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one reference actually does mention him providing proof that he was included on the I Stay Fresh mixtape by YUMS with his "Taste My Yums" track (track 14) that can be seen clearly listed on the back side cover art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.175.187 (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I have found the insignificant mention of the name in a graphic posted on a blog. And this is significant why? noq (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the clothing lines that have sponsored you and featured you on their mixtapes? I am sorry his success is such a tragedy to you, but there are real fans who would like to have a reliable source of information on Kasland. I see many pages on here with much less "sources" and information than this one. Perhaps you should look into dedicating your life to having those removed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.175.187 (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not making any claims to be notable, I have worked for several large companies but so what. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in WP:reliable sources that establish notability - without that the article does not belong here. Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. noq (talk) 12:50, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete No reliable sources, career to this point is unreliable.Righteousskills (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STAY - DO NOT DELETE KASLAND PAGE, CAREER IS GROWING FAST AND WORTH THE RECOGNITION: I cannot believe so much time has been spent in trying to remove Kasland's page. This is so silly, he is an upcoming artist who is verified on Facebook,verified on Twitter, has been mentioned with the Gears of War interviews from Cliffy B, posted his song Bring It On on the Gears of War Website, a huge discussion on the Gears of War forums, and his song Bring It On was featured on G4 TV commercial used by Gears of War and a huge hit,he is a member of the IMDB and listed a potential cast for the Gears of War Movie, he is currently working with THQ on the Saints Row soundtrack, was just recently interviewed by a Canadian Hip Hop magazine, featured on the YUMS shoes mixtape put out, and in discussion with a shoe company for sponorship currently. I have seen other artists with their own page and have as little or less. Why delete Kasland page, I say let him build, he is buzzing and building daily, it would only be a waste of time to remove this and have to put it right back up shortly. Kasland worked with Bobby Lashley, Bobby Brown both celebrities and more coming for his music videos and they did not feel he was not worthy. His work for supporting awareness for strokes is very honorable and important as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.87.122 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GARAGE. noq (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - There is no reason to delete Kasland's page when people like Traphik who is also respected in the YouTube community has one. They are both verified on Twitter. Both have official websites. Kasland can even be seen on YouTube in footage with Bobby Brown of Dog The Bounty Hunter and Bobby Lashley. Obviously people know of Kasland because this is not the first time the page was created; whoever is trying to get this page deleted is most likely a bitter ex-fan who didn't get an autograph. I am a fan of Kasland and have been following his career for years, it would break my heart to see this Wikipedia page deleted for it is very very much true and legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.216.62 (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — 71.80.216.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP - Garage.....I think not. Kasland has an EP on ITUNES and I personally own one of the hard copies as well, he is not standing on a corner asking for donations instead he is being paid and registered with BMI collecting his royalties and he is signed with Post Oak Records which is an independent record label but an established record label. Kasland is not doing this for pleasure and is paid for his soundtracks they are not donations. Get a life.....try letting his fans read about him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.87.122 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — 208.46.87.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well as Post Oak Records is his own company and does not seem to be very visible on google that does not seem very reliable. And having an an EP on itunes is specifically addressed in the WP:GARAGE article. noq (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Wow first off I happen to know that the company was in someone other than Kasland's name due to his age at the time, he never gained ownership and left the label with them so no he does not own the company. As for Google and Post Oak Records not being very visible well since Post Oak Records is not the one getting the Wikipedia page that would not matter but since you brought that up, Kasland is on over 50 pages of Google so WOW.....he must be someone ya think?????????? And all the artists that make up ITUNES are non important and again as I mentioned I OWN A PHYSICAL COPY OF THE CD which was purchased in an independent record store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.87.122 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His linkedin page claims he is CEO of the company. You claimed Post Oak as being an established record label - that seems unlikely given the search results on it. Assuming thee default google page size, 50 pages is only 500 hits - not a great many. Being on iTunes is not enough to be considered notable. And just because a CD exists does not make the artist or the CD notable. noq (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go genius, how about a real resource? http://www.postoakrecords.com/history coming from the companies website rather than your "LinkedIn" profile that anyone could have created and nowhere do I see Kasland showing to have a LinkedIn page. Once again you argue about a CD similar to the label which is irrelevant seeing how this is about a Kasland page, not his CD or label. I would have been with you, but the reliable sources seem to have grown enough for me to stick with my original opinion. I am not surprised to see you are still dedicating every moment of your life to trying to delete this page, but you seem to be running low on ammunition. My final vote is keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.175.187 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's about time there is a reliable source to look up information on Kasland. This page needs to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.84.211 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.....KEEP.....This is insane please someone with a brain put this to rest...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.87.122 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP When you do a Google search of Kasland, what do you get? The top result being his official website which is followed by his Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace page. When you do a Google search of Post Oak Records, what do you get? Hmmm? How about the top result being their OFFICIAL website. Do you really think that some garage band or garage record label is going to be at the top of the results if you did a Google search? Or what about Bing...that's supposed to be the best search engine right? Again...Kasland's official website is listed at the top. You will also find that Post Oak Records' official website can be found as the very first result on Bing. If Keak Da Sneak, an Oakland, CA native who ONLY has regional success can have a Wikipedia page, why shouldn't Kasland? End Of Discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.216.62 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So google searches provide a list of what are explicitly defined as not WP:reliable sources? This does not help establish notability. The flurry of activity from anonymous users that have not contributed anything other than to this page normally indicates a call for support on a forum somewhere. Be aware that the afd process is not a vote and that arguments should be based on policy rather than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. noq (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't edit posts on Wikipedia because I didn't have to. But when I saw this page was possibly going to be deleted, I decided to. But one question, How come you've yet to answer BOTH of the previous questions I've had in my previous statements. A) If artists like Traphik who are respected in the online community can have a Wikipedia page, why can't Kasland? B) If Keak da Sneak, an Oakland, CA native with only regional success can have a wikipedia page, why can't Kasland?

D-Pryde has a Wikipedia entry and he is not even VERIFIED on Twitter. Ellen Degeneres is verified on Twitter, she has a Wikipedia page. D-Pryde doesn't even have physical copies of his album/mixtape on the market, Kasland does. Since I am no longer anonymous, maybe you can do me the courtesy to actually ANSWER those questions instead of ignoring them and passing me off as some member of a forum. I have a life unlike the likes of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJB1993 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As before, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping this article. Also as previously stated, Twitter is not considered a WP:reliable source. Please read the articles I have linked to as they explain why your arguments are not valid in this context. noq (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article fails Wikipedia reliable sourcing criteria for WP:BLP and notability criteria for BAND and GNG. A search finds no substantial coverage of this person by significant independent reliable sources. (And interested IPs above have not provided any.) Maybe someday this person will be notable enough for an article -- but that doesn't appear to be today. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other delete !votes. Sources do nothing to prove notability, and at least one looks unreliable. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The IPs voting keep all have a similar writing style and keep parroting the same reasons for keeping. I can tell its fall from all the quacking. Livewireo (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one IP that is repeatedly voting. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its one person under different IPs. I apologize if I wasn't clear. But we obviously came to the same conclusion. Livewireo (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alphastudy

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

Overly promotional and not very notable. References are either generic or to the company's own website. RBrideau (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 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, Der yck C. 14:18, 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) 13:38, 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) 01:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CCNet (Course Management System)

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

It is simply not notable. RBrideau (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 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, Der yck C. 14:15, 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) 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references indicate that instances of the software are or have been in use, but nothing found to indicate that it is notable. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. it's been listed for almost 3 weeks and no one has found good sources. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainmentwise.com

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

No proof of notability in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG The Banner _talk 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 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) 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article makes no real claim to notability, which means its eligible to be tagged for Speedy Deletion under criteria A7. The only sources even being used in this article are just links to other Wikipedia articles. This is already not valid sourcing, but from what I can tell, most of the linked articles have nothing to do with this article at all. I've tagged the article as a Speedy in the hopes we can skip the full AFD process. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy tag. It is an example of tabloid journalism, however, their content is cited and reprinted by multiple notable media, see [14]. This should be properly discussed. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the vast majority of the articles that come up with that search are not really places where other places are citing that site, exactly. They're merely just place that link you to the entertainmentwise website. Those really aren't usable as valid sources. This article has already been Speedy Deleted at least 5 times previous to this, and has had no real change or improvement since any of those deletes, so I figured that deleting it once again would not be out of the question. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any coverage ABOUT this website as required for WP:NWEB. The bar for websites is high: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance". Even the lower bar of "do other media cite and reprint material this site?" does not seem to be met. If the article has really been deleted that many times previously, suggest salting as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable web site. Fails WP:WEB. The link to The Sun (a major tabloid, and the closest thing to a reference) is to an article on another subject entirely. The article consists of some brief promotional text and an excessively large logo, so there's no content that needs saving. --John Nagle (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. And a {{trout}} to the nominator, who is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup, and that "Nobody's working on it" is a argument to avoid. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Landy Steen

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

90% of this article is unsubstantiated by reliable references. 50% of the article appears to be primary research. I edited it a little yesterday and received 6 disambiguation errors, not from edits I added. Probably this has occurred before to others, but no one bothered to fix them. Apparently this article is so bad everyone seems to be avoiding it, including me from now on. At my first attempt in July at fixing citations, I could resolve none of them. The primary editor assured me he could fix them, but since my first visit in July there have been zero edits by the primary. It needs a total rewrite, but it's not something I'm interested in doing. It's an embarrassment that should at least be hidden from public view, perhaps in AfC. :- ) Don 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No real reason for deletion given in the nomination. Needs a re-write yes. But not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're quite correct. If I followed WP:BLPREMOVE there would be no need for this AfD. However, I would prefer that some attention was given to the article. AfD seems to be one of the few ways to accomplish that. It may not be correct protocol, but it seems to be fact. -- :- ) Don 17:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 3 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speed-regulated pump drive

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

Completely unsourced article which is only meant to spam or advertise a product. jfd34 (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:02, 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) 13:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no evidence of notability. -—Kvng 03:49, 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. Without prejudice to a subsequent redirection to World Victory Road. Sandstein 13:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 4

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

as per my last nomination. I think there is now clearer consensus of the notability of fighting events that are simply series for other events. also nominating:

all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. routine non notable sporting results LibStar (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Sengoku events were fairly notable as far as MMA goes. The promotion has been host to many worldwide-known fighters; some of them whilst they have been ranked in the top 10/20 of a respective weight division. Sengoku is now finished, so there aren't going to be any more events to outshine the events in question here. As such, the interest in these early events will always be high as long as there is interest in Sengoku's legacy. In short, I don't think these events were "routine" Paralympiakos (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These articles contain nothing but the sports results (WP:ROUTINE). In addition, the sources are also just routine sports reporting. There were no championship fights at these events and nothing to show these events qualify as notable under WP:SPORTSEVENT. I agree the events had plenty of notable fighters, but that alone doesn't make the events notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything but routine sports coverage. There's nothing but results and nothing to show the events have long-term importance. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All There's nothing to show these events pass WP:SPORTSEVENT and all the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. I agree about the notable fighters, but there's nothing significant about these individual fight cards. Mdtemp (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to World Victory Road, where they are already mentioned. I can't find sources that would indicate anything more than routine coverage, but the pages would be useful redirects. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Collaboration Transparency

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

Original research and not notable. Has been tagged since 2009, and this tag and associated discussion still apply. Krushia (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 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, KTC (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable secondary sources to support the claim of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources found. -—Kvng 05:22, 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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bachak

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

No indication of WP:notability. Simple statement of existence and two references to prove it exists - 2nd one having been removed once as an unreliable source. Google searches not finding anything more. No articles about people belonging to the clan seem to exist. noq (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jat clans. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As that list would just contain a link back to here I don't see the point in that. noq (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would tell you this is a Jat clan, and allow for later expansion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well if this article is converted to a redirect, the entry would be removed from the list so it would not tell anything. noq (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to keep non-notable things in lists, as in a summary article, though that depends on the list (see WP:L etc) and I'm not 100% sure that applies here. Someone probably needs to have a more in-depth think about what coverage these clans deserve: whether a summary page is best or most clans deserve their own article, whether most of the clan articles should be deleted/merged, what clan pages should contain, etc. Maybe this article should be considered in a wider context. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:08, 26 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) 13:50, 18 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, KTC (talk) 12:42, 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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nattestid Ser Porten Vid

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

searched and haven't succeeded in establishing this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taake. I couldn't find anything of note via Google, though to be fair I didn't manage to turn up the two not-very-notable refs that are already in the article, so it's quite possible there are others teetering on the verge of respectable notability. Probably best to merge and redirect to the band's article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 11 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) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 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, KTC (talk) 12:42, 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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lem Villemin

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

Fails WP:GNG Facts, not fiction (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator and also it fails WP:SKATER. Mrt 3366 15:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SKATER is a notability guideline for figure skaters and related articles not for skateboarding. This person seems to be notable, but I am not sure about that. He is sponsored by Adidas and is also listed by World Cup of Skateboarding (the international body of the game). Somebody with the understanding of German language may be able to find out whether the sources available in German assert notability or not. --SMS ^Talk 20:28, 14 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:49, 18 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, KTC (talk) 12:35, 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) 16:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue (Graveland album)

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

searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with two of the band's earlier demo recordings that were deleted, this demo does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS - no significant coverage found in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 00:10, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 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, KTC (talk) 12:13, 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 Deleted as a copyright violation, "GANGLAND Copyright © 2010" can possibly be recreated using information from reliable published sources, if notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FOB vs. FOBK Gang War

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

No context to identify the topic, has non-neutral POV, non-notable. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:30, 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 Deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation based on this published material. It is possible that an article could be created on this subject using information from reliable published sources, but not under this title. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary's Gang War Revenge

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

Non-notable, unsourced, non-neutral POV, no importance to be included in this encyclopedia. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:27, 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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Private schools vs public schools in namibia

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

Bad article title, has no sources, non-neutral point of view, non-notable, have no significance to be included in the encyclopedia Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:17, 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) 17:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thulasi Nair

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

Not notable. WP:ENT Harsh (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "going to make her acting debut..." indicates this article is TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability to be covered in reliable sources. Churn and change (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [15], [16], [17] - Three articles about her from Times of India do establish some notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:51, 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) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killer badger

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

Seem to fall foul of WP:EVENT. All sources are from a narrow time range in July 2007. No evidence of historical significance. Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT. Seems a classic example of WP:109PAPERS. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Passes WP:PERSISTENCE, although current sourcing is indeed just picked from the same slack news day. Looking at a more cryptozoology-focussed text, maybe the Fortean Times, should turn up some broader references. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find anything about this topic in Google Books. Based on what sources do you claim it "passes WP:PERSISTENCE"? Tijfo098 (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in Iraq at the time. There were a variety of rumors all around the same theme (which started as far back as '05). Interestingly, I spoke to a british officer who was a bit of an amateur naturalist, and he had a hypothesis that partial reflooding of Iraq's southern marshes (which had been drained by Saddam Hussein to punish the marsh arabs and to deny other political enemies a hiding place) had created habitat for the honey badgers, whose numbers had exploded roughly around the time foreign troop numbers were ramped up in southern Iraq. I liked this elegant theory, but it was never tested. Nothing further has been added to the brief flurry of sensationalistic news reports surrounding the very, very common phenomenon of stressed populations believing bizarre things, particularly when occupied by foreign powers, and nothing ever will be.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide something to back up the assertion that it passes WP:PERSISTENCE? Currently the sourcing is from a rather restricted time period, which is not indicative of passing PERSISTENCE. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for sources, both looking for references to a "Killer Badger" in Iraq, as well as the "Basra Badger" as it is also known as, I'm finding nothing that, like said by the nom, doesn't just fall into a very narrow time frame in 2007. Like Tijfo098 said, this is a pretty clear case of a minor blip that gained some news coverage on a slow day, but completely fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the mentions I could find on multiple Google searches were published over a few day period in the middle of July, 2007. Which is the the peak of silly season for newspapers as there is generally less real news to report during the summer vacation period. I'm seeing no evidence of lasting coverage. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:PERSISTANCE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Struck, likely banned editor. Amalthea 18:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP is known for !vote stacking in AfDs [18]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the sourcing enough to argue for keeping (although I'd really like to see this kept), but surely a merge to honey badger would be a better option than deletion? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already mentioned there with wp:due weight. Merging all of this would be excessive. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is a tedious repetition of the same facts over and over in order to get it over the word count need to spam the main page with another DYK on a perennial stub. Almost all information in it is repeated two or three times. For example:
  - "The killer badger is a creature found in a number of modern urban legends from Basra (Al Basrah) province, Iraq, where it was said to have attacked both people"
  - "rumors began circulating in Basra City aying that UK troops stationed in the city's airport had released a number of dangerous man-eating creatures "
  - "the stories began to circulate a number of local farmers produced a"
  - " the honey badger has long been known to inhabit southern Iraq"
  - "Basra's veterinary hospital where they were identified as being honey badgers, also known as Al-Ghirayri or al-Girta, a nocturnal carnivore and a member of the Mustelidae family."
  - "The director of Basra's veterinary hospital, Mushtaq Abdul-Mahdi, pointed out that the animals had appeared in the area prior to 1986, and are known locally as Al Girta."
- Etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the sources cited even use the phrase "killer badger". The title appears to be basically WP:OR; "man-eating badger" would have been more appropriate as far as the myth goes. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as others have alluded to above, this looks like it published to fluff out a slow news day back in July 2007. All the coverage I could find on it came from that week. No lasting coverage doesn't bode well for its supposed significance as an urban legend. Them From Space 22:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, amusingly enough this is one of the rare cases when the sources themselves admit to the story being part of the silly season. From [19]: 'The Times describes the story as a "monster myth" which comes at a time "when newspapers traditionally struggle to find meatier news with which to fill their pages". It still devotes a page lead to the tale and an editorial.' Tijfo098 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT, no WP:PERSISTENCE. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 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 keep. There is clear evidence given by the contributors to this discussion that this article is clearly notable. (non-admin closure) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Townsville Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits [20]. limited coverage in trove [21]. coverage mainly confirms its helds some events, but nothing indepth to put it above any other cultural centre on WP. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you check archives of the Townsville Bulletin before making this nomination? The centre has received significant coverage. Aside from the several references to this newspaper already in the article, I found [22], [23] and [24] from a quick search of its not-very-good website, and I'm sure that lots more stories are available in its archives. ABC News has also covered this centre [25], [26]. As such, I think that WP:ORG is met. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- re the first three, Passing mentions in mostly unrelated articles are not significant coverage. The two ABC bits are the best there is yet shown but they are just routine announcements. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Centre appears to be established, recognised by its community and received coverage by reliable sources. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough for national (Australian) coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage to show that it is a notable cultural institution. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 4 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. Quite a few editors have recommended deletion of this list because the individual members are not notable, but we are actually allowed to have such lists if the group as a whole is notable, per WP:LISTN. The other main reason advanced for deletion was that the page duplicates 2012 NFL referee lockout, but I saw no clear consensus on this particular point. There wasn't any strong appetite for a merge, either. The arguments based on WP:LISTN point towards a "keep" close, but due to the significant opposition to keeping the article I am closing as no consensus instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2012 NFL replacement officials

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

In my opinion this article violates the spirit of both WP:List and WP:BLP. This is not a list of notable people (with one exception) and so does not help readers navigate WP, which is supposed to be the purpose of WP lists according to policy. It also has potential negative impact on the people listed, against our BLP policy. The information on the topic of NFL replacements is already well covered in other articles. I don't see a need for this article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current consensus has been that all major league officials (see List of NFL officials, Category:American football officials, List of Major League Baseball umpires, Category:Major League Baseball umpires, List of National Basketball Association referees, Category:National Basketball Association referees, Category:National Hockey League officials, List of football referees, Category:Association football referees, etc.) have notability. They are widely reported in the media and other reliable sources. And yes, these articles do suffer from BLP violations from time to time. Is this objection to this one article just because they are strikebreakers? Nevertheless, several sports media and reliable sources are starting to report on the experiences and lives of these replacements -- just the like the regular officials. I do not see a BLP violation in merely repeating what these reliable sources say -- especially if the information can also be found on the NFL's own web site such as the listing of officials in each of their Gamebooks.[27] Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Zzyzx11 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

If you were to go right now and remove all unsourced material from the article, that would be a good thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL itself not being a secondary source. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede both points. But also, just because an article currently contains unsourced content, or is tagged with lacking sources, should not be a valid reason to delete the whole thing. Furthermore, this can be considered a stand only list (specifically a list of people), which can just list information --or merely names--, and not necessarily need to be used for navigation purposes. So I'm still unsure how the WP:LIST and WP:BLP fits in if we still keep the names that are currently cited. I have already basically stated that sports figures from professional competitions, including players, owners and referees are notable. The article is still also tagged with {{Expand list}} anyway. Theoretically, someone with the time could comb through sources like this one from USA Today that also list the officials in their box scores. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a secondary source, it just needs to be verifiable and accurate. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we were trying to establish a person's notability it would need to be. But you are right if it's only to put a name on a list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These people are being listed in a separate article only due to the unusual circumstances of their employment. They otherwise would appear in List of NFL officials either in a separate section or interspersed with the appropriate asterisks. The inclusion condition for the main list is (or at least should be) “has officiated an NFL game” without regard to competence, union membership, or pay scale. ―cobaltcigs 09:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ―cobaltcigs 10:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Egregious example of Wikipedia:Recentism. The fact that replacement officials are being used is notable. The individual people are (in general) not. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to Merge per User:Frank Anchor -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of NFL officials. That's basically what they are, as they have all officiated in NFL games. Possibly create a separate section at the bottom of the merge target page to differentiate between these officials and the regular NFL officials Frank Anchor^Talk 16:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless at least a significant number achieve notability, in which case this could be revisited, I suppose, right now it is a compendium of employees of a corporation - we do not have "List of Vice-Presidents of General Motors" which list is equally available and equally of actual avail to Wikipedia users. Collect (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of NFL officials, and maybe also create redirects for all the referees who are currently redlinked to that page as well. I agree with Frank on this one. I disagree with Roy Smith that this is a a violation of WP:RECENT because they have been around since early August and have received widespread coverage since then. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Legitimate list, being definable, limited, sourceable, and functional. Discrete from List of NFL officials, merging the two list combines parsnips with carrots because they are both vegetables. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with caveat that the target page for this merge does not have well-defined rules for inclusion. Given the high percentage of red links, may I assume that the target page has not been well-policed and that many of the red links are non-notable? If so, most of the replacement officials to be merged will also be non-notable and there will be few survivors who actually appear on the target page once the merge is effectuated. Might I suggest to a knowledgeable editor that some standard be stated on the target page for inclusion? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reason that there are so many red links is that on the 2012 Jacksonville Jaguars season page (that was just an example, it's on all of them), the template automatically links to the referee's page and it can't be undone. --Go Phightins! (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated by Zzyzzx11 and Carrite. If this list were to be merged anywhere, the more appropriate target might be to a section of 2012 NFL referee lockout, but I wouldn't particularly favor that merger either.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reasons stated by Carrite and Zzyzzx11, though a merge into 2012 NFL referee lockout could also be a consideration. Zappa O Mati 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are enough news hits on "nfl replacement officials" that a list of them would qualify under WP:LISTN, whether it be as a standalone article or merged into another article (e.g. 2012 NFL referee lockout, unless the article is deemed too large). This should not be deleted. Per WP:CSC, it's unclear if List of NFL officials is meant to be a complete list or limited to entries that meet notability criteria (i.e. deserve their own article). Otherwise, that might also be a candidate for a merge target as well.—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a massive WP:BLP1E, content fork violation. According to our current guidelines, none of these officials were notable prior to this lockout, not notable now, and after all the regular referees comes back from the lockout, they will be heading back to their jobs as high school teachers and so forth and will likely never become notable again. This article simply reads like an attack page showing how unqualified that all these officials are, or the blown calls they associated with so far, which is deservedly mentioned elsewhere without any names being involved. Secret ^account 21:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSC allows for "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", whether or not the individual items are notable. Agreed that the article needs to adhere to WP:NPOV, but that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE and not grounds for deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of non-notable people isn't going to meet notability guidelines for lists. These replacement individuals aren't notable. If you look at a page like List of Major League Baseball replacement players, you should note that it's not a list of every single replacement player, but the ones who are notable enough for wiki articles. For this list, only the lady ref appears notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the replacements have notability to a degree as officials of the NFL. The list is supported by sources and only serves a positive purpose by gathering this important information. Ducknish (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- These men were a part of a historic, albeit short, period in the NFL. History should be recorded, they are no different from a bench player who does not see playing time. They might not be notable, but they were a part of the game which should be recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.211.251 (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: the comment of the IP user above is the first and only time this user has edited any Wikipedia page, article or otherwise, and appears to be a potential sock-puppet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The replacement refs have caused enough controversy to be notable. AutomaticStrikeout 18:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The replacement refs may be bad, but we don't need a list of them. – Pee Jay 19:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an article at 2012 NFL referee lockout to cover this; this list is not notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am striking my previous merge vote, and moving to delete. With the creation of a stand-alone article regarding the 2012 NFL referee lockout, this list of several dozen non-notable replacement refs serves no good purpose. List articles ideally should include a group of individuals who are collectively notable and many, if not most, of whom are also individually notable. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of officials on this list are not notable individually, and to my way of thinking, this list of names of refs who officiated in three NFL games during the lockout is trivia, and not worthy of encyclopedic content. To the extent a handful of these individuals are notable, they may be added to the regular List of NFL officials; to the extent any of them are meaningfully relevant to the 2012 NFL referee lockout, they may be mentioned there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists are suitable places to place items that are not notable standing alone but are notable as a group. This would seem to describe the majority of NFL referees, replacement or not. A merge to List of NFL officials as a whole as a subsection might be reasonable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list meets WP:LISTN and all entries are allowable per WP:CSC; however, I am torn with whether it is appropriate to enumerate a list where virtually all the members are not notable. It would be an easier decision for me if most members were notable, and the non-notable were mentioned to complete the list. It seems like an m:inclusionism vs m:deletionism argument at this point, and I have no issue with either in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dozens of names, only 4 of which have pages. The rest are either unlinked or redlinked. How could this list possibly be considered notable? It's basically just a list of random words. What we need is a List of Random Words to merge it to. --Captain Infinity (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per IP 67.248.211.251 or whoever it is -- because figures who have a part in an historic event should have a collective article; past precedent has included the lists of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One distinction is that List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is a list of which a majority of the entires are blue links. The replacement refs individually are predominantly WP:BLP1E and most will likely never have a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of former child actors from the United States

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

One of these long random endlist lists that is better served as a category, which already exists. Many well-known actors, especially modern actors started acting as a child or a teenager. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Secret ^account 06:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not temporary. If they were notable as child actors they are still notable as child actors, even if that happened in the past. If they were non-notable child actors who later became notable then they are not notable as child actors. That makes sense to me and I hope to others too. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I get the gist of what you're saying, but I'm not sure how it supports a Delete/Keep discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crakkerjakk (talk • contribs)

Yeah, whatever his point was meant to be, it has nothing to do with resolving this AFD. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge We don't delete lists to favour of categories - see WP:CLN. This is especially important in BLP cases such as this because it is easier to provide citations for list entries than for category tags. The split between current and former seems unwise as this will keeping changing and so is a maintenance burden. But the same structure is used for numerous other countries - see lists of child actors by nationality. I suggest having a single sortable list in which attributes such as age, sex and nationality can be columns which the reader may sort as needed. Warden (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has fairly clear inclusion criteria and the entries are notable and child actors as a group is a well-used concept. There's a lot of media interest in child actors as a general subject[28][29][30][31], and many media articles listing former child actors who were successful or unsuccessful. Together with WP:CLN (as already cited), that answers all the proposer's points. Arguably it could be combined with a list of current child actors. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not really any inclusion criteria here other than being a child actor at one point, which is simply vauge and unmaintainable considering how many actors started their careers under the age of 18. If there's a certain criteria for the list, it's going to be arbrutary. Yes the media has a fascination with the concept of "child actors", but mostly as where are they now tabloid fodder (like all three links above is) which isn't the purpose of this website. Secret ^account 07:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the inclusion criteria could at least be that they be notable enough to have a bio on Wikipedia. It's true that not all adult actors who started their careers as children/teens were the Shirley Temples of their day, but I think basic Wikipedia notability could at least be a fair place to start (taking it beyond that could become rather subjective and difficult to employ). If we agree they should at least be notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio, then any red-linked names can be removed once a year or so. That would probably also be a lot easier than creating a separate set of inclusion criteria specifically for this page (over time, if/when we see a blue-linked name we keep it (let the Wikipedia community decide if they meet "notability" for a bio), and a red-linked name means we can just go ahead remove it from this list, rather than going to each bio page, researching their "notability", etc). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret, you can't simultaneously claim that this is better served as a category as you did in your nom, and then also claim that there is no meaningful inclusion criteria. If we can tell when an actor belongs in the child actors category then we can certainly tell when they belong in the child actors list. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid list on a notable topic. The arguement for deleting this and keeping the category fails WP:CLN and WP:COMMONSENSE. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've personally found the list quite useful on occasion (when I have trouble remembering a former child actor's full name, etc). My main problem is the inclination of some editors to add excessively long "filmographies" for their favorite child stars. I've proposed on the talk page that a limit of 3 or 5 of a child actor's most prominent roles (whether the child was a central character, or the film/program was notable as a box office hit, or won notable awards, etc), would probably be a better idea, rather than encouraging future editors to continue to add complete filmographies, but that's a separate issue than whether to keep the page. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists let readers access information in ways categories don't (most readers won't use tools such as AWB). The criteria for defining the list isn't an Afd-related issue, there are several meaningful ones possible. Churn and change (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful navigational and informational list per WP:LISTPURP, and as a complement to the category per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "better served as a category" is not a reason for delete anything. --Cavarrone (talk) 12:00, 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 keep. Precedent is to keep articles if their subjects satisfy WP:ATHLETE but not WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Mulgrew (Gaelic footballer)

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

Was prodded "needs references"; I created this page while tidying a disambig-type situation, and, as the stub template says, I was hoping that someone who knows more than me about football would expand the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears the subject meets the standard of WP:NSPORTS#Gaelic_games. KTC (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Giant Snowman 15:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not only does he pass WP:NGAELIC as a Gaelic footballer who has "played at senior inter county level in the League or Championship", he beyond any doubt passes it by a long shot as an All-Ireland winning player with Donegal in 1992 and very close to being an All-Ireland winning manager with Fermanagh in 2004. [32] Jim McGuinness must surely be the only other Donegal man to have bettered that player-manager championship record! A search for "fermanagh charlie mulgrew" at BBC Sport throws up dozens of results from his three-four years in the role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.7 (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and remove the stub templates. As I thought might happen, people have added plenty information during this discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please bear in mind that WP:ATHLETE is reliant upon WP:GNG - players are only "presumed notable" - and all the coverage I can see of this chap is WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 09:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly this is a keep. The page perhaps like many millions on wikipedia could be tidied up and improved upon, but the subject matter is relevant and of interest. If this page is deleted, then many million's of other pages could equally be deleted, and none without a good reason. 217.115.114.145 (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 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 revert to the previous article about the given name. This would be a "delete" close if this article had been created on a separate page, but as it is no pages actually need to be deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jevon

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

Article is unsourced biography made after July 2010, kinda, the entire page was hijacked from a disamb with people with Jevon to the artist currently on the page in Sept 1 2012 by Seminarmusicgroup. While I've noted the user about the COI and the Username matter, I still could not find any reliable source for this artist to meet WP:NOTE or on musicians. If this AFD passes, I would suggest reverting to the disamb of Jevon as noted in the history or moving that content to its own page and making a redirect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC

Note: As this article over-wrote an existing long-standing Name page, I have reverted to that previous content pending the discussion. The version of the "Jevon" page under discussion is this one. This may be a bit WP:IAR, but the (COI?) editor who added the material about the rapper destroyed the existing page to do so, and I don't think that information should be lost while this discussion proceeds. PamD 16:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very well, its probably for the best, I wanted to follow the procedure to ensure it wouldn't step on any toes in case the editor became active and tried to defend it. Guess a close is in order, because this AFD is irrelevant, withdrawal is the only sane option in light of the revert. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to discuss the deletion of "Article about rapper Jevon", even while it's not the visible version of the article. PamD 06:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any reliable third-party sources to establish notability despite that I have added "Friday", "Seminar Music Group" and "recording artist" to my Jevon search. Not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nominator & SwisterTwister. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reverted version - As per PamD, the original disambiguation page was valid. Now that it has been restored, this AfD nom no longer has a reason for being. I've left a {{uw-coi-username}} warning on the talk page of Seminarmusicgroup and they should get banned for WP:CORPNAME. --Drm310 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Virani

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER, sources here are not reliable sources or independent of the subject that meets WP:GNG. A Google News or HighBeam search comes up with two trivial mentions. Delete Secret ^account 04:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Google result turns up empty. Heck, we could have sent this article to WP:CSD. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would be perfectly fine... except that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Two of the "sources" are dead links, one is a blog. From what I can see, fails WP:GNG by a country mile. Agree - could have been speedy'd. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 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 Reign of Terror (album). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demons (Sleigh Bells song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG criteria, specifically: "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." After conducting my own research, the majority of the articles out there merely mention a music video exists, or the song gets mentioned in a review. There's not much information specifically pertaining to this song that one could plausibly expand the article very much beyond what it is now. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what is your problem? Are you still forum shopping? Third opinion didn't work, the Discographies WikiProject didn't work, DRN didn't work, so now you're coming to AfD? All this is making yourself look bad, you know. (And at the very least, the article could be merged to Reign of Terror (album).) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our other dispute is regarding the definition of a single. This AFD is based purely on notability and warranting an independent article. These are two entirely different things. Please either contribute constructive, relevent comments to this discussion, or don't comment at all. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two entirely different things? Really? You say that after this and this? And to anyone else monitoring this, proof of forum shopping began here and here, and then spilled into here, here and here. This is thus a bad-faith nomination. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, two entirely different things. What you have linked shows evidence that I have doubts about this song being released as a single. If you'll notice, my nomination doesn't mention that argument what-so-ever. Whether or not a song is strictly defined as single is a separate argument from suggesting a topic doesn't have enough independent coverage to warrant a separate article. The outcome of this AFD and the outcome of the DRN will result in two completely different things. It's highly disruptive to bring an outside argument into this AFD. If you'd like to discuss this with me further, do so on my talk page as it's completely irrelevant here. Please comment on whether or not this article meets WP:NSONG criteria or not. Thanks. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm disruptive? How can you say that with a straight face? Anyway, I would be happy to just leave this alone, but I can't help but wonder which noticeboard you're going to use next. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reign of Terror (album). There's fairly wide coverage of this single ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]) but nothing that has enough to really justify a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reign of Terror (album). Michig is correct about the snippets of coverage the song has received, but it's mostly just notifications that a video exists. Not enough for a stand-alone article. The fact that the song is a single and has a video can be mentioned at the articles for the album and the band's discography. (Also, I'm not sure what to make of the dispute between Fezmar and Erpert, but you two guys have taken it beyond the notability discussion that is appropriate here.) --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reign of Terror (album). This is lacking in anything interesting to justify a stand alone page. The information available would be best off merged with its album. --BarnseyP (talk) 16:40, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrating Size (dimension)

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

Article is fairily useless original research. This is not useful on an encyclopedia and would do better on a how to site. Vacation9 (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom is broadly correct that this is more of an ESSAY or HOWTO account than a genuine encyclopedia topic; if there is a basic topic here, it's Perception which does not need to be (badly) duplicated here. The presence of sources for a few of the claims made does not alter the fact this is a POV essay. It is just possible that a small paragraph could be made on 'Perception of size', hence a merge to Perception, but even that feels like a stretch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, original research, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTESSAY. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:19, 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 redirect to List of 2012 NFL replacement officials. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Easley

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

This incident is getting way overblown, way too fast...see The monday night controversy, 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game, etc. but this is the worst...this guy is modestly notable for one event. This article violates WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Aside from that, it's hardly neutral. It has no WP:RS and is cited with a Linkedin page, a .me profile, a newspaper blog, and a yahoo article that recaps the game. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This is a borderline WP:AVOIDVICTIM issue. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 01:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Speedy Delete~~ - agreed, a case of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Also obviously WP:BLP1E. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD was declined, but that was for A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". I dont think this would qualify under G10 "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". Proceed with normal delete discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was inclined to think G10 could apply, given the tone. But I wasn't aware List of 2012 NFL replacement officials existed - this an appropriate re-direct (assuming it survives its own AfD). Have changed my note above - thanks for your note. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to List of 2012 NFL replacement officials, otherwise Delete, but do not keep. This does not warrant a standalone article per WP:ONEEVENT, as this person received no coverage until two days ago, and is only notable for his involvement with a controversial decision in the 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game (which is also being discussed in its own AFD). Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability is applicable here, as unrelated trivia from non-independent sources about his education and past employment plus details about the game itself are added to the article to mask his lack of notability. His claim to fame is that he made a call in a game that received news coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS, and an official making a controversial call in a game is WP:Run-of-the-mill—it happens all the time. No prejuice to recreate if he miraculously is shown to have a lasting WP:EFFECT at a future date, but not days after a single event.—Bagumba (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easley is only more notable than the other replacement referees because of this one call, and this is a textbook case of what to avoid per #3 at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. City Of Silver 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When his name is in a relevant list, what is the rationale for not redirecting to it? There is a template {{R to list entry}} to tag such redirects.—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect to the appropriate list wouldn't bother me at all. City Of Silver 20:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 20:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree there's no current need for a separate article about him, but I do think a couple of sentences and sources from this content could be appropriately merged/repurposed for 2012 NFL referee lockout (or for 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game, if that article is kept); specific discussion of his (lack of) experience is showing up repeatedly in discussion of the game in reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is his experience any less than the other replacements, which would warrant his qualifications being singled out as opposed to a general statement on all the replacement officials?—Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, yes. "Lance Easley is the side judge who ruled a “simultaneous catch” . . . Easley, the least experienced of the Monday night crew, had four years of experience, none above Division III. In fact, last summer Easley was deemed not ready to officiate at the Division I level, according to Karl Richins, who made the determination along with his staff at the Stars and Stripes Academy for Football Officials in Salt Lake City."(Los Angeles Times)[42]; see also, e.g.[43][44][45] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we are outing him to the world with his article? If what you said is correct, then the article might not have issues of neutrality. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of 2012 NFL replacement officials per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E. Zappa O Mati 21:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this guy is no more than a footnote. Certainly not worthy of an article over one call ( which look like it will be his last). Rikster2 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - There is no reason why that article should exist right now. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Non-notable per WP:BLP1E; redirect to whatever the surviving target merge page is in the aftermath of this AfD and related AfDs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously people? WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a replacement official being notable for a single bad call does not make him notable. The play itself is definitely notable, but there is nothing in the article that can't be added to 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game. Furthermore, (to play devil's advocate), why is he the only official from the game's crew to get an article? The head referee did a video review and could have overturned the play, but the outcome turned out the same. He had just as much a hand in this controversy as Easley. Why not an article about him? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meto Jovanovski

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

A one-sentence article with a single, broken source on an obscure Macedonian writer. Search engine results provide very little other than links to sites selling his books. Fails WP:BASIC, as there is little to no substantial coverage on this person. - Donkey1989 - talk 00:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG, Google is your friend.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Adequately referenced - several quality refs, 7 in total for stub article OK. Widefox; talk 11:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - checks out for third-party coverage in reliable sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article may be a stub but it's plenty sourced. Ducknish (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 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) 01:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards

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

fails WP:GNG. most of the coverage is PR style. [46]. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an award by an unknown organisation (Classic Horror Film Board) with the following website: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/ Mootros (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:20, 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) 00:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic promo-spam. One of the "sources" is the company's website, one is from an award winner (you would have to question how "independent" that is) and the other two are blogs. There is nothing to suggest the subject meets WP:GNG. The only other mentions of the awards that I could find seem to be other organisations encouraging their readers / viewers / etc, to nominate them for an award. Would need a lot more coverage to be considered notable, in my opinion. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:37, 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.