Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 February	22 February >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri Ellsworth

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

This is a non-notable biographical entry Urda (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not the first, nor the only, individual to develop their own IC at a given time, run a store, or work for a high profile company. This reads as if self-promotion from a fanbase, with minimal actual contribution to a given field. Urda (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an issue with the sourcing or how significant the sourcing is because WP:N does not say anything about needing to be first or only.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she easily passes notability searching for news articles about her. Amazingly, she is mentioned in Finish, German, and Italian news too. And in financial and gaming contexts. She easily passes the threshold for general notability. —EncMstr (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NYT and other mentions demonstrate notability (thought the references on the page need work). squibix (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of references from reliable sources. AfD is not cleanup. --Teancum (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources, clear case for notability, easily passes WP:BIO. --El on ka 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NY Times and LifeHacker writeups provide plenty of verifiable in-depth coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. Article does need a bit of cleanup like deleting most of the external links and rewording some close paraphrasing from the LifeHacker article but a definite keep. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:34, 27 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Management Dynamics

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

This jargon-filled advert for a software/logistics company seems to fail WP:NCORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH, cited mainly to its own sources, or to a couple of highly specialist publications. It is now rebranded as Amber Road, but I can't see sufficient significant news coverage about either. Time to go, I think. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We just re-submitted a new entry for the Management Dynamics page. Could you please review and hold off on deleting this page?Cline.brown (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive improvements have been made to this article addressing in particular the Notability of the sources as well as the neutrality of the article's content. The company name has been updated throughout and unnecessary external links removed. I believe the article now meets WP:CORPDEPTH standards as all current references are from newsworthy, 3rd party sources.Cline.brown (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has reliable secondary sources that indicate its notability, and it (barely) passes WP:NCORP. Andrew³²⁷ 00:31, 28 February 2013 (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 SOFT DELETE. Because of low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Consumer Institute

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

Notability and COI concerns, lack of edits in the last 5 years

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2013 (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/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 23:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references on the article are only to passing mentions, and I couldn't find any other signs of notability; plus it's been tagged for 5 years now. squibix (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A possible redirect discussion can occur on the article's talkpage. J04n(talk page) 17:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Goldvarg

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

What we have here is a fan page/autobiography of someone who has collected some cars. There's some more material on the talk page; I don't believe that this establishes encyclopedic notability. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... I think? Does a Guinness record confer notability? There's press coverage, certainly; though oddly I can't find the record on the Guinnessrecords site (though I don't know how far back it goes; it may be just the current book's records). squibix (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ...or rename to Goldvarg Collection and edit accordingly - I'm reluctant to disagree with Drmies, I only landed on the page because I was checking for mis-AfDed LatAm BLPs, but I see that this is actually a Florida BLP. Despite that it's just a hobbyist sideline for someone who is an architect in real-life, there is probably just enough print coverage to either keep, or shunt off BLP into Category:Toy cars and trucks which seems to contain one or two other hobby-makers who have notability in the toy car universe. It's an article not doing any harm, and has plentiful if trivial sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually some of those Spanish sources emptied out of article onto the Talk:Sergio Goldvarg page do look kind of notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2013 (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 Portable Sounds. J04n(talk page) 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Sounds Tour

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

Non-notable tour without references for over three years Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Portable Sounds. A lot of the detail can go but a summary of the tour at the album article would be worthwhile. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as per above; separate article does not seem necessary (WP:NCONCERT TOUR). Gong show 08:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely. I don't even see how any of the content in this "article" would warrant being merged. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2013 (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 SOFT DELETE. Because of low participation in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 17:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recstacy

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Notability (events), and is not supported in RS so far (news, news archive, books, scholarly). It may be a largish event, and it may attract some names, but they haven't written about it, AFAIK. This may belong in a list of festivals, instead of in a standalone article. Lexein (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: most links in google search are from youtube; using -youtube, number of results came down from 13000 to 8000. Got a single mention in The Telegraph, India and a single one in website of Times of India. Not much coverage in newspapers on this fest yet.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(late reply) Hrmph. I'm disliking Google for not including the above two results in my searches. Sheesh. --Lexein (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- searched using 'site' parameter of google search: "Recstacy site:indiatimes.com", "Recstacy site:telegraphindia.com". Now, both showing 2 results each.--GDibyendu (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Good google-fu! --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has a pretty logo but the only link is for the official website. Seems entirely non-notable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 05:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc Academy (Ottawa)

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

Private elementary school. No assertion of notability, and Google News returns nothing. COI issues in the creation and edition of this article. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article does appear to have some independent references, which should be enough per WP:CORP. That said, it really ought to have more information than just student life.^King Jakob _C2 23:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Not much significant coverage to indicate notability, according to a number of Google searches. There is no school district article to redirect to, so this will need to be performed probably. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 19:42, 28 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sara's Kitchen

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

Since creation in September 2012 by Darrank (who hasn't add anything else to the project), has been tag'd with multiple issues ever since. Looks much like an advert, I can't find anything either within the article or refs to substantiate WP:NOTABILITY. Going through AFD over PROD as it has existed for a reasonable period. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no signs of notability (Ideal Bride mentions, minor to begin with, seem to be selected from reader-submitted content: "If you would like your products to be considered for inclusion please look out for our facebook and twitter promotion or contact our editor").squibix (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I agree that the Ideal Bride mentions are problematic for notability. In addition to the comments above, I'll note that those "Five Best" articles in Ideal Bride are so insubstantial that there is not actual narrative text and only a mention of a website. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely. Deb (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2013 (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 SOFT DELETE. Because of low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 17:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aviator Airways

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

This non-scheduled corporate charter airline fails WP:CORP: It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --FoxyOrange (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than a cursory overview[1] here, there is little independent coverage of this airline. I'd say it's not notable and fails to meet WP:RS. dci | TALK 20:14, 24 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princé B. Richardson

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

When you take away the dead-linked Facebook page and "official website", and the interlanguage link to a pt-wiki article that never existed (all of which I already removed), and the reference that appears to actually be a profile of a high school basketball player, you're left with an empty IMDb page and a Twitter handle of moderate import... in other words pretty much no evidence of Notability, especially per the rather strict WP:CREATIVE. Part of me thinks this might even be in large part a hoax, but even if it's not, it's essentially an unsourced BLP at this point. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of Twitter followers, but no noteworthy coverage that I can find. Seaphoto^Talk 07:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No news coverage or any other legitimate sources. Not notable at all. DP76764 (Talk) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non Sustainable livelihoods of people in TA Mphuka

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

Original research. This article cites two sources as references, and numerous other sources (mostly Wikipedia articles) as explanatory notes, but the facts and conclusions drawn in the article are not cited to any source and appear to be the original research of the article's author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR/WP:NOTESSAY. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR/WP:NOTESSAY. It is also a bad article name and there is also no Sustainability in Malawi or even Environment of Malawi. But that is the nature of WP... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The opening sentence says it all: "This presentation is basically focused..." MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Cornelius

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

This appears to be WP:TOOSOON. He's a submission grappler with an impressive resume, but it's all as an underbelt and WP:MANOTE specifically says only black belt adult events can show notability. The sources consist of tournament results and that's just routine sports coverage (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER).Mdtemp (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In a effort toward transparency, I should admit I am the author of this article. I believe the subject's main assertion of notability is his winning of the "grand slam" in BJJ, a feat never before accomplished in IBJJF history. While the nominator makes a valid point in that black belt level wins would help establish more notability than his purple and brown belt wins, this is not what his notability is primarily grounded upon. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a black belt but 17 gold medals? Not bad.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with the nominator's comments--the subject doesn't meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG, despite his IBJJF record. However, my search of the websites of the ADCC and its regional subgroups shows that he has officially qualified for the 2013 ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship. Since that is an open competition, I think you can make a case for notability. Sometime in the future his notability may be clear cut, but for right now I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Papaursa (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There also seems to be consensus to redirect to perpetual motion, so more of a delete and redirect. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overunity

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

Apparently non-notable fringe theory. I can't find any worthwhile independent sources (most are from the hypothesis's main proponent, a Tom Bearden). The closest I can get is this, an article that, as near as I can tell, was never actually published in any journal, and this, an article (written by a "science journalist") that a) ridicules both the theory itself and Bearden's credentials and b) suggests that "very few [physicists and experts] will consider it worth their time even to read the book", which in turn suggests that the theory itself is not notable. A redirect to perpetual motion might be acceptable, since they're more or less the same idea. It was such a redirect in the past, but the current primary article author has reverted the redirect twice, so I think a more structured discussion is in order. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WritKeeper has explained it well. Also worth noting is that the article says "One of the purposes of this article is to give credibility to the experimenters . . ." That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't promote credibility- that is done by reliable sources, not us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google is, of couse, riddled with false positives, but it doesn't look like the necessary coverage is out there. The "credibility" sentence practically serves as proof that this article is unencyclopedic, anyways. As a side note, does anybody else find it odd that about half of the external links have nothing to do with overunity but instead deal with physics in general? CtP (t • c) 22:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's never a good sign when an article's shortcomings are ascribed to unspecified forces intent on censorship [2]. 99.156.66.72 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's effectively a pov-fork of perpetual motion. bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate as a Redirect to perpetual motion, and lock per WP:RNEUTRAL:2. It is a well known term in the fringe community and likely to be a search term used by some so having it as a redirect would be useful. Might even educate some people. But it needs to be locked to prevent free energy nutters from recreating it again. GDallimore (Talk) 23:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as per GDallimore. - Mr X 03:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Firstmm5 has added some references, but (as I've told them on their talk page) they're all inadmissible, and most of them are to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, as prior to recent edits. ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect to Perpetual motion as done for Over unity, Over-unity and Overunity motor. Whether or not the term is used differently than 'perpetual motion' should be mentioned there, backed up by reliable sources. I don't see anything else worth salvaging. — HHHIPPO 11:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is cobbled together from poor sourcing, or no sourcing at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, article redirected. I am still unconvinced that this school is notable enough to justify inclusion at all, but a redirect will do no harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spratton Hall School

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

This does not satisfy any of the notability guidelines. This is a British preparatory school. For any non-British person who doesn't know, that means a private school which takes pupils up to either age 11 or 13 - in this case the range is 4 to 13. Consensus has long been that schools for this age range are not by default notable enough for an article, and there is absolutely nothing whatever to suggest that this is in any way an exceptional school. I put a PROD on this article back in 2011, and never went back to the article again until today, when I found that DGG, who tends to be rather towards the inclusionist end of the spectrum, had removed the PROD with edit summary "merge to locality, as usually for such aschools [sic]". However, that is missing the point: schools run by what in the USA is called a "school district" are commonly merged to an article about that school district. Schools in a country such as the UK, where there is no such thing as a school district, are sometimes merged to an article about the local council or the area which the local council governs (though this is much less satisfactory, as it tends to give undue weight to a school, which is a much smaller proportion of the whole council's concern than it would be of a body that just runs schools). However, the school in this case is a privately owned business, and does not have a suitable public body to be merged to. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spratton#Spratton Hall School. The key content had already been ~~merged~~ included prior to this discussion and a redirect plainly meets WP:Redirect. This can be speedily disposed of, I suggest. TerriersFan (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have compared the content of the article Spratton Hall School with recent edits to Spratton, and I can't see that the content added to the latter came from the former: it looks to me quite independent. Nor have I managed to find any source of content of Spratton in earlier versions of the school article. However, I may have missed the particular edit where content was merged, so I will be grateful if anyone can provide a diff. The section of Spratton about the school in unsourced. I also see no reason to think this fairly small (400 pupils) private lower school is in any way remarkable, and it is not clear why it should be considered notable enough to warrant a section in that article. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eos (festival)

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

I've gone ahead and searched for sources to support this article, but have only found promotional marketing for the event. The article asserts that it is the largest festival of its kind in Mumbai, but I am unable to verify the claim. Honestly, I would think there would be something in the way of reliable and independent sources, so I'm puzzled. At this point, notability is not established due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hoping others may be able to help locate sources. Cindy(talk to me) 20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No assertion of importance, created by an advertising-only SPA. Toddst1 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learn direct (film)

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

WP:TOOSOON and seemingly no WP:SIGCOV in regards to the lead up to the film's release. Mkdw ^talk 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than this Wikipedia entry, I'm unable to find anything that discusses this movie in any context. This is just far too soon for an entry and odds are that as a student film, it will be unlikely to receive any coverage in the future. Most student films, regardless of their merit, go unnoticed for years unless someone involved in it makes it big. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks verifiability and feels of hoax. Of course, an indie or student film of extreme low budget might lack requisite coverage without actually being a hoax... but for this one, there is nothing at all... in RS or non-RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Wilzig

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

BLP with no reliable sources. GAtechnical (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its current form is mediocre, but the person is notable. Here is just one of many articles in reliable sources that give her significant coverage, from the Seattle Times Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An entire chapter of this book is devoted to Naomi Wilzig. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What Cullen says. This woman has coverage all over the world, as evidenced by Google News. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per Cullen) and, obviously, source. The World Erotic Art Museum Miami article also needs some work in that direction. squibix (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been completely rewritten and now includes six references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG. Insomesia (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable as recent additions to article show.--Staberinde (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Safavi

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

Goes against WP:BIO Gdfusion (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable violinist. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete probable WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Circle of Advocates

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

This is a private members club with invitation only membership and no inherent notability. Clubs do not inherit notability from their members. The threshold for membership is not enormous. This is the self styled great and good inviting other self styled great and good to declare themselves to be great and to be good. It lacks confirmation that it is, of itself, notable. There is cursory coverage at best in any sources at all, let alone reliable ones. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Silly nomination. "cursory coverage" is just not true - there is not only significant, but in fact feature coverage dating back 30 years from sources such as the Associated Press (see here); the New York Times (see here and here; Reuters (see here, reporting on admission of first woman into the organization in 1992); UPI (see here); and the Arizona Daily Star (see here). Google Books shows about 2,200 results. Membership in the organization was one factor analyzed in two studies - this one in 1991 and this one in 2005. I could go on and on, but I think this will suffice. Neutrality^talk 06:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - The topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline, per the reliable news sources provided above by User:Neutrality that provide significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I was mistaken. Weirdly the search I used did only show scant coverage. Mea culpa. So I withdraw the nomination. I do suggest that the references are added to the article, though. If we speak of silliness, it is silly to find them but not add them to the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2013 (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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six Days of the Greenery

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

No references for 5 years; can't find any reliable sources —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:01, 18 February 2013 (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/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 17:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any RS to establish this as having any significance, also nominating :

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

for the same reasons. LGA _talk^edits 00:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no references, no assertions of notability and no reason to exist. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 05:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Atkins

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

Inadequate sources for notability - -minor roles only DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Atkins co-starred opposite Anne Heche in 2011 Original Movie "Girl Fight." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntarcticBear (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and lack of reliable sources. GAtechnical (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find sourcing to establish notabilty via GNG, nor do the roles appear to promise that such sourcing exists. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies

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

Article consist of copyvio info from nmims.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greencottonmouth123 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please give the exact links for the violations. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:44, 20 February 2013 (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/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 17:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly needs a bit of rewriting, but appears to be a degree-awarding institution and is therefore notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without the provision of more precise links it is not possible to assess the extent of any copyvio. Meanwhile, this is clearly a notable University. The way forward is cleaning up and rewriting as appropriate not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a deemed university which would seem to indicate that it part of the upper tier of universoty education in India. Coverage like this, and this are not difficult to find and generally reinfoce that this is a top tier educational institution. This represents the significant coverage needed to establish notability. With respect to the copyvio, I've gone through and chopped out all of the copying I found. The article could use a good copyedit or there may be a better version in the history but the article history is a mess of revisions and I don't feel up to teh task of wading through it right now. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep It seems that this article can stand itself as an independent Article and has the potentially to be a C-Rated Article if it get an proper dricetion in editing and Expanding.Akshay b patil (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Secret under criteria G3 and A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Layali bint Abdulaziz Al Saud

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never founded sources supporting the article.--Georgethewriter (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The given source doesn't mention here, either. One would also think there would be an existing article on Arabic Wikipedia. And...perhaps this is my own ignorance of pop culture, but doesn't the photo in the article kind of look like Kim Kardashian? Anyway, the creator of the article and the uploader of the photo both seem to have only worked on this article and then disappeared. Weird. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just scoured the English and Arabic Wiki pages for Mishaal, who is supposedly her grandfather. He doesn't have any sons named Fahad, which is the supposedly the name of this woman's father. Arabic Wikipedia has an extensive table for his kids (he has a lot) and there's no Fahad there. Also...Kim Kardashian. I'm convinced the photograph is of her. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the...the article title says she's the daughter of Abdulaziz - bint means daughter of in Arabic. Then the name in bold lists her as the daughter of some guy named Fahad. Then the text of the article says she is the daughter of Turki? This is one of the most oddly humorous hoaxes I've ever seen on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2013 (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/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 17:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well it seems a pity to delete such a witty hoax (she'd be veiled if she was real, right?) with Kardashian's face... but it has to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The article fails under A7 criteria, I already tagged the article with the speedy tag. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:26, 21 February 2013 (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 per positive consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. A merger discussion does not require the AfD process. The nominator's pessimism about a supposedly non-useful article that defies rehabilitation is not a sensible argument for deletion. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Limousin

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

Page is not useful and cannot be improved

Keep. I think this page can be useful and that it could be improved a lot. For example translating from the french article ([3]). I started to do something.----Lal.sacienne (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2013 (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/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 17:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Given the current state of Limousin and History of Limousin, I think a merge to the former would be suitable. If and when Limousin becomes well-developed or the history section becomes too extensive, then I have no prejudice to again having a separate history article. Chris857 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's room for expansion, as can be seen on fr.wikipedia.org. Even the Occitan Wikipedia has more info. Merging is extra effort and isn't required, since history is a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Page is useful and can be improved. The history of a traditional region of France is most certain to have a great amount of material written about. The French WP article demonstrates this. Just as we have, for example, History of Delaware, there's plenty useful content available about this history of any region/province/state. --Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duy Tan University

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

Overly promotional. Please read the entire article before closing the discussion! Kevin 12xd (contribs) 01:31, 19 February 2013 (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/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 17:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's a bad article, but nothing that a bit of editing won't overcome. It's an accredited university that awards degrees. That clearly makes it notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major university. When the page on a subject that is clearly notable is "overly promotional", and I agree that this one plainly is overly promotional, then the way forward is careful editing not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above; the article can definitely be improved by editing for tone; deletion doesn't make sense here since the subject is otherwise notable. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 22:01, 24 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Race: The Reality of Human Difference

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBOOK. The only independent coverage is a handful of academic reviews. This is not enough to establish notability per criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. aprock (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly there are plenty of reviews of the book in academic circles: [4] and it seems to have caused some controversy. Don't have the time to write the article, but listed it at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list Sadads 01:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. With the rather stringent search for {"Race: The Reality of Human Differences" Sarich} I find 140 hits on GS and 40k hits on G, so it seems to well noted. Article needs expansion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Google searches results are not enough to establish WP:NBOOK. As best I can tell, those results refer to a handful of reviews from minor publications, and little else. aprock (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher's weekly and the University of Nebraska Lincoln are hardly minor publication venues, besides Skeptics Magazine, etc. Sadads (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One author is a senior editor at Skeptics Magazine, so that can't be considered for notability. I don't think it's the case that two academic book reviews are enough to establish notability for books. aprock (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a review in Nature [5] with 200 cites itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That is not a review of that book. It appears to be a general review, which cannot be used to establish notability for a book. aprock (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Skeptic magazine reviews it in detail [6]. Other reviews have been found as well. Dream Focus 02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One author is a senior editor at Skeptics Magazine, so that can't be considered for notability. aprock (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that. Publisher Weekly I believe is a reliable source, and it does review the book. [7] Dream Focus 03:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The online edition of a print newspaper found in various nations gives a long review of it also. It has been accidentally placed on the Wikipedia blacklist, I filing a complaint to remove it from there just now. www eutimes net/2007/08/race-the-reality-of-human-differences-book-review/ Dream Focus 03:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you didn't look at that "newspaper" much at all, or for information about it, much at all, did you? because stuff like this is really, really easy to find, and clearly propaganda: www.eutimes.net/2011/11/obama-issues-ron-paul-kill-order-as-russia-prepares-for-war/, as is criticism of the site. The first google autosuggestion when you type in the name of the paper adds the word credible, too. :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their "about" page, and looking at the front page of the site, there is nothing to suggest they aren't credible. How deeply do you think someone would look? You just happened upon a random article which shows they aren't reliable, since they publish total nonsense like that. No crazy article like that is currently on the main page, so there was no obvious way to know they were like that. Dream Focus 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe their presence on the blacklist isn't accidental? aprock (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: dubious nomination: "a hanful of academic reviews" is a derogatory expression for "multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". - Altenmann >t 04:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have two reviews. That's it. I've spent time looking for other remotely reliable sources which deal with the book as a topic, and I haven't come up with any. If that's all that's required to satisfy WP:NBOOK, I'm fine with keeping the article. That's not how I read WP:NBOOK, but I'm perfectly happy to see others support a more permissive reading. aprock (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is determined by seeing if an article meets the General Notability Guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines. It doesn't have to meet both. Anything that gets two or more reviews passes the GNG, that's how its always been. Dream Focus 20:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence the reference to WP:NBOOK. aprock (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Clinical Investigation seems to be a reliable source. Published in Volume 113, Issue 12 [8] Dream Focus 20:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the case that these book reviews confer notability, then I would be happy to see the article kept. aprock (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is why every single other person so far has said KEEP. You can withdraw your nomination. Dream Focus 20:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus cannot go against policy. Based on my reading of policy, there is no reason to withdraw the nomination. I've repeatedly looks for any substantial presentation of the book, and have come up with nothing significant outside of a few contemporary book reviews. aprock (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is fine and base on good reasoning. Keep it open. However, I'm not sure what you mean by substantial presentation of the book. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Books are a tougher AfD topic. Other than review of the book and cites by others to passages in the book (which actually are not about the book as a discrete unit so they may not necessarily contribute to the book itself being the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works), what else is there? Book turned into to a movie? A book receiving an award is only good to the extent people write about it. In any event, here is some information: Significant coverage: Edward Shorter (February 21, 2004), "Anthropology: The race card is a joker", Globe and Mail, sec. Book Review, p. D8. Also see [9], [10], [11], [12]. Other coverage: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, does any source really discuss the book as a discrete unit? It usually is about the information provided in the book. If found in reliable sources, the book article can go into the effort to create the book and people's reaction to the book (e.g., on awards/ranking lists) once published. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Open (darts)

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

Nomination also includes:

This was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Open but the article was not tagged with an AFD notice. The close was therefore undone by the deleting Admin after a DRV so I'm relisting this properly. As the DRV closer I take no formal position on the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (qualified) with no restriction on re-creation when the competitions have inherent notability. The problem we face in this discussion is that there are a number of well known darts players who are listed in some of the articles, but a competition cannot inherit notability from its entrants. While it can be argued that a well known player will not enter a non notable competition, this is not a valid argument. The only arguments we can accept are the existence of citations in WP:RS. Primary sources and inherently notable players do not do the trick. Where reliable citations are provided then my !vote will obviously not apply to that individual article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per my original nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Open, unless independent reliable sourcing is added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:EVENT, as an aside I was very tempted to tag a number of them A7 as they make no claim to significance. LGA _talk^edits 00:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for the reasons stated above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Absent of calls of deletion, I can pull the plug with this non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick A. Malone

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

This article seems to be about a very ordinary lawyer, dressed up with references that make him look as if he is notable. He's written a couple of books, but that is not notable in itself. He's a member of some professional associations, but that is not inherently notable. All lawyers are members of professional associations.

One major issue is the mixture of the primary sources (many) and the items where the thing the reference purports to verify is simply not in the citation (very many). I've been through all the citations and flagged those that are most definitely inappropriate.

It appears to me that the gentleman is not sufficiently notable by WIkipedia's standards to merit an article just yet. He has decent achievements, just not notable ones.

In summary, this looks like resumé and an advert, though it does neither well, and it fails to pass our notability threshold. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first or second article. This is a notable attorney as notable attorneys go. I agree it was written more like a resume than and encyclopedia. I am attempting to learn how to write better for Wikipedia. I am going to make some edits with better citations. If you could assist I would appreciate it. In the U.S. Patrick Malone and other attorneys that are part of the inner circle of advocates are very well respected within their profession. Tallfromstpaul (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [I'll help you on your talk page.] The article at present shows an attorney who is part of a community of ten-a-penny attorneys. The citations do not show what they purport to show, and many are primary sources. The Inner Circle of Advocates is a members on;y club of invited members, and the threshold for entry is not arduous. ~~That organisation itself has very little coverage in reliable sources. Even if it proves to be notable,~~ Whether the inner circle is notable or not, Malone must be independently notable anyway. We cannot cover him just because of his membership of a club. I'm sorry on a personal level to be proposing your first article for deletion. My sorrow does not affect my judgment, however. I see no notability for the gentleman. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not just about an ordinary lawyer. This article is about Patrick Malone, one of the most notable trial lawyers practicing law today. I understand that you may not realize the notability of someone from across the ocean. He is by far on of the most notable plaintiff's attorneys in the United States. If you review trialguides, which is the publisher for plaintiff attorneys, he is not only the other of the top selling book, but he is also the author of the second top selling book regarding plaintiff trial law. I have updated the article, his notability doesn't come from the books he has written but comes from the cases he has won and the reputation he has developed within the legal community. He is looked upon as a resource by his peers and a teacher of best trial practices for trial attorneys.

I agree with you that all attorneys are members of associations and such, I have removed most of that information. I will note that the inner circle of advocates is actually a difficult group to be invited to, however I agree we should look at the notability of the individual. I have to disagree with your assessment of the sources, although some of them this is true and I have removed them. The new updated citations all include the information cited. I would say that it's difficult to write a biography for any attorney without it appearing like an advertisement. However, this is not the objective with this article. User:tallfromstpaul

Keep. He is not a "very ordinary" lawyer. He is quoted or mentioned in:
- Washington Post in 1988; 1990; 1991; 1992, 2003; 2007
- Washington Times in 1992 (on a $2.6 million settlement in one of his cases; this is also the topic of the 1992 Post article) and 2005
- Baltimore Daily Record in 2009 about one of his cases
- Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2010
- USA Today in 1997
- New York Times in 1989 and 1996
- Member of the Inner Circle of Advocates is a big signal of notability - membership is limited to 100 people
- His book was featured on the Today Show in 2009.
- Wall Street Journal in 1998
- St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1996
- Santa Fe New Mexican in 2010 (entire article is about him and his book)
- Akron Beacon Journal in 1997
- Center for Justice & Democracy "The Pop Tort" blog in 2009 (entire blog post is about him and his book)
- The Navy Times in 2008 (on $5 million case Malone won against the Air Force)
- Wrote article published in 2000 in St. Anthony Messenger magazine
- He is a blogger for the Huffington Post; has written five articles for them
  - I'm sure if I were to run it through a Lexis search, I'd get many more. These are just the ones I was able to find using Google. So no, he is not a "very ordinary lawyer." Neutrality^talk 09:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to have been mistaken. I'm also happy that the article is starting to be well referenced. I am very happy to withdraw this nomination. I;d have done so earlier, but I was otherwise occupied. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyaprajnananda

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

Can't find sources establishing notability, and the organisation he founded, "Viswatma Chetana Prishad", seems to even less likely to be notable. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom says it all. Per nom. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:00, 22 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Van Goey

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

Procedural nomination of PROD contested without explanation by anon user. GiantSnowman (t c)'s original PROD reason was "No evidence of notability, fails WP:NBAND". —Darkwind (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder, I see no evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Giant Snowman 15:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does, in fact, appear to meet NBAND - but needs massive overhaul to bring up to scratch. Giant Snowman 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage, artist fail both music criteria and general guideline. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums released on Chemikal Underground, an artist biography from Allmusic, reviews of their albums in independent reliable sources. Satisfies WP:BAND. The article requires some cleanup, however. — sparklism ^hey! 10:16, 25 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperia (epilepsy)

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

This article is original research and synthesis. The userpage of Japal1950 (talk · contribs) provides his credentials; the identity given matches that of the author of the [only] three results on Google Scholar for the search 'hyperia epilepsy'. Of the 27 citations, 10 are to his own work, and the rest are pure synthesis. In the lead we have the large red flag "The term hyperia is a neologism proposed to name this newly differentiated cerebral activity". I thought that perhaps some of the content could be incorporated into creativity and mental illness, but after more careful reading I don't see anything that's worth moving. Really wondering how this made it through WP:AFC. Maralia (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism and OR. Nominator's reasoning is persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains some interesting information, but given that the term is a neologism (which I have verified), we really can't have an article with this title. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's author posted the following note on my talk page; I am pasting it here for reference. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons because I think it is necessary to maintain the neologism ´hyperia':
I fundamented the decision to crate a neologism on two reasons: firstly, the fact that this innovative hypothesis entails great consequences which will constitute important changes in different neurosciences: neurology, psychiatry, neurophysiology, etc. Basically and summarizing, it is necessary to differentiate clearly and distinctly hiperic activity from epileptic activity, since the first one is physiological and the second one is pathological. So, hyperia and epilepsy are two concepts necessarily different.
Secondly, there are many different denominations to allude to psychic automatisms that are the subject of our investigation: aura, partial seizures with quantitative consciousness preserved SPSs), non-convulsive seizures (Hirsch & Jirsch 2007), non-convulsive behavioral seizures (Pontius & Wieser 2004), etc. Some of these terms induce to confusion (v. g. aura) and other ones are not exactly synonymous. So, the most quick and practice solution to finish with this confusion is terming these automatisms with substantive hyperia or adjective hiperic, in such way that when we say or read hiperic manifestations immediately we know to what kind of manifestations are we referring to: unexpected depersonalization without apparent reason, or a sudden déjà vu, or a devastating panic attack, or incomprehensible alternations of manic-depressive phases, or sudden hallucinations and delusions accompanied of brilliant clairvoyance, etc. --Japal1950 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete is OR + Neologism + COI. This research is interesting but WP is not the place to publish it. Doc Elisa ^✉ 19:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an interesting conception, and I hope that Japal1950 will stick with us, because our psychiatry articles are often missing very basic information or stuffed with some real nonsense. But I don't think that it's desirable for this idea to be present until some independent sources have published good descriptions of this specific idea. It needs more time and attention in the real world before it appears here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are no secondary sources. Delete per non notable.--Garrondo (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article looks like it is associating epilepsy with spiritual or religious matters. While this is creative, I don't know where it is heading, and that worries me. My understanding is that this article could be about drug use or unseen mental trauma causing epilepsy. Original research belongs in Wikiversity, but if there is a questionable motive or if this is not scientific, it doesn't belong there either. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons of Japal1950 to think that Hyperia must be not deleted: 1.Hyperia fulfils the conditions required by Wikipedia about "original research", since it uses reliable sources. Indeed, it is an investigation theorizing a new cerebral function based on: a. Eight articles of the author published in Scientific Journals of impact, belonging to different independent international Editorials, in which the author explains the scientific investigations that lead him to elaborate this hypothesis. These articles have deserved more than forty citations by part of other authors. b. Two monographic books about this matter published by Editorial Trotta, a Spanish independent editorial. c. Many bibliographic references from authors who write about the same matter, on which the hyperia’s author bases his hypothesis. 2.Being hyperia a new cerebral function proposed y the author it is logical to propose also a neologism to term this activity delimited just now. Furthermore, we think is useful a new term to denominate this hypersincronic activicty because: a.Firstly, the fact that this innovative hypothesis entails great consequences which will constitute important changes in different neurosciences: neurology, psychiatry, neurophysiology, etc. Basically and summarizing, it is necessary to differentiate clearly and distinctly hiperic activity from epileptic activity, since the first one is physiological and the second one is pathological. So, hyperia and epilepsy are two concepts necessarily different. b.Secondly, there are many different denominations to allude to psychic automatisms that are the subject of our investigation: aura, simple partial seizures with psychic contents, non-convulsive seizures (Hirsch & Jirsch 2007), non-convulsive behavioral seizures (Pontius & Wieser 2004), etc. Some of these terms induce to confusion (v. g. aura) and other ones are not exactly synonymous. So, the most quick and practice solution to finish with this confusion is terming these automatisms with substantive hyperia or adjective hiperic, in such way that when we say or read hiperic manifestations immediately we know to what kind of manifestations are we referring to: unexpected depersonalization without apparent reason, or a sudden déjà vu, or a devastating panic attack, or incomprehensible alternations of manic-depressive phases, or sudden hallucinations and delusions accompanied of brilliant clairvoyance, etc. References: Jirsch, J & Hirsch, L.J. (2007) Nonconvulsive seizures: Deceloping rational approach to the diagnosis and management in the critically ill population. Clinical Neurophysiology 118: 1660-1670. Pontius, A.A. & Wieser, H.G. (2004) Can memories kindle nonconvulsive behavioral seizures in humans? Case report exemplifying the “limbic psychotic trigger reaction”. Epilepsy& Behavior 5: 775-83. --Japal1950 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may or may not be a useful neologism to introduce, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Wikipedia:No original research includes:

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."

JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JohnCD. I call close per WP:SNOW. --B2C 19:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Japal1950. I agree with the remaining comments: Wikipedia is not the place to house hypothesis of hyperia. The readers interested in know about hypothesis of hyperia can visit http://www.newpsychiatry.com/ Japal1950 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Warfield

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

Fighter fails WP:NMMA, WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE with zero fights for top tier MMA promotions. LlamaAl (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No top tier fights. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the top tier MMA fights for WP:NMMA and no WP:SIGCOV outside WP:ROUTINE for his fights to warrant outside notability. Mkdw ^talk 10:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA with no top-tier fights. Nothing else about him suggests he'd pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Notability demonstrated by significant coverage from multiple third party reliable sources. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Newell

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

Fighter fails WP:NMMA and possibly WP:GNG with no fights for top tier organizations. LlamaAl (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Fails WP:NMMA because he has no top tier fights and WP:GNG because all of the sources are routine sports coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to Keep. When I looked through a bunch of the sources listed I found nothing but routine MMA coverage. He still fails WP:NMMA, but Luchuslu's sources show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have the top tier MMA fights for WP:NMMA and no WP:SIGCOV outside WP:ROUTINE for his fights to warrant outside notability. Mkdw ^talk 10:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. As it states, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Please point out which of the 14 sources, besides his Sherdog profile, does not pass that criteria? Luchuslu (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to outside routine but when refining my search I focused on non-MMA related publications and have decided to change to keep after I found this New York Times article. This may be a case where the athlete's notability is not their record in top-tier MMA which is what WP:NMMA focuses on, but notability outside that guideline for a unique personality in the sport. Mkdw ^talk 07:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Newell is the first any only congenital amputee to win a title in any mixed martial arts organization. He's had full feature stories done about him on Yahoo Sports and USA Today twice just to name some. Luchuslu (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You don't see one-armed MMA champion every day. There are lots of articles about him so he is clearly notable. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Yunshui 雲‍水 13:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adonis hakkim

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

Delete, fails notability standards and appears to be a copy and paste recreation Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I CSD it this morning. It was deleted and recreated. Have CSD it once again. Promotional unreferenced biography of a living person....William 13:48, 21 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Haroon Al Azhari

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

Non-notable Islamic cleric of South Africa. Sources cited do not verify the content of the article at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:BIO, apparent autobiography. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is n author of islamic articles and books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.150.71.62 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC) — 41.150.71.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Verfiable Sources - http://ridhwaan.co.za/2013/02/21/sheikh-sayed-haroon-al-azhari/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayedrm (talk • — Sayedrm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. contribs) 04:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTBIO. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Simple case of {{db-bio}}. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Self-published sources do not add to notability. Can't find anything independent. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources on which to base an article. The promotional language is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems like an advertisement from his Facebook fans. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2013 (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. To stay with the terminology, WP:GNG is the senior guideline and with the latest references the subject clearly meets the general notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De728631 (talk • contribs)

Mykayla Skinner

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

She fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. GAtechnical (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Though Skinner has reached senior status at a young age, she hasn't competed (or achieved) at the highest level required to meet WP:NGYMNASTICS criteria. Neither has she had sufficient news coverage (apart from a student article) to meet WP:GNG. In fact this article is based largely on a copy-paste of a failed AfC draft. Sionk (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1. She does meet general notability. For instance winning the American Classic as a junior. There is no requirement to be a senior when doing so (for general notability). For that matter being a US National team member is general notability. She also had at least two press pieces where she was the headliner. See here and here

2. The Ngymnastics was created without any significant input from Wikiproject gymnastics (which is dead). That criteria is way too restrictive and not comparable to us allowing every minor soccer player to have a bio. I disagreed with the policy when created and was the only person writing gym articles who commented at all on that policy (it was written by someone who does not write gym articles).

3. I started the article without even knowing about the failed AFC (see history) so it was an independent judgment from an experienced content creator to start this article. The only reason for pasting in that AFC content (once found) was that it was such good addition. Note, that the delete voter is the one who failed the AFC, and that I had pasted on the talk page of the attempted creater that they had had good content.

4. Take a look at this youtube as well. And puh-leeze...I am NOT saying citing youtube from Dad is OK. ~~But if that interview and footage was broadcasted as a news story, I could cite the broadcast itself (even if it is not a web viewable source...)~~ [It was broadcast by NBC in Arizona and the clip is on the web and can be referenced now.] Oh...and first in the world, peeps! Girl is going to be the next McKayla Maroney [be impressed ;-)]. You heard it here first. ;-)

TCO (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI four of the six criteria of WP:NGYMNASTICS require success at senior level. This is consistent with other sports notability criteria, which generally discount junior sportspeople. As for the USA Gymnastics website, its purpose is to record US gymnastics. The fact Skinner has a page there is hardly proof of her general notability. Sionk (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that notability GUIDELINE and it was drafted without ANY input from people who watch gymnastics or write Wiki gym articles. The average person here thinks all the Albanian house league soccer players and all the Arena League benchwarmers are inherently notable. That is because they are male in into football/soccer. But they don't realize that women's gym is covered nationally by NBC (heavy female audience). Skinner was on NBC national TV when she won the 2011 American Classic.

USAG only has bios for the top people (national team members are a dozen or so). That is the very top of the pyramid. There are probably 100,000 girls doing competitive gymnastics. But they only show the top members.

And as far as age, DUH...this is a sport where the participants often perform better younger!

TCO (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I really like you...you are a nice guy (serious, I spied you). So don't take what I say to heart. I am a gnarly ex-permabannee. Brush off anything I say...you are sweet.

P.s.s. Don't make me canvas in the ARS. (I think canvassing is a silly proscription.)

P.s.s.s. I mean...I just did an article on Victor Wallace Germains...and intrinsically Skinner is way more Q-factor than that dude. But you know his bio will stay. (Should I nom my own creation to be pointy? could be a fun troll.)

Based on your comment about women's gym, is it worth notifying WikiProject Women's sport about this? Zappa O Mati 06:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets wp:gng: coverage in arizona republic [20]; east valley tribune [21]; passing coverage in examiner [www.examiner.com/article/routine-of-the-day-mckayla-skinner-makes-history]; [www.examiner.com/article/but-wait-there-s-more-from-mykayla-skinner?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next]; in addition to The Universe. spread. what would be the point of deleting an article, to just create it when she makes Olympic team? to validate rules? how very pointy. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 03:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man...and the lady who does the gymnastics examiner is very professional (a stringer for the Seattle Times). Cut above your average Examiner. Also, there is Gymnastike...which is now part of a paid site covering gym, track and field, etc. With full time paid employees doing the reporting (kid you not).TCO (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Farmbrough's revenge, there was no intent to be pointy when I nominated the article. GAtechnical (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine, i'm more into the Teleological rather than Deontological. i'm not a big fan of nominating an article minutes after creation of an experienced editor with no wp:before. but then that's the toxic culture we have isn't it? WP:SNOW? Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 04:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources available meets general notability(WP:GNG). WP:NGYMNASTICS is notability criteria that an article can meet instead of WP:GNG not as well as. This is made clear in WP:GNG. Quote "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Am finding a few more nuggets of notability. She had a headlined article in Huffington Post Teen (a rerun of the Universe bio, but shows interest from another periodical). Also an article from the Arizona Republic. Am adding to article along with some other minor upgrades.TCO (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze medalist on vault in 2012 Senior US Nationals. While this is technically "not meeting NGYM" that is just because of how NGYM is incredibly restrictive: the AA champion is the only person at nationals who gets notability (just one person...while every single Arena League football player is automatically notable!) Also, I would definitely argue via WP:COMMONSENSE that since the US is the #1 gymnastics power and also the largest part of the Anglosphere, it is pretty darned notable for En-Wiki to get bronze at Visa Championships on an event.TCO (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just sayin', but AFL players are usually notable under WP:NGRIDIRON (unless it's af2), so I don't think the AFL comparison works here. Zappa O Mati 06:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not paying attention to my point. I know the Ns support those different takes. I am saying the Ns are silly and not consistent. Those NGRIDIRON or the like are just different things written for different sports. The Gym one did not even have participation from gymnastics article writers. You are just pointing to a rule, when I am making the simple point by comparison that the two rules make no sense next to each other. One is overly permissive and one overly restrictive.TCO (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with TCO mean the guidelines under N for academics is stupid. From those guidelines if you have a degree and lecture at a Uni then hey, welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry didn't know Wiki was meant to be a database for really not very notable people who will always pass GNG due to the Uni's own website. Feel though that TCO should take this to a talk page somewhere because in my mind it's obvious that some groups are being favoured over others. GAtechnical (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking anything "to a talk page". We are right here, babe. You have slapped a tag and a ticking time bomb to an article I started. It is inhibiting work being done further. Instead of looking at the Ns, look at the basic criteria for notability. Sunny already explained to you that those rules are not the only ones that apply. General notability does also.TCO (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking it to talk as you've been whinging like a bitch about it. An AFD will not resolve the clear issues that you have. Or are you just scared that you'll be shouted down? GAtechnical (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted discussion of Mykayla Skinner

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have taken the liberty of notifying WikiProject Gymnastics about this AfD due to the NGYMNASTICS debate. Zappa O Mati 17:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Repeated keep, finding even more main stream media coverage~~. A websearch shows 47 webpages from The Arizona Republic and Channel 12 News. The Arizona Republic is the number one paper in the state of Arizona with circulation of 300,000+ (the number 16 paper in the USA). Channel 12 is an NBC station with news emphasis and the number 1 or 2 station in Phoenix. It is transmitted statewide. Both properties are owned by Gannet (a huge media conglomerate) and administered together as azcentral.com on the Internet. (Note on geography: Arizona is a state with 6.5 million people, the 15th most populous state of the Union. It's not some western wasteland.)

Here is the websearch for Mykayla Skinner on azcentral.com: [22]. Although there are a few duplicates, there are still so many pieces of solid content that there are more than I can actually use. At least on the first couple screens, the stories are giving her prominent feature, either solely on her or on her as one of a small group of people. Here is an example of Skinner getting 3 minutes of state-wide live TV coverage on the major news channel of Arizona: discussion and performance of the double double layout.

Skinner also had two full length stories in the East Valley Tribune which has a circulation of 100,000. See here: [23].

There are also some outside Arizona mentions. Small Associated Press mention wrt 2012 US Nationals as well as some other pre 2012 Oly mentions She was in the mix to make that and got press...women's gym is a top billing sport at the Olys. Also coverage breaking for her on the double double layout as well as being a candidate for the 2-girl (from US) American Cup squad in spring 2013, the 4-girl World Championships squad in summer 2013, and for the the 5-girl Olympics squad in 2016. Sources include Gymnastike (a site with full salaried administrators/reporters), the Italian site Olympic Blue (Google treats as "news"), About.com, and Gymnastics Examiner. (Note: these are additional to the already mentioned coverage by The Universe, Huffington Post and USA Gymnastics (the national federation). But really there is enough from just large-sized MSM coverage in Arizona, that I don't see the need to assemble every little straw of defense.

I'm going to be the better man and not get into the "scaredy bitch" flame war.

TCO (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You !vote-ed above the relist, you're not supposed to vote again. You can present additional examples why, but adding reams and reams of excess content only serves to annoy the closing administrator when having to render a policy based consensus. Hasteur (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said "repeated keep" to make it clear that it was not a new vote. Most of the above is new things I have found.TCO (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Coverage appears to be concentrated around her hometown, with no substantial mentions in any national or international forum. The only mention within the article of international coverage lacks a citation, "In early 2013, Skinner became the first female to perform a double-twisting double layout on floor exercise". Even if cited, this skill does not demonstrate notability as it was not performed at a world championships nor an Olympic games, and thus the skill is not yet officially recognized by the FIG. --IShadowed (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is state-wide, not home-town. There is also more limited national coverage as well as a single international story (Italy). The DTDL has several citations (you have to read one to two sentence further down). Yes, she does not have FIG credit until/unless performed at Worlds or Olys, but this is not the same as lack of notice (clearly she is getting media notice for the skill). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 February 2013

State-wide isn't substantial coverage for an senior elite international gymnast, either. The national news articles seem to only mention the fact that she competed at certain meets, and the DTDL won't be specifically tied to her until she performs it at a higher level of competition. --IShadowed (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see a breadth of coverage from multiple sources—some international—that show that she meets WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep passes WP:NGYMNASTICS.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2013 (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 SOFT DELETE. Because of low community involvement in this discussion will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 18:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DesignInquiry

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

I've declined a CSD A7 on this, as there is some brief coverage in Eye Magazine here, but I don't think there's enough significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to sustain a full article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organisation. i also believe it fails WP:42, as pointed out by Ritchie. Bailo26 22:49, 21 February 2013 (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 rough consensus is to keep this page. Any concerns about the quality of the article and whether it should be merged may be addressed through the normal editing processes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceramic_chemistry

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

Subject matter nonexistent KingSupernova (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More than enough WP:RS exist to write a detailed article about the chemistry of ceramics, including: The Chemistry of Ceramics (Wiley, 1996), Chemical Processing of Ceramics (CRC 2010), High temperature chemistry of inorganic and ceramic materials (Chemical Society, 1977) and the older Ceramic Chemistry (Davis Bros., 1912). I agree with comments on the Talk page that the article as it is currently written has serious issues, but it may still have WP:POTENTIAL were it to be rewritten; quality problems can be surmounted by ordinary editing. My concern is that the topic may not be sufficiently differentiated from material already covered in other articles such as Ceramic, Ceramic materials and Ceramic engineering to warrant a separate Ceramic chemistry article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full agreement with your suggestion that it's not sufficiently differentiated, and it should be covered in the other articles you note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎

Speedy keep - ceramic chemistry doesn't exist? Bullshit.[24][25][26]. A concern about whether this merits a standalone article is irrelevant: this AfD is trolling, very bad faith and should be incinerated. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if it is correct to add comment under other's comments, so please excuse me if not. This link [27] is not support, as this is the commercial site of the person who created this Wikipedia article, and spammed other articles with the same, simply to promote his business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎
this link also does not add support as the title is 'The chemistry of pottery' whereas this article is 'Ceramic chemistry': clearly related but is not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎

Keep Both Mike Agricola and Lukeno94 have demonstrated multiple reliable sources that go in depth on the subject of ceramic chemistry. Looking at the article and talk page comments, it is clear that the article mainly discusses one aspect of ceramic chemistry, which could be considered a non-neutral POV, but there is nothing preventing folks from filling out the article with a more general approach. In short, the topic is highly notable and the article problems surmountable per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, which suggests that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - it's a dreadfully badly written & flawed article .. and it rambles all over the place. Also, as has been noted by many people the article was created by an individual (who also spammed many other articles) to promote his commercial activities. What is classed here as 'ceramic chemistry' is part of the accepted disciplines of ceramic science and ceramic engineering. Existing Wikipedia articles, that include pottery, ceramic and ceramic engineering, cover the subject far better. 'Ceramic chemistry' is not notable given its inclusion in, the widely accepted terms, listed in the previous sentence. The removal of this article is simply a useful & valuable tidy up of material with no value: a bit of house-keeping. Should parts of this be considered of value (and potentially there's little, if any) then extract & add to the existing, superior articles & delete this mess.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎
Keep. The article has some issues, especially the concentration on Raku. However, chemistry of ceramics is very inherentrl notable topic (per others, plus my experience...it is not a random combination of things). TCO (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish, if this IP was going to canvass people, they'd sign their posts properly. Being badly written and flawed is not a reason for deletion. The ONLY reason for deletion given by the nominator was that this subject matter doesn't exist: which is utter, utter bullshit. I've nuked the Raku section entirely, as it doesn't belong there. There is little or no evidence that it was created by just one person - I see three different accounts that have contributed majorly: 2 of which are SPAs and may be the same person, but the other has contributions outside the article. An article being promotional is not a grounds for deletion unless it was unrescuable - and this one was rescuable. By the way, for people whom didn't study Chemistry or Physics, glass is a ceramic, as is pottery (why the hell, mr IP, are you arguing that the Chemistry of pottery is not part of the Chemistry of ceramics?). AfD is not cleanup, nor is it for merger discussions. That's what the article talk is for. Hence why this AfD should be closed ASAP. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "I wish, if this IP was going to canvass people" If you mean me then I have not canvassed anyone, (2) "There is little or no evidence that it was created by just one person", there is plenty of evidence, and this has been presented by other people. (3) "glass is a ceramic" this depends who is consulted. The classification of glass as a ceramic material is common in the US but less so in many other places. Many consider crystalline content to be a key part of ceramic material, and of course this would exclude glasses. I make no claim as to who is 'right' and who is 'wrong', but the inconsistency in definition means it is not possible to make such a definitive statement, (4) "why the hell, mr IP, are you arguing that the Chemistry of pottery is not part of the Chemistry of ceramics?" I did not, and (5) please could you not address profanities to me; this is both rude and unconstructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 18 February 2013‎

Hard to merge, better to leave alone. I looked at the other mentioned articles and a discussion of ceramic chemistry would not fit well in the existing articles. (And I am very much a merge-ist.) Even though what we have is not beautiful, would just leave it alone as half-built Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013‎
Support - many faults and beyond rescue. And in respect of a preceeding comment re. the authorship: swearing is unnecessary, and the following clearly demonstrates that the article was created by a spammer promoting his business{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonywhansen} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.208.163 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing is unnecessary, yes, but it is also valid in a case when the nominator has claimed this subject doesn't exist. That's the entire grounds for this nomination, hence why the AfD should be closed... The chemistry of ceramics is notable, and the article is definitely savable - I nuked the irrelevant stuff; the relevant stuff can be sorted. I can validly state this is savable - look at the history of Valmet 361 D to see how I fixed a much, much worse article than this one. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your reply to 115.87.208.163: profanities are rude and unconstructive. And your defense of it is certainly counter to assuming good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.226.123 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2013‎

Strong support - an article created by a spammer on an unrecognised discipline that is awfully written and full of errors. And we are debating its deletion??? BTW - ceramic engineering is the recognised discipline, and university courses include: France [28]; India [29]; Korea [30]; Philippines [31], [32], [33]; Thailand [34]; UK [35], [36]; USA [37], [38], [39], [40]. And ceramic chemistry? None — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.226.123 (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm assuming none of the IPs here have ever studied Physics and Chemistry... Also, every single one seems to be ignoring the fact that the nominator claims it doesn't exist, which is the sole grounds for nomination, thus this should've been closed. I'm concerned by the similar formatting of the IPs as well (the fact they all use support/strong support, and none of them sign their comments). 194.126.226.123 has completely ignored every single source in this AfD: and made completely irrelevant comments about the fact it doesn't have its own course (that would be because it is a module, or within a module...). 115.87.208.163 has made irrelevant comments about the original author of this, since the original author hasn't edited since 2011, and nor have any of the "alleged socks" edited since then, therefore this article is perfectly fixable. 203.163.103.7 makes partially, at least, incorrect statements about glass (I'm British, so don't try throwing in the "only Americans think this" point) and fully incorrect statements about pottery (which is blatantly a ceramic by any definition). I suggest the IPs read WP:SURMOUNTABLE as pointed out by Mike viking, and realize that articles have been fixed from far worse states than this - see my comment about Valmet 361 D. Anyone claiming ceramic chemistry doesn't exist is ignoring all sources presented here, let alone logic, and there are plenty of reliable sources presented by myself and Mike Agricola (no, I'm NOT arguing the spammer's website was a reliable source, I only presented that to show this subject matter exists!) to show the notability of this. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm assuming none of the IPs here have ever studied Physics and Chemistry" You have now moved from the use of profanities to belittling people's academic backgrounds. This is also rude and unconstructive, and, in my case at least, incorrect.
"incorrect statements about glass" This is wrong. As stated previously the classification of glass as a ceramic material is common in the US but less so in many other places. For example: Glass not included: (1) EU - the Combined Nomenclature defines ceramic products as “obtained by agglomerating (by firing) earths or other materials with a high melting point generally mixed with binders, all of which materials have been previously reduced to powders or, from rock fired after shaping. Firing, after shaping, is the essential distinction between ceramic products and mineral or stone articles, which are generally not fired, and glass articles in which the vitrifiable compound has undergone complete fusion”, (2) UK - BS5416 defined ceramics as “materials generally made from a mixture of clays and other materials, distinguished from glass and glass ceramics by the fact that they are first shaped and then rendered permanent by firing at a temperature generally in excess of 1000oC.”, and (3) Even Wikipedia recognizes that a crystalline content can be a key part of the definition of ceramics, and hence glasses are excluded - “Because most common ceramics are crystalline, the definition of ceramic is often restricted to inorganic crystalline materials, as opposed to the noncrystalline glasses.” Where as for glasses to be include: (1) US - ASTM C242 defines a ceramic article as “an article having a glazed or unglazed body of crystalline or partly crystalline structure, or of glass, which body is produced from essentially inorganic, non-metallic substances and either is formed from a molten mass which solidifies on cooling, or is formed and simultaneously or subsequently matured by the action of the heat.”
"I'm British, so don't try throwing in the "only Americans think this" point)" I do not understand why you being British is relevant.
"fully incorrect statements about pottery (which is blatantly a ceramic by any definition)." No idea; I have never stated that pottery is not ceramic.
I'm very concerned about your attitude, which is to insult and swear at those who hold a different view to yourself.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk • contribs) 20 February 2013‎

My attitude is one of pure annoyance at people whom have downright ignored everything I've provided here, even before I became a bit combative - remember, my original comment was simply to show that the nomination was completely invalid, which it definitely is. Deliberately misquoting me by removing words from my sentences doesn't help (I said "partially, at least, incorrect statements about glass" - not incorrect statements) and my comments about people's backgrounds are simply because if you do have a physics or chemistry background, assuming it's not totally the organic side of chemistry, you'd know ceramic chemistry was notable. If the US are the only country to view glass as a ceramic, it still belongs there, just mentioning the fact that only the Americans view it as a ceramic. My point about being British is that a lot of people would try to deviate from the topic by saying something irrelevant about Americans trying to own everything (or words to that effect). Also, was it not you who made the statement "'The chemistry of pottery' whereas this article is 'Ceramic chemistry': clearly related but is not the same."? If so, they're not the same, but they are still related and, as such, belong in the same article. Another example of ceramic chemistry is in ceramic exhaust coverings, where a ceramic is applied to improve heat dissipation and thus keep the exhaust cool - I haven't found a truly WP:RS on it, but it's been mentioned in Evo magazine, and here: [41]. I know it has its own topic at Wikipedia, but it's still a branch of ceramic chemistry. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Luke as well as [42], [43], [44] that describe ceramic chemistry, not just ceramic engineering. Diego (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - non-notable & unrecognized. IF this article contains anything good then add to the other, much better, articles mentioned (ceramic engineering, pottery, etc) GeoffreySuchart (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that, but the content does not really fit well in those articles. It is too much of a technical discursion. Actually look at the articles and think how to merge the content.TCO (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's keep this discussion civil and discuss the merits of the subject only. J04n(talk page) 11:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject is notable and there are primary and secondary sources as provided by users MarkAgricola, Diego and Lukeno94; I'll add this notable book, published by Wiley in 1986, to the list of primary sources: "Science of Ceramic Chemical Processing" [45]. The subject is relevant and there are a plethora of peer-reviewed books (see [46]), researches and experts in this very field. As a side note, the title of the article should be renamed to Ceramic Chemical Processing as it's a more accurate and scientific depiction of the topic. Toffanin (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied that sources for the chemistry of ceramics exist, and am somewhat taken aback by the suggestion that it somehow doesn't exist at a topic. Whether this article is redundant to or should be merged with ceramic engineering is beyond the scope of an AfD discussion. I would also point out that "Support" opinions are ambiguous; we usually say keep if we wish it kept, delete otherwise. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 21 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 05:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Zarkadakis

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

Appears to be a mostly self-aggrandizing article which only cites self-made sources. Suspect this was created by the author himself, but even if not, the person is not notable. Tommyhall2 (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Negligible independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Leaning towards a delete, with the proviso that I'm not confident in assessing non English-language writers. At the very least, it needs better sources. Deb (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madura Station

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

In Australian English, a "station" - see Station (Australian agriculture) - refers to a large pastoral area business, typically one where beef cattle are raised for market, and some stations cover more area than that of small European nations. Some small stations are historically notable, despite their size; some stations are notable because of their size. It would appear to me that there is no indication of notability of this particular station. It's just a farm business, and does not pass the tests for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Shirt58 (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third largest sheep station in Australia (and most likely the world) also most likely historically significant, if it's not notable you best start nominating the rest of the list for deletion. Here's a link for you to get busy with - List of ranches and stations Hughesdarren (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your comment is not a valid argumentation as per WP:ALLORNOTHING and so it will be ignored by the admins. Please, provide independent sources for the aforementioned claims about historical significance of the station. Toffanin (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Second largest station (ranch) in a country of extremely large stations is significant. It does seem to pass WP:N as at least one in-depth Sydney Mail (now part of The Sydney Morning Herald) source was found after a brief search. [47] --Oakshade (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant station, well-sourced article. No basis in policy on which to delete. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the largest sheep stations in Australia with a 137 year history. This article has been developed with further sources since nomination to demonstate that it surpasses the notability threshold and I'm sure there's a wealth of further information on this pastoral lease in dusty public archives that could be added.--Melburnian (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article contains much trivia. Just because something was in the newspaper doesn't mean that it's sufficiently notable for an encyclopaedia. If we keep the article, we might consider pruning it a bit. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced article about a subject that is clearly notable, as is shown by the large amount of third party coverage over a sustained length of time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - as the starter of the 'List of Pastoral Leases...' project, the excellent expansion of the articles by the editor on stations in Western Australia has gone relatively un-noticed. Considering the power of the pastoral industry in australia in the past, the historical relics of the pastoral industry are in themselves all notable, each one. If one considers the precedent issues and arguments of the Australian places project criteria of notability for named places, and of the trains project criteria of notability of railway stations, the issue of stations/ranches - should be firmly established as notable. In Australian terms - stations/pastoral leases - specially due to their context in land management terms, are of significance due to their size and their identification within the landscape they are a hell of a lot more significant than a 2 house town with a name, or a disused railway station - a 'marker' of land use, land condition, and ecological status of parts of western australia. In short, what The Drovers Wife above says. sats 00:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a Western Australian, who took one of the photographs selected by the author to illustrate the article, I think that it is an interesting one, about a subject that's notable, at the very least because of its size, longevity, and extreme isolation. I agree that the article needs a bit of pruning - I would omit the paragraphs about the floods and fires, but the comments about drought should be left in, as should most of the other material. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As outlined by the previous editors this article (altough containing some superflous material) provides sufficient independent references to justify its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though not to encourage stubs Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2013 (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. I would be happy to userfy it to anyone who asks on my talkpage. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jilla

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

At this point, the film fails WP:NFILM, no third party reliable sources indicate the project has entered principal photography stage. PROD was removed without explanation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy since the film will enter principal photography in a couple of months anyway.^King Jakob _C2 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no shooting news. -- Dravidian Hero 19:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out some actually significant coverage? There are a number of links to gossip and rumors, but no actual coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or Userfy for a short while. The planned film DOES have coverage in reliable sources, but not nearly enough to qualify as an exception to WP:NFF. Topic is simply TOO SOON for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Michael. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was about to close this as userfy to User:Bothiman/Jilla, but noticed that it's pre-dated by Jilla(2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Upon closing this discussion, the article could be redirected to Vijay (actor). Because of the related article, there may be attribution issues which need addressing. -- Trevj (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for a redirect of a film, wouldnt the logical target be the director rather than one of the stars? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I was just going on this version. -- Trevj (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wait till it comes out. Even though components may be substantiated too many things can change from start date to release date.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... to be fair, for pending films that are sourcable but do not quite meet requisites for WP:NF, we do have options other than outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 27 February 2013 (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 Lotus (Christina Aguilera album). (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cease Fire (song)

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

I do not believe that this song is notable on its own. All 13 songs from the regular version of Christina Aguilera's Lotus album now have articles, with "Cease Fire" being one of the last few. WP:NSONG says a song may be notable if it has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". But it's Lotus that was the subject of the sourced articles: I don't see that this song has independent notability outside of Lotus. The background section is quite similar to the one for the album and many of the songs from it, and the reception section quotes exclusively from articles reviewing the album as a whole (these are frequently in "song-by-song" format, which provides material for all 13 songs). The South Korean chart cited in the article has 200 slots, and all 13 songs plus three of four bonus tracks from the deluxe version charted the week the album was released (the fourth that didn't chart was a remix of "Your Body", one of the regular tracks). "Cease Fire" was the lowest charting of these at number 189, on sales of only 1,707 digital downloads. (Only four of the 16 songs charted in the top 100 that first week, and only one of the 16 charted the next week.) If it had made the top 100 there might be an argument for this to be notable, but it didn't.

Whether the lack of independent notability means the article should be deleted (redirected to Lotus?) or some details of the song merged into the album's article, I don't know. Can every song on an album—in this case, one that was given a mixed reception and had only moderate success—truly be notable? If not, then I don't see a basis for this song to have an article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion

Honestly, I can't see why the song has been in discussion for being deleted or redirected, because the Development section is very excellent, explaining many things and the reviews of the "Critical Reception" section, talk about the song itself, not the album as a whole. And, it doesn't matter if the song has charted at #189, it has charted and the article is relevant. FanofPopMusic (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at this article section by section, here's what I found:

'Background' - this content is background for the album, not this individual song. If the article is kept, this section should be removed (or merged to the album page if there's any new info here).

'Development' - Deezer is cited twice, but the link says "Deezer's music services are not yet available in your country"; I am unable to verify anything in this section, including the quotes (Google comes up with no matches).

'Composition and lyrics' and 'Critical reception'- there are roughly a dozen or so sources cited in these two sections; none of them offer in-depth (more than 1-2 sentences of) coverage on the song. I also note that some of the citations are iffy - for example, this article says "It is a rock-tinged song", but the source calls "Army of Me" (another song on the album) a "rock-tinged" track; there is no mention of "Cease Fire".

'Chart performance' and 'Charts' - peaking at #189 on a single singles chart doesn't keep with the spirit of WP:NSONGS #2, in my estimation.

For me, the bottom line is that the dozen or so reliable sources that discuss the song each contains trivial coverage; that does not equal in-depth coverage, so the song does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The closest it comes to meeting WP:NSONGS is where it states: "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". That may be satisfied here, but since all of the mentions seem to be within the context of previewing or reviewing the album as a whole, I'm leaning towards redirecting/merging to the Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) page. Gong show 07:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The song lacks the indepth and signifiant coverage required for WP:GNG. I didn't see anything in the article that wasn't more than a trivial mention. The size is not convincing, as the background section is irrelevant, while the critical reception section has been bombarded with quotes. As the nom states, the song isn't the subject of the sources but rather the album is. Till 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - To be honest, to nominate this detailed article for deletion is moronic and personal. How is this not notable? It meets all points of GNG. Aguilera spoke about the song specifically, and a lot of critics wrote about it. BlueMoonset, it is not actually essential for a song to have charted, it is just a bonus. There is no rule saying that songs which chart between 101-200 are less notable than 1-100, that is your personal opinion. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are out of your depth here. It's actually quite embarrassing. And Till, so you think that songs reviews within an album review are just trivial? Explain your thesis to me please. Because if everyone had your view, I'm pretty sure that Critical reception sections would be near enough non-existent. — AARON • ^TALK 17:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I'm frankly getting tired of your characterizations: "moronic and personal" is both wrong and a shocking failure of AGF. I have no animus toward you, and have had virtually no interaction with FanofPopMusic, whose article this is. My nomination was based on my perception—for many of the reasons Gongshow has expressed above (though less well articulated by myself)—that the song does not seem to be notable on its own. I may be wrong in this, but if so it's an honest error, and based on experience with a number of AfDs that have affected articles submitted to Did You Know (DYK). This article seemed to me to have more questionable notability than some that were deleted or merged, which led to this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly could have fooled me with how you don't really seem to listen to what I say and how you suddenly seem to be everywhere I go on Wikipedia. How is it not notable on its own:

Background and recording shows how events which she experienced influenced all of the songs she recorded for the album, as well as the recording and production process.
Inspiration sections is Aguilera giving her reason for why she chose to record the song and what meaning it has, relating back to the Background section (although to be honest, I could expand this).
The Composition and lyrics section details the structure of the song and further details the lyrics of the song and what it pertains to.
The Critical reception section is made up of so many critics reviews of the song. For an album that didn't do that well, a lot of people wrote about it.
The charting further adds to notability, although it is not a full requirement of GNG. Chart position has no influence over "notability", it doesn't matter if the song charted at 1 or 200. If you look around Beyonce and Rihanna articles, you will find that a lot of songs chart between 101-200 in South Korea, US, UK, across Europe and Australia.

I just completely fail to see how you think this does not pass notability guidelines or is not notable? Have you looked at the four guideline points? A lot of articles don't have this much information, for a singer to talk in depth about one song is very rare. If anything, this makes it stand out more than generic music articles. A lot of singles don't even get this information conveyed by the singer. I've been working on music articles since July 2011 and dedicated a lot of time to it, I know what flies and what doesn't. If I didn't think this was notable, I wouldn't have created it. Hence why the three bonus tracks from Lotus, which charted, do not and will not have articles, purely because next to no critics wrote about them. Perhaps now you can see why you have caused me great frustration. — AARON • ^TALK 20:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the song charted at a mediocre position which nobody cares about. Secondly, the information from Christina is not indepdendent of the subject, and thus doesn't have any effect towards the notability. Thirdly, the background section isn't even about this song, it's complete WP:PUFFERY to make the article bigger than it needs to be. Fourthly, the critical reception section has been bombarded with quotes from critics to also make it look bigger than it needs to be. This information should be merged into the article about the album because none of the information here is indepth and significant. Clearly, it's ok to merge other people's work into other articles and not give a rat's *** about that, but when it comes to their own article it's a complete different story. Till 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But which position has no relevance, there is no rule saying that 101-200 are not worthy, don't you understand that? Yes, Aguilera's information does affect notability: people who write these music articles want the singer to have spoken about it. You can't get better knowledge and insight about the song than from the singer direct. The background pertains to both the Inspiration and Composition sections, as did all the songs. The songs came about as a result of the Background. I don't mind re-writing the Critical reception section, as the original does have a problem with just using quotes, but still, that would not affect length. There is too much information here for Lotus. And Till, I hope you are not basing your argument on your personal experience with LilUnique and "Come Alive" and bringing it here because you are angry about him AFD'ing some articles you wrote because you AFD'd one of his, as you have certainly made it sound like it with that statement. I wasn't even involved with what happened between you too, and I didn't find out that he had AFD'd your articles until it was too late. I only knew about "Come Alive" because I am very involved with Lewis' articles. I don't really understand why you are saying "Clearly, it's ok to merge other people's work into other articles and not give a rat's *** about that, but when it comes to their own article it's a complete different story." when you decided to Merge those two articles anyway and effectively agree with LilUnique half way. — AARON • ^TALK 23:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry, after all the article was rightfully meged into the album. And so should this one too. Till 00:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sound it. And no, this one shouldn't. There is a lot more info than the two you had. I've already proven the notability in the 5 points I listed above. It's not my fault if people want to be blinkered and incompetent in their wrong and warped decisions. A very weak case has been presented, and I have highlighted the weaknesses and flaws of thi suggestion of deletion. — AARON • ^TALK 00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just basing my vote on policy. With all the respect I have for you, I do not think there is much justification to separate this from the album article to be honest. Till 00:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the policy is overruled here as the article meets all parts of the four guidelines at GNG. There is a lot of information here for a non-single, many don't receive this much. Wikipedia is about creating and maintaining an ever growing encyclopedia, and this article is an example. As I keep saying, but no one is listening or taking note, it meets the guidelines and is notable. Basing your opinion on policy isn't a valid answer, as the policy and guideline goes against what you are saying and what this article does meet. — AARON • ^TALK 00:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree 100% with AARON, I really don't know how a well-written article like that may be deleted, because as Aaaron mentioned, many singles don't have the information that this article has.

I live in Brazil and the "Deezer" website is working and I would never made up any word that she said.
It is not necessary to add a new Background for every song, if you look for "Rihanna and Beyoncé singles," you will find the same background, which is normal, since it shows how the album was done and how the song was part of it.
And the chart position is not a considerable point of discussion, because "many songs from Rihanna and Beyoncé" has charted under the 101-200 position, as Aaron previously said.

FanofPopMusic (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares where you live.
It is not necessary to have a Background section at all. This is nothing more than WP:PUFFERY and bloating.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. Besides, the Lotus album article can simply state 'Cease Fire peaked at number x on the South Korea chart' which is more than sufficient.

None of the content in this article is significant coverage and it should be merged into the parent album accordingly Till 10:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the background was removed, even though it is relevant, there it is still a notable article. You statement "'Cease Fire peaked at number x on the South Korea chart' which is more than sufficient." is nowhere near acceptable. There is a lot of information here. Face it, you and BlueMoonset have shown yourselves up by advocating for a notable article to be deleted. This article does have sufficient information, more so than a what lot of non-singles have. Major epic fail on your parts here. Even if I had of had nothing to do with article before, all my comments here would have been the same. You've got such double standards, all because of what happened between you and Lil-Unique. — AARON • ^TALK 12:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, why are you so rude, Till? I only said that I live in Brazil because you questioned the Deeezer website reference, and I only told you that here in Brazil is working. I never thought that Wikipedia was a place of rudeness and unkindness. FanofPopMusic (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was the one that brought up Deezer, and stated only that I could not access the site and therefore could not view/evaluate the quotes. I made no claims as to the site's (or any user's) integrity. As for the "Background" section, my point there was that I don't think we want to get into the habit (or, at least, I don't) of having virtually word-for-word identical "Background"s for each of an album's 10/12/15+ tracks. Such content, in my opinion, should generally be specific to an individual song; otherwise it's better to simply put it in the album article. Gong show 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. In my mind the notability test is still the question: has the topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Looking at the number of references, I actually thought for a moment that this pretty clearly was notable based on that test. However, once I started looking at those sources in more detail, it became apparent that few of those sources mention this particular song more than very briefly, some of them don't mention it at all. Based on weighing the amount of coverage devoted to this song specifically, it's pretty clear that the article fails that notability test.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that the reviews don't talk about the song itself?? The Slant Magazine, 4 Music, Billboard, Pop Crush, Idolator and Popjustice reviews talk about the song solely. This is really happening? Are you really reading the reviews properly?? OMG! FanofPopMusic (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slant Magazine has exactly ONE sentence about this song. 4Music has four, sort of. Billboard has three. That's not significant coverage.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge (with redirect). The discussion here from the three people uninvolved in this article—Gongshow, Till, and Carabinieri—confirms my initial impression and reasoning that the song is not notable on its own, separate from Lotus. I rather expect that this also applies to a couple of other articles about songs from this album—no one has yet commented on whether all songs from a typical top-ten album generally deserve their own articles, and if not what makes this album special as to warrant all of its songs getting the treatment—but this one seems to me to be very clear. (I do wish the Deezer source, material, and its treatment of the album and all the songs, had been available in the US or otherwise searchable so it could be evaluated, but it's out of my reach.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I have looked at FanofPopMusic's improvements, and while the entire Background section (about Lotus) has been removed, the new phrases do not affect my !vote or overall analysis. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just improved this article and it's way better now! Check it out! FanofPopMusic (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you've put into the article. However, it doesn't address the problems being discussed here. It doesn't change anything about the lack of significant coverage in sources independent of the article's subject. Those opposing this nomination have yet to provide evidence of this article's notability - that makes this whole ordeal rather frustrating.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've considered FanofPopMusic's statement above as a reason to relist this AfD and encourage more !voters to consider the changes made to the article. At the same time, I should request specific editors to not make tendentious statements to other editors. I'm watching this page and would request you to argue, not abuse. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect, I guess. The article shows no independent significance of the song apart from a quote from Aguilera, which must be supported by substantial third party coverage. Of course in an album review the writer is going to comment on the song. A truly standalone song article has album review sources backed up by sources that only discuss the subject in question. This article lacks such coverage owing to unreliable sources, repeated information and overquoting. Much of this information can be incorporated into the composition section of Lotus (Christina Aguilera album), since this article does have more info than "Best of Me" (Christina Aguilera song) (also at AfD). —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have looked at the article since my earlier comments and I think, much like the "Best of Me" AfD, that the song does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Re-writes and editing, in my view, won't help the song to clear the bar unless accompanied by a source or two containing in-depth coverage on the song. Gong show 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Same for all the other non-single Aguilera songs. They're not relevant enough to have their own article, and their information can be easily merged in the Lotus article. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 10:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Every song on an album does not need an article. Charting at #189 in South Korea (which most of these songs have done or close) isn't a reason to keep. This information can easily be merged into Lotus. — Diva Knockouts 05:13, 28 February 2013 (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. With tremendous regret, I might add. Fortunately, you can still read all about this particular celebrity at User:Orangemike, should you be so inclined. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael James Lowrey

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

While I am a big fan of Orange Mike, with teh sources presented he is not a notable person worthy of his own article, I note some of the sources are based on Attack pages and also use wiki as a reference. That being said Orange Mike is an awesome admin and his work here is very appreciated by myself and others. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure he's notable... Though it wasn't very courteous to nominate this just eight minutes after its creation. That said, The Political Graveyard entry counts as one, plus some first-party sources. But it may require some cleanup. Keep ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike might not be notable as a Wikipedian, but look towards the political side. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a google search [[48]] and Google news search [[49]] gets nothing..I'm sorry but in this case you are off base on this one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have found more if you searched "Orange Mike Lowrey"; but still fails WP:N. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Hong Kong? Try searching Michael James Lowrey and trust me, you will get more. Middle names do matter ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah I am temporarily trying things out in HK. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did that however it still doesn't prove notability it's a fairly common name and if you review the results none really raise the bar to notability. I guess we just have a fundemental disagreement, you have oseveral days to add sources though so I will check back and if that changes I will happily withdraw the nom but as of now I don't see any reason to do that sorry Bonkers. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Mike is the Michael James Lowrey. I was about to vamp up this article after creation, but it got tagged for deletion too quickly. Never mind, I will work things out. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable minor politician, labor activist and Wikipedian. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol we still love ya here mike! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Hell in a Bucket-we still love you here and you are respected! Thank you for all you have done especially at WikiProject Wisconsin-13:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I enjoyed reading about Orange Mike, but he's not notable by Wikipedia standards. --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has to be the funniest AfD ever. Even the subject himself has said twice: I am not notable! Haha. Yet this discussion continues. Mike's a great admin, with a lot of humility. I thought this was an Ashton Kutcher Punk'd episode. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of my appreciation for all the hard work Orange Mike (and all other admins) do, I can't see that this would get past WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. And as a courtesy since the subject has requested the deletion as well. Maybe too soon? Maybe if more politicians were like Wikipedia admins things would be better... although sometimes they'd lock the door to the state capitol with the wrong padlock... and then burn it down... um, well maybe not <g> §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - it's pretty clearly established that the desire of the subject not to have a Wikipedia article about themselves does not mean that the article should be deleted (unless, of course, you're a billionaire who "married" your own daughter, want that fact suppressed, and are willing to sue the Wikimedia Foundation into bankruptcy if they don't delete it). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know, but if we're already going to delete the article, we can always say we were nice about it :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teachable moment - Specific entries in Political Graveyard can be direct-linked, i.e. here. Dru of Id (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy; perhaps it is too soon and the subject of this article will be elected to a position which meets WP:POLITICIAN guideline, however I have not found any significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources where the subject is the primary subject of the content sufficient to show that the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be a piss take on Sarah Stierch's article surely?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clown creates an article about a man who dresses all in orange? Begone, already! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What?! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begone with that unsubstantial argument! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A heavily bearded man with a love of all things orange and wearing a fez is definitely notable on wikipedia. We love you Mike! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call an argument with substance. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If List of heavily-bearded, fez-wearing men with a love of all things orange existed, I would surely support Mike's inclusion there. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Is that really allowed? --76.189.111.199 (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This piece by The Law Society Gazette devotes an entire article to Mike. Surely that's something. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying and I think that it definitely makes for interesting reading but the level of notability isn't there, not yet, he may indeed end up having notability if there can be more like this but I think this is the most solid resource we have in my opinion. I do admire your tenacity and admire your conviction. Thank you Bonkers you are a good contributor here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the subject matter of the Gazette article; I just happened to be the admin who was trying to explain Wikipedia policy on corporate autobiographies; Wikipedia was the subject of the article (as it should be). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 27 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of conferences on cloud computing

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

I am rather flexible in what I will accept as passing NOT DIRECTORY, but this is a prime example of what the rule was designed to eliminate. Of the conferences listed, none of those specifically on cloud computing are notable--the only ones that have Wikipedia articles are general conferences of programming. If there are notable conferences on this subject, a list might be appropriate, but the first step is to write the articles on them. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: notable and interesting. Sources to expand.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the conferences on cloud computing (as opposed to general conferences) on the list would pass the WP criteria for stand alone articles so absent any with own article the list fails. In addressing Knight of Infinity claim of "interesting" please look at WP:ATA. LGA _talk^edits 23:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the items on the list aren't conferences on cloud computing, and once you edited them out you'd be left with mostly non-notable entries, as LGA says above. To produce an encyclopedic article, we would need information on the conferences, sourced to reliable independent sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as half of the items on this list aren't notable in and of themselves. It seems like a pointless list. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 12:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (The Mindy Project)

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

This page doesn't have any information that is not covered in The Mindy Project. Babar Suhail (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. This seems to be almost CSD#A10, except that it was created last December. It's hardly a plausible redirect, and there's nothing worth merging. -- Trevj (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A brief synopsis of the episode would be nice, but even that wouldn't get it past WP:GNG. –TC N7 JM 01:33, 1 March 2013 (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 History of Hartford, Connecticut. J04n(talk page) 12:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Founders of Hartford, Connecticut

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

List only supported by a single cite and most of the people don't appear to be notable (see WP:Listcruft). I'd suggest a merge with Hartford, Connecticut or History of Hartford, Connecticut. FallingGravity (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Hartford, Connecticut. The topic of the founders of Hartford (although not necessarily all of their names) is worthy of coverage in the encyclopedia, but I don't see anything to indicate that it merits its own article. History of Hartford seems like the right place for this content. FWIW: I edited this article a few years ago, after finding backlinks to it from other articles that described various people as descendants of one of the Founders. The topic of the "Founders" is one that gets third-party attention, even if the list does not. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second Orlady's merge suggestion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2013 (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 withdrawn for now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure characters

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

The bulk of this article that I removed from the page is content that is redundant to the character lists included on the individual character pages, making it essentially a content fork. While several individual character articles exist and they are also in poor condition, they should not be merged with this one (as falsely cited by the person who removed my prod weeks ago), and instead merged with the article on the volumes they appear in. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calathan has since reverted my removal of the redundant content. Note that the various sections are identical to the sections on Phantom Blood, Battle Tendency, Stardust Crusaders, Diamond Is Not Crash, Vento Aureo, and Stone Ocean, except the sections on the other articles are properly formatted. The article was never updated to include content from Steel Ball Run (which I recently added because it was absent from both pages regardless). There is no reason to have this content fork.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Keep - Character lists for notable fictional works are regularly kept at AFD, and I see no reason why this one should be an exception. Also, I think this should be kept per WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list to access information on all the characters. While a lot of the information in the article is currently redundant with information in other articles, I don't think that is any reason to delete the page. It makes sense to have one article where you can easily access information on all the characters in the series. To avoid redundancy, either this article can just link to the character sections in the other articles with character information, or the other articles could link to sections of this article. If the information is kept spread out in a bunch of articles, that seems like a very good reason to keep this list around as a navigational list, and certainly not a reason to delete it. Also, I think it was inappropriate to remove almost all the content from the article before starting the AFD, even if it was redundant with other articles. Nominating an article for deletion while simultaneously making it something very different from what it was before just doesn't seem like proper procedure to me. Calathan (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was a bit hasty. I will self-close this and spend some time fixing the article up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:28, 21 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 05:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14-cinnamyl 3-acetyl oxymorphone

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

Contested speedy, the article (in a very technical tone) claims it is a substance structurally related to both oxymorphone and heroin, but even though is is not widely used it is 200 times stronger than morphine. I don't see a reason why this content should have its own article within wikipedia, if there is a parent article it should be incorporated, but notability is the real concern in there. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete According to the Oxymorphone article on opio.wikkii.com, this is a real drug, with the cited reference J Exp Ther. Pharm. (1964) 174–182. I'm unable to verify this reference; it is the only one I found. Unless more reliable sources can be found, this article falls below notability thresholds. As this is a derivative of oxymorphone (there are apparently many such derivatives; drug chemists are endlessly inventive), it would make sense to merge it with the Oxymorphone article. As an aside, smart addicts stay away from such potent derivatives; it's way too easy to overdose. --Mark viking (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to identify any journal "J Exp Ther. Pharm". The closest I can find is J Pharmacol Exp Ther. If that is the intended journal name, then the reference is referring to J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1964 174-80, Pilocarpine Blockade of Spinal Inhibition in Cats. (PMID 14163990) which doesn't seem relevant. I would not trust the info at opio.wikkii.com -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this reference. I agree, just from the title, the article doesn't look relevant. I have changed my recommendation to delete, as there now seem to be no reliable primary sources for verifiability. --Mark viking (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge - as a very basic rule of thumb, if it has a full chemical name, complete with numbers, it's probably not yet notable enough for its own article. It exists, and thus belongs in the Oxymorphone article. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable source that verifies that "it exists"? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oxymorphone Delete, not sufficiently notable for separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote per Ed's convincing argument about only source that had been brought up.--Staberinde (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Do not merge content. It is inaccurate and/or unverifiable. I am unable to find this chemical compound in any chemical database searching either by the given chemical name or by chemical structure derived from the name. The content of this unreferenced article is dubious and entirely unverifiable. Merging the content into oxymorphone would be a bad idea unless someone can come up with reliable sources to support it. Other articles started by the same editor as this one have similar problems. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the author of this article is confused with 14-Cinnamoyloxycodeinone? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, no merge, no redirect. There is no evidence from reliable sources that this compound has ever even been synthesized. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failed to be verified on reasonable efforts; likely inaccurate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2013 (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. Secret ^account 05:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Incredible Crew sketches

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

This is listcruft--a list of summaries of non-notable things based on nothing. Look at that reference while you're at it: it's not a reference. We're not a fan site for some TV show. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References don't even seem to relate. Notability not established. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a good sign when I've never even heard of this show on the CN schedule. Nonetheless, so much 'type what I see' recaps of sketches it's doubtful this can be formed into a coherent article in any way. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 1 March 2013 (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. With all respect to Mr. Knapp's accomplishments, the arguments that this is a case of WP:BLP1E are convincing, and have not been substantively rebutted. Several people advocate retention on the basis of WP:IAR, but that too is a weak argument in light of that policy's wording, which is: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It is not apparent to me (and the people making this argument would have had to show) how exactly the rule that we don't cover people known only for one event would in this instance prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. A clear rationale for why IAR should apply would have been necessary particularly because the policy whose derogation is being advocated, BLP1E, is part of one of Wikipedia's core policies, WP:BLP. The article has been userfied as requested. Sandstein 11:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Knapp

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

With all respect to Justin Knapp, who is an excellent Wikipedian, I believe that this is a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Merge~~ or Redirect. It´s one event, and kind of too trivial to be notable. Mentioning the "Special Barnstar medal" and the "Golden Wiki" in the article appears very Wiki-internal and just strenghten the feeling of trivia. With regards Iselilja (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Striking out delete. Merge or redirect to History of Wikipedia, 2012, per my comment in the relisting section. Iselilja (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC) - Changing again, to delete or redirect. Sorry for the back and forth, I am not so familiar with considering other options than delete or keep. Iselilja (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I bow in awe to his accomplishment, but yeah, delete per nom. One event isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1E does not apply here, considering the massive amount of coverage Knapp has amassed. I list just a few sources quoting him:

That said, you can't just simply ignore the staggering coverage, can you? Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Still, it's pretty clearly a case of BLP1E--even if 40 papers did publish a story on the event. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This fat dude known only for one event has his own article -- thanks to evidently strong and overwhelming coverage, very much like this case. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 14:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERCRAP is strongly deprecated as an argument in deletion discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whereas essays like WP:ATA should be largely ignored and my point is no less valid. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Bonkers. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: While I feel that the delete arguments are significantly stronger, I'm not ... quite ... convinced there's a policy-based consensus given the keep rationales and the lack of any discussion of alternatives to deletion (policy). --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request Prior to deletion, please move to User:Koavf/Justin Anthony Knapp. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but who said anything about deletion? Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mind deleting that cut-and-paste move? Obviously Koavf can have the page userfied if it gets deleted, but there's no sense in having an out-of-date copy lying around, especially when it's an attribution violation. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly If it gets deleted (and it appears that it won't for now), then please use the actual move function immediately prior to that in order to save the edit history. Thanks one and all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is absolutely no policy-based argument to keep this page. It is clearly WP:BLP1E, he is a low profile individual only covered by the media because he reached 1,000,000 edits, and let's not compare the significance of reaching 1,000,000 Wikipedia edits to the murder of a Beatle, BUT for the first time in a deletion discussion I am invoking ignore all rules! Come on, we're Wikipedia, he's the first to reach 1,000,000, leave the page. :) J04n(talk page) 11:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side note apparently the handle "koavf" isn't only reserved for Wikipedia. [57] Don't know what purpose it serves though. ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 (Nonsensical Babble) ☯ 12:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A-ha! More like BLP:2E, now Koavf is a UN speaker?? ☯ Bonkers The Clown 卐 (Nonsensical Babble) ☯ 12:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only because I may brag for having the idea to create the article in the first place ;-) but also because I think we shouldn't be too strict in applying the rules; I definitely agree with J04n in this case :-) --Itemirus (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Secret ^account 03:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More policy based arguments please, IAR and creating the article aren't policy based. Secret ^account 03:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what IAR is for. To not mention policies. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:IAR is a policy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The UN speaking gig didn't attract any coverage in reliable sources, and there's no indication (and it seems unlikely) that his editing milestone will have any lasting impact. Pburka (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UN's website itself counts as an RS. Besides, this is an exceptional BLP1E. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states that 1E is only for low-profile individuals – does Koavf count as low-key? Also there's no need for "any lasting impact". What we have now (more than 40 rses) is already enough. WP:NTEMP! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UN website is a primary source, and Koavf is a low-profile individual outside of Wikipedia. If his speech at the UN had been notable it would have been covered in independent sources. Lasting impact is required to distinguish between news and encyclopedic topics. I don't think that an individual reaching the one-million-edit mark is a significant event: it was bound to happen eventually. Is this more notable that the one-billionth iTune download? Pburka (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if necessary, citing WP:IAR. There is an absolute tonne of coverage here, and some of it goes beyond *just* being about his 1 million edits - a lot of interviews with him, the Justin Knapp day started by Jimbo is also sort-of its own event as well. International coverage as well. Ironically, Wikipedia editors seem to be very active at trying to delete their fellow Wikipedians' articles - I've seen a couple of these sorts of AfDs, one of which was blatantly notable outside of the Wiki. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J04n, and because the subject apparently^{[citation needed]} shares a birthday with Kirk Hammett and me! -- Trevj (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): IAR has no bearing here at all. The article is pretty awful and there's little, if any, room for expansion. Probably best deleted, but there's a possibility of merging this into one of the trillion Wikipedia sub-articles (e.g., History of Wikipedia). --MZMcBride (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we're going to IAR, we should create articles on everyone else mentioned here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage seems to be multiple, independent articles and interviews, rather than say one AP/UPI article regurgitated endlessly. I think he has become a sort of second face of Wikipedia to the world now. BLP1E doesnt have to apply, as some 1E's are rather big. this is not that big, but is enough. 2 more reasons: he appears to be locally famous in his home state, and as an IAR, his public image and accomplishment may attract more editors, while us deleting his article for borderline reasons may discourage new editors unfamiliar with the arcana of notability, but disappointed we cannot honor our heroes in this small manner.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for merging. I inserted one sentence about the 1 million milestone in the Wikipedia history, 2012 section, where I think that information is meaningful. If the Justin Knapp article is deleted, we could add a few biographical notes, but I don´t think we should expand the history article more than that. I am not familiar with the merging concept, so I don´t know if such a brief mentions counts as merging? As for Ignore All Rules. That rule specifies that a rule may be ignored if it is necessary for improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Thus, one may ignore the letter of a rule, to adhere to another and more fundamental principle of Wikipedia. But in this case, I don´t think we have seen which fundamental principle ignoring the rules of notability would favor. IAR is not a carte blanche card to ignore all rules simply because it´s cool, nice or may be good PR for Wikipedia. The background here is also that we have people on Wikipedia each day who are frustrated because their favorite, cool person or thing is not considered notable. In this respect, this case may be a test on whether the community is able to hold Wikipedia related articles to the same standard that we normally hold articles on other topics. Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Surely BLP1E *doesn't* apply as he's notable for his Wiki day in addition to the number of edits? They're linked, but still separate. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the references are from between April 19 and April 23, 2012. It's one event. He hasn't received any significant coverage in reliable sources, since then, demonstrating that the event did not have any lasting impact. Finally, I point out that WP:BLP1E suggests that the normal way of dealing with these articles is to merge the biographical information into the article about the event. What would we even title that article? Pburka (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the dates of the references are irrelevant - you can have two different events on the same day, for goodness sake.[58] - July 2012. [59][60] were May 2012. I stand by my point that it's almost certainly 2 events - the Wikipedian Day, and the edit total. The UN speech, although minor, should in itself tip this into being more than a single event. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you're proposing that Justin Knapp Day and Justin Knapp's one-millionth edit are completely unrelated events, and you believe that they're both notable events which make the individual notable? These convoluted arguments for inclusion (BLP2E, BLP3E, IAR) are really just a form of WP:ILIKEIT arguments. This article is news at best, trivia at worst. Pburka (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Kindly explain to me how they have to be completely and utterly unrelated to be separate events? I'll give you an example, a professional athlete appearing in two matches, one of which was a qualifier, the other of which was a heat. Knapp's 1 million edits are blatantly notable, and pass WP:GNG by a million miles. And the Justin Knapp Day is almost as well covered. The events are related, but no more so than a lot of others. And I'd never heard of this guy before the AfD, and think the article itself needs improving. But he's notable, for two events that pass GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does pass WP:GNG, however it also meets the criteria for what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not news. This event has no enduring notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS. Writing a biography of a person who was only involved in a non-notable event (or even several non-notable events) is a violation of both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. If the event or events he was involved in were notable then we should have articles about the events and include Knapp's info there. Pburka (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not show that WP:BEFORE has been followed, or the applicability of WP:BLP1E except that the person is living. The claim that applicability is "clear" without defining the "event" creates confusion. Without evidence to the contrary, we WP:AGF of the editors who did the work of creating the article. Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can persuade me that he has received serious press attention. What I'm seeing is some very limited and ephemeral attention. Most of the attention appears to be from blog-ish sources, and I don't feel that is sufficient to establish notability. Everyking (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are talking about some forty over sources citing Koavf. BBC, Indianapolis Monthly. Not notable? Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Dot, gizmodo, United Nations. Not notable? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The long list of sources at the top of this page is not persuasive to me, because I see only a few that could perhaps establish notability. We routinely delete articles about subjects that have gotten much more attention than that. The first article you mention is the one from the BBC, but that article only mentions the subject as part of a list of Wikipedians—he's clearly not the focus of the article. Everyking (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Or redirect as Iselilja suggests. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Exceeding an arbitrary edit count isn't really a notable event. Most of the sources focus on Wikipedia, rather than a biographical account of Knapp. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 17:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - Non admin closureEduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ciano-Collins

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

Appears to be an article about two author himself and is suitable on the user page no as an article Ajayupai95 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is already speedied under A7 criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:37, 21 February 2013 (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 Christopher Dorner. The history will remain intact incase anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 12:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorner Manifesto

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

We already have articles on Dorner and the shootings themselves, the manifesto hardly needs a one-liner without references. This can easily be merged in with either the article on the shootings or on Dorner or both. Go Phightins! 01:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. No need to AfD. Pburka (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~only~~ or delete. The Dorner article already has a better section on the "manifesto".--I am One of Many (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep there is much to be written. If merged, there will be constant warfare about too much detail. This article has the potential to be greatly expanded. Article quality is not a criteria for deletion. Lack of notability Is. The manifesto has been cited in many more places than many Wiki articles.Bamler2 (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kaczynski's unabomber manifesto is almost infinitely more notable and it is relegated to a section in his article, so I think there is more than enough room in the Dorner article to write about his manifesto.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard and valid wikipedia retort:other crap exist. Also, maybe nobody wanted to write a detailed unibomber manifesto article? Also tell that to the many Obama subarticles which could easily be and are summarized in the Obama article? Bamler2 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, are you seriously comparing Dorner's notability to the President of the Unites States's? Ego White Tray (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reference some of the Obama subarticles, not the main bio.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)<:<smalclass="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NEW INFORMATION..Awhile ago someone put in detailed manifesto info into the shootings article according to that talk page. It was removed Therefore, there Needs to be this subarticle.

Redirect or delete - Not sure what will come from the manifesto but biased speculation about Dorner? ex: "cited commentary about the manifesto" What makes analyses of the manifesto notable? Including photos of unrelated basketball players don't help the argument that the article should be kept. Discussing "allegations regarding Dorner's termination proceedings" would be appropriate for inclusion in the article about Christopher Dorner. Manifesto is discussed in Christoper Dorner article and in the 2013 Southern California shootings article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

break

Delete - I suppose it could be redirected, but the articles Christopher Dorner and 2013 Southern California shootings may themselves be moved or renamed (discussion now ongoing). The manifesto is not currently worthy of an article of its own and it is actually covered better at the Dorner article than it is in this stub article. Any further comment can be added there, but IMO we should avoid giving this "document" any more attention than it deserves. If, as Bamler2 suggests, the manifesto section becomes too large for the main article (which I personally doubt will happen), it can be split off then. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply redirect. No independent notability. --Lambiam 12:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

full of notabity and citations but the article is written like crap. This is because nobody is going to improve it with a gun to their head, which is what an afd is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: improving an article during an AfD is the best way to save it. I have saved dozens of articles that I found at AfD and improved to the point where they were kept. Of course, if the subject is not notable or encyclopedic to begin with, no amount of rewriting will save it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

different approach, I see. please feel free to improve it. I will do so after it passes afd. otherwise hard work is wasted while others laugh at you. — Preceding unsigned 2| (alk • contribs) 04:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

promise if kept, I promise to improve the article. If I don't't, I promise to pay a fine.Bamler2 (talk)

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. Secret ^account 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NCircle network security

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

Company is a run-of-the-mill IT security company. Not the subject of multiple third-party news sources. Seemingly was created by a paid editor. I already removed a significant amount of PR fluff and press release material. Another non-notable company that does not meet our general notability guidelines. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References to corporate directories, press releases, and Top 5000 lists do not establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if deleted, then shouldn't Wikipedia systematically delete all of nCircle's competitors as well for consistency's sake? run of the mill IT security companies don't secure $60 million funding rounds from Visa and Menlo Ventures and hold numerous patents (I have seen $1m seed fund rounds get feature coverage in Mashable and TechCrunch -- the endless list of "sexy" startups that get ample wikipedia leeway i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_companies). Another thing. Note that the article does not attempt to rely on the Inc. list and other criticized sources to prove its notability. Please also balance against the "reliable" sources. If nCircle is "run of the the mill", then a major overhaul of all Wikipedia articles is necessary to avoid the arbitrary and selective bias against particular companies in this space. Just take a look at all of nCircle's competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_security_companies. nCircle is one of the largest companies out there: by revenue, size, funding, patents, experts. Regardless of who I am or who has asked me to write the article, it is difficult to see how the article has been written like an advertisement and the conflict of interest policy states: "Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia. The claims are about as sparse and factual as can be at this point. I now fear that Wikipedia might be exacting a penalty for companies that don't have that sexy start-up cache — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saidkassem (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (leaning towards, at least) i added 1 link showing who founded the company, and wikilinked all mentions of nCircle to this article. unfortunately, its not much, and the Business Insider ref is NOT in the top 100, but specifically one of the businesses THEY didnt know enough about. so, if Business Insider ever does get enough info to list them in a top 100, i would say recreate without prejudice. This business may in fact be more notable or even important than some other similar businesses, but i have to go with what we have on them thats confirmable. to saidkassem: WP:OTHERSTUFF explains why your main argument all alone is invalid (though the arguments about the size of the business are somewhat compelling). if another article here doesnt meet notability, improve it or call for its deletion. If i could create articles based on fact that since each pokemon character has its own...well, i need to watch my blood pressure on that comment.

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- and the fact that Menlo Ventures, Visa and friends invested a total of $60 million in the company? This is a confirmable fact that should in itself end the case about whether a company is notable or not. And yet all I see here are a slew of "deletes" without anyone seeming to want to weigh this fact specifically. Your opinion is appreciated nonetheless --Saidkassem (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have not found sufficient significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources to indicate that the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. The subject may receive significant coverage, where the subject is the primary subject of what the source is written about in the future, but right now it is my opinion that it maybe too soon for the company to have a Wikipedia article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the $60 million dollar investment round has been confirmed without a doubt. How does this not meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability? Thank you for your observations, however. --Saidkassem (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the value, or the amount of money that a company can spend that establishes notability as Wikipedia defines it, but the notability guidelines. Please read them. As I stated in my opinion, the subject of this article lacks what I consider to be significant covreage from non-primary reliable sources.

If other editors wish me to change my opinion please provide logical arguements, and I maybe persuaded. Also please provide the reliable sourced significant coverage that is the foundation of those arguements.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to the notability guidelines. It seems they are designed to have admins evaluate notability based on meta criteria more than anything. # of sources, reliability of sources over the facts being asserted, for example. So far I have been arguing about a fact: the size of company. But the truth is that this article meets all the primary criteria related to the quality of sourcing, which s what seems to matter most in Wikipedia's notability guidelines: "significant" coverage, reliable sources, independent sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Notice that it doesn't state how many articles are needed to fulfill the definition of "multiple source"? Right now the nCircle page is working with 11. Is that not enough to satisfy "multiple sources"? 11? The San Francisco Times article was written by an independent journalist and goes into detail about the company. Of all 11 sources, not one is a press release or material issued from nCircle. The more I look into this, the more troubling I am finding this process, and it makes me wonder if Wikipedia admins are prejudiced against PR professionals who get tapped to write these articles. Let's evaluate the work, not me.--Saidkassem (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can comment at AfDs, not just administrators. Looking at News sources, the majority appear to be pr releases. I see there are some sources that talk specifically about the company itself, and not its products, but so far, I have not seen significant coverage, but multiple mentions. I am presently of the opinion that those multiple mentions at this point do not yet add up to significant coverage. If Saidkassem believes they do, I ask the editor to provide examples.

As for PR professionals editing, I kindly refer the editor to WP:COI, and the ongoing discussion as to whether PR professions fall within those considered to have a COI.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company appears to fail WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. A search of Google News Archive found mostly press releases (including some items that appeared in apparently reliable sources such as Reuters, but were disclaimed by Reuters as press releases). I did find one item from ABC News about the company acquiring another company but this does not amount to multiple significant coverage. BTW the claim at the article, that the company was listed as one of Business Insider's "100 most valuable private companies in the world," is not supported by the reference provided. [61] Business Week said they didn't have enough information about the company to evaluate it, and in any case, that listing was not of the "most valuable private companies in the world" - it was "the most valuable private digital companies in the world." This sort of exaggeration does not speak well for the good faith of the article's creator. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I note that the article was speedy-deleted on February 15 under G7, "author requests deletion," but was recreated on February 18. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now restored that deleted history, at least for the duration of this debate. The same creator created an earlier version of the page, then blanked it. I found the blanked page while doing Short Pages patrol, and G7 deleted it, as is my normal practice in such situations. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clonadrum

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

Non-notable townland without special features. Fails WP:GNG as most Google hits (abt. 5.6k) are about racing dogs and racing horses. The Banner talk 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a townland shouldn't hav' its own article unless it's noteworthy in some way. ~Asarlaí 17:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:15, 21 February 2013 (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/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 00:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although populated places are considered notable, a "small area" at the "side of the road" isn't. Disclosure - my paternal great-great-grandfather was born in County Clare, but that hasn't influenced my opinion here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable place. Snappy (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 12:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Xing Mi

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

No indications that this person meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Only references given are to his own websites (or those of his employer). Google searches reveal nothing of note. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page as I know the person very well, I studied with him. He is a very famous master and former athlete in his field, probably the most well known in Europe; he's been written about in many magazines (see press book from his employer website www.shaolin-wushu.it/press.htm) and featured on documentaries on Discovery etc. Shaolininfo

Comment Much of what is included at Shaolin Wushu Italy's press book are articles and books written by this subject, not about him. What remains are some images of articles that are too small to really evaluate, but appear in part to be advertisements for the subject's appearances at various events. To be fair, at least some of the material presented appears to show actual coverage of the subject, but the depth of the coverage is impossible to evaluate from these images, and searches for archival material have not proven fruitful. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found part of a Discovery documentary about him ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2CgZygrM9Q ) and some magazine articles pdfs ( http://www.shaolin-wushu.it/outsidemag.pdf ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaolininfo (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary isn't about him, he's mentioned as a Westerner studying under a particular master. The article does me no good since I don't read Italian.Mdtemp (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find significant independent coverage of him or any indication that he meets WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I looked at the criteria supporting notability...

Subject of an independent article/documentary - he is the subject of many articles, see press book and pdf linked above

Founder of notable style (see section intro) - no, however among the foremost representatives of a notable style

Olympic participant or world champion or repeated medalist of a significant international organization; national and international champion in the '80s and '90 in official IWUF organizations such as EWF and FIWUK

Author of significant book(s) on their style; author of a book available on various book stores including iTunes

So it seems to me that he does not meet "at least one criteria" but in fact all criteria required. I therefore don't see any issue with my contribution; I hope the proposed deletion notice can be removed and that I can add more in the future.

Comment Please sign your postings. If he is the subject of many articles please cite them. You mentioned one article above and the source isn't given--I have no way to know if it's a reliable independent source (besides the fact that I don't know what it says). Where is the evidence that he is a "foremost representative"? There are no sources to support claims of national and international championships. Writing a book does not mean it's a "significant" contribution to the field of martial arts. I have nothing against this person, but right now all I see are lots of unsupported claims.Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry I don't know how to "operate" Wikipedia very well yet ... how do I sign my name? Anyway regarding your questions, the article linked above is from a magazine called Outside, I also have several articles about him in Kung Fu Magazine (USA) in all the Shaolin Specials between 2007 and 2012 and in Budo Magazine (Europe), there are small pictures of the articles in the website of his school (press book page linked before).

Unfortunately IWUF (the official international Kungfu Wushu federation) does not have national and international records online, especially for the pre-internet era, but everyone in this field knows he was one of the winner of most championships in the late '80s and early '90s in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaolininfo (talk • contribs) 10:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sign your name by typing 4 tildes after your comment. I'm having trouble trying to determine this individual's notability. I looked at the school's press page, but without access to the articles I don't know if they're about the art, the school, or this individual. His book doesn't appear to be notable. As for his championships, "everybody knows" is not acceptable proof of notability. If he's won so many championships, there should be coverage in some independent newspapers and/or magazines. The WP:BURDEN is on the person making the claims to show the subject is notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shaolininfo

I don't understand what the issue or confusion is, at the press book page already linked ( http://www.shaolin-wushu.it/press.htm ) there are dozens of articles about him as can be clearly seen from the photos, with publication date, magazine name (some very notable like For Men, Mens Health, etc). I don't understand what stronger independent supporting material there can be.

My problem is that there's no way to tell if this person has received significant independent coverage. I see several articles on Shaolin culture, pictures of multiple people, articles on his instructor, and lots of things on Shaolin--but nothing that shows he personally has been significantly covered. Plus, even if I had the articles it appears that I might not be able to read them. I'm not saying he's not notable, I'm just saying I haven't seen anything that proves to me that he is. I haven't voted because I'm hoping you can provide some sources (preferably in English) that are about him--not his school, style, instructor, Shaolin, etc. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shaolininfo

If you look at his photo pages ( http://www.shaolin-wushu.it/walter.htm and http://www.shaolin-wushu.it/swgi.htm ) and then look at the small press articles pictures on the press book page linked ( http://www.shaolin-wushu.it/press.htm ) you will notice that most articles feature his photos prominently, often as full page article openers or double page spreads. Obviously although the article pictures are too small to read they are about him, otherwise they would not use his face all over dozens of articles. Furthermore the article in PDF which I found and linked last week (a few comments above) although not in english is clearly about him as his name appears repeatedly in the text and his pictures are all over including a double page opener.

Anyway I've scanned some articles about him I have, only a few and a few pages as I don't have the time to do more however I hope it will be enough to close the issue. I have some in english some in german some in italian, here is the link to 10 pages: http://imageshack.us/g/843/45599117.jpg/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaolininfo (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking with my delete vote for the time being. Most of the articles aren't in English and what is appears to be authored by him, not about him.Mdtemp (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shaolininfo

1) how does your lack of knowledge of languages other than english have anything to do with somebody's notability or the "value" of their work?

2) if someone is asked to author something on a topic as a top expert in that field doesn't that automatically indicate their standing in such field?

3) how does your opinion of a topic and person you by your own indication know nothing about have any weight in assessing such topic /person?

Please consider the above 3 points...

Response 1. It doesn't, except that the burden of proof is on you to show notability and quoting articles that can't be accessed and read is bogus.

2. Writing an article does not show that you're an expert on that field (regardless of the field). There is nothing to show he's written a signficant book that is recommended by people from other styles or organizations (as required by WP:MANOTE).

3. I don't have to be a Shaolin expert, but I do know something about martial arts and Wikipedia. I know that there are certain things you should be aware of, like WP:RS and WP:V.

You also seem to be saying that you can't find coverage of his many championships that "everyone knows" he won in newspapers or magazines.Mdtemp (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response Shaolininfo

1 ... but the articles are visible, some in small pictures (big enough to see his photos all over them) some in high res PDF (I linked one a few comments ago)

2 ... if Kung Fu Magazine (to cite just one of many), the most well known international magazine in that field, for several Shaolin Special Issues asks you to contribute with a big article correlated by your photos in full page (as visible on the press book page linked before), it is fair to say that you must be internationally recognized as an expert in that field

3 ... 1980s and 1990s magazines are not online as far as I know, however it matters little as points 1 and 2 are amply sufficient to satisfy the notability criteria.

Comment Shaolininfo, I would recommend that you stop removing the AfD tag from this article. Also, I caution against removing tags placed by other editors without addressing the issues. Remember that unsourced claims can be removed. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Both Shaolininfo and Mdtemp make valid points. I think this article definitely needs improving (especially the sources), but I think there's enough to make a case that the subject meets WP:GNG. He doesn't appear to meet the specific martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE, but meeting GNG is enough. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just about meets GNG, as links above http://www.imageshack.us/g/843/45599117.jpg/ - [once Shaolininfo transcribes (i) magazine name (ii) article titles and (iii) year/month of issue into ref format please] - http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=1036 etc., although I found 1 solid German print reference to Shi Xing Mi/Walter Gjerga it is the 31st Shaolin Master Shi De Yang (释德杨) who has the notability, if this article is deleted (a third time) then Shi De Yang's annual trips to Italy and Italian "disciples" deserve a second paragraph mention which would be a legitimate way of salvaging some of those links. Most sources for Shi De Yang are in Chinese, obviously. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's too time consuming/complicated. I'll just make a stub for the master, and if this gets deleted then someone else can add the Italian disciples in. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2013 (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 valid issues brought up by the folks opining to delete should be dealt with through normal editing. J04n(talk page) 11:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derwick Associates

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm re-nominating this for deletion because, with all due respect to the editors involved in the last decision, it simply doesn't seem notable and in fact is verging on being an attack page. The bulk of the article is just an attack on the company, and from my examination of the references so far there appears to have been misrepresentation of what some of them actually say. For example one section implies that Derwick are responsible for two power plants being abandoned and non-operational, but the cited reference from El Universal states that Derwick delivered the plant machinery in a timely manner and turned it over to Corpoelec for installation. While it's true that Derwick delivered the plants and that they're not working, the article links one to the other and this is not in fact the case. Most of the other cited references in the "scandal" section seem to come from one journalist who, it is fair to say, appears to have a bee in his bonnet.

A related point in notability is that WP:ORG says "Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline." If it wasn't for the alleged scandal nobody would have heard of Derwick Associates; there appears to be a complete lack of secondary sources talking about anything else. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination was not properly formatted and had not been noticed as a result. I have properly formatted it and transcluded it on today's log. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Derwick Associates has a sizable amount of coverage and the article reflects this. It has been reviewed by uninvolved users in both an RfC and on the RSN and progress has been made. If there are miscellaneous translation issues then they should be brought up on the talk page. I created a section on the Talk:Derwick Associates page, and although it was deleted, I restored it to ask for more concerns about particular sources. The company is a large, multinational corporation with huge contracts and has received much coverage. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline." Derwick do not have huge coverage. In fact outside the writings of Cesar Batiz and Alek Boyd their coverage verges on nil.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because a corporation has a good amount of problems with the law doesn't mean it is not notable. The policy should apply more to smaller companies who may have sued a large company, therefore involving them in a (usually smaller) news source. The notability is there and the independent, reputable sources are covering the company. It is already established that it is a multinational organization and has huge contracts. Dreambeaver(talk) 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it's been established that it's a multinational corporation or that it has huge contracts. It only seems to operate in Venezuela, the contracts it's carried out are huge in comparison to my bank balance but pretty small in the business world, and I just don't see the notability. To me it looks like one journalist (Batiz) has it in for Derwick, otherwise nobody would ever have heard of the company. There are also no indications that the company is having legal troubles, just unsupported claims by Batiz/Boyd.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more applicable section on WP:ORG for you to take a look at would be this: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources". If they were a small company involved in illegal acts, and were only in the news for said acts, it would be more applicable to what you were suggesting (see WP:CRIME). Dreambeaver(talk) 23:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what else are they in the news for?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"pretty small in the business world" - companies of that size are likely to be notable. Peter James (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like an attack page created by User:Justiciero1811 on 20:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC). Derwick Associates has no coverage and is not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry. Based on public records the company is very small and not notable. The press coverage comes from gloried blogs and there are no official sources of information. There is a lack of official sources apart from the blogs talking about Derwick Associates. The alleged scandal seems to have been manufactured by the same blogs. After looking at the Internet Archive, I was unable to find any other information on Derwick Associates that precedes the creation of the blogs Lawson1129(talk) 09:48, 17 February 2013 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawson1129 (talk • contribs)

Note: Lawson1129 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the nominator. Lawson1129 is also checkuser-confirmed as having used used several other sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above. Lack of notability. With all the respect this company is not important or large enough to deserve an entry. The whole article and history looks like a vendetta or attack page. Delete. (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvestflamingo (talk • contribs)

Note: Harvestflamingo has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the nominator. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Lawson1129 and Harvestflamingo are definitely socks of someone, but it isn't me. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When it comes to notability, and bearing in mind that "Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline," can someone show me some coverage of Derwick that even comes close to meeting the criteria?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator: this !vote is from the nominator. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator: Additionally, in case this discussion is closed without further investigation, it is highly suspicious that two user have been created to only vote on this debate and agree with FergusM1970 (see contributions histories of Harvestflamingo and Lawson1129). Their level of involvement and relation to the page is questionable. Dreambeaver(talk) 23:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are problems with tone throughout the article, and I think there is a bit of WP:UNDUE weight on the scandals and shenanigans - mainly because there isn't much detail about other activities, such as the Caracas project. But that's an issue to be fixed by cleaning up the article - and AFD is not for cleanup. Quote all the policies you want, but it's clear to me that this company is important enough to have been noted by multiple reliable sources - and thus is notable by our rules. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page does seem to have been created specifically as an attack page, as there is very little information about the company itself. The timing of its creation is also interesting. Local disagreements between company and employer don't seem to warrant notability.

The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily as an attack page, but one created because of the controversy, maybe by someone unfamiliar with some aspects of Wikipedia policy. Peter James (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't seem to be a fair evaluation of Derwick or its history... Looking at the news reports the article draws on, it's clear that most of the sources involved aren't reliable, and are usually a single person. There are Keep and Delete nominators above that agree with that. We should strive to keep wiki articles clear and fair presentations of facts, rather than mazes of inference and bias. Createmark (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC) — Createmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reliability of sources has already been discussed at Talk:Derwick Associates#Sources. Any specific sources you have a problem with? Peter James (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources themselves seem to be about as reliable as can be expected from a country with Venezuela's issues. What's more problematic are the facts that a) the articles are overwhelmingly the work of one journalist who seems to be long on rhetoric and short on evidence and b) some of the references don't actually say what the article creator is claiming they do. For example in one case the article creator cited a reference to support his claim that two power stations contracted from Derwick still aren't operating. In fact the reference made clear that all Derwick were contracted to do was deliver the components, which the reference says they did in a timely manner. The subsequent failure to install them was someone else's fault, but the article had been written to make it appear that Derwick were responsible. In fact this example is what first made me think the article was an attack piece. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. –BuickCentury Driver 21:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with UltraExactZZ. There is sufficient RS to warrant a page. Also, there appears to be massive fraud in this AfD page from the nominator. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Massive fraud"? Oh please. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From reading over the talk pages there seems to be a lot of hostility about this article. My overall opinion is the article is a mess and has little notability. The sources aren't the most reliable I've ever seen, which is also mentioned on the talk page Talk:Derwick Associates#Sources. Therefore I'd say this is an obvious delete. 31.68.204.143 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to the low participation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Model United Nations conferences

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

This is a list of club events, none of which is independently notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect target, if anything. I don't think it fails WP:LIST as indiscriminate. Also, while each Model UN may be NN, the concept of such conferences, and the circuit of clubs, are inded notable, as shown by many citations in article already. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is already an article about the Model United Nations. As a general concept, it is quite notable. However, the list of individual branches seems excessively trivial. The many citations in the article are merely links to each individual club's website. That does not confer notability to any of the individual clubs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:15, 21 February 2013 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Academy of Sports Medicine

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced advertisement for non-notable company. GBooks includes books published by the company, but nothing about it. GNews has a number of press releases and passing references. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pburka (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. The name makes it sound like a professional organization or school, but it's just a commercial venture and does not appear to have received significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the notability of the subject is not established by the article or the single given reference. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2013 (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. Relisted twice already to gain this consensus, non-admin closure. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 10:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test

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

I'm horrified by this article, not because of any views that might be expressed over the nuclear test or the North Korean menace, but the fact that this article is a quotefarm of soundbites, indignant comments, empty rhetoric and "mee toos" from overly self-important politicians from countries with only remote connection to the actual test. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:16, 14 February 2013 (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/2013 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 11:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up The article is well-sourced, and its layout is good; the only thing I have a problem with is the flag icons. Miniapolis 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its encyclopedic to record the official reactions of other nations to significant events like this. Dream Focus 00:57, 21 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 05:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NK Trogir 1912

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

This lower tier football club has been founded in 2009 and is billed as continuation of the defunct HNK Trogir, but would not inherit any notability nor seems to have some on its own. Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried googling some info. This webpage which isn't the newest suggests the other club isn't quite dead, or is that a page of NK Trogir 1902? -Koppapa (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect - Probably merits a line or two in the HNK Trogir page if they are shown to be linked clubs. If not, then Delete as non-notable per GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom in the absence of useful facts about this club. No indication it is linked to the HNK Trogir organisation, so merge would not be appropriate. No indication the club is notable. C 679 19:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HNK Trogir - does not pass the general notability guideline for stand-alone articles, but should be mentioned at the other clubs article. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis would you redirect, if a link between the clubs is not confirmed? C 679 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This club clearly fails the general notability guideline. No prejudice to redirecting to HNK Trogir if a connection between the two clubs can be reliably sourced. However, at present, there is no indication beyond the text of the article that such a connection exists. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2013 (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 World of Darkness. If there is a better target feel free to change the redirect. If there is something to merge, the history is still there. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clan (World of Darkness)

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

This article is basically redundant to Clans and Bloodlines in Vampire: The Masquerade and Clans and Bloodlines in Vampire: The Requiem. Ignoring that, it doesn't really give much to assert its notability. To be honest, neither of the other articles really do that anyway, but generally lists (or list-like articles, in their cases) are given a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Plus, I think those two articles probably have more benefits to being merged if we were to have away with them, and I can see them being used as redirects. This, I feel would be less used.

I did recently go on a redirecting spree with the main 13 Masquerade clans. I feel like pointing this out in case anyone thinks I've just been personally offended by the pages and want to delete them all; for the record, I haven't and I don't. – Bellum (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. – Bellum (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge anything that is useful - I really feel AfD is not the right vehicle for this. It seems like it would be a shoo-in for a merge as you are fundamentally correct that it is redundant. Probably would have been best handled as a merge discussion of the affected pages before bringing it to AfD. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Where exactly will we redirect it to? I mean, you can't exactly go with Masquerade or Requiem, so you'd probably just put it to World of Darkness; I don't think that's particularly useful. As for merging, I don't think there's much content that isn't already on the other pages, and there aren't really any unifying concepts about Requiem and Masquerade clans. Sure, they're both roughly like WoD classes and some of them have the same name, but Requiem adds sects to create a sort of X/Y axis, while Masquerade's whole political stuff revolves around them. – Bellum (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually don't rightly know; my exposure to WoD and the differences between the two is limited. Which only contributes to my feeling that any reorganization would be best handled as merge discussions on the talk pages by editors more familiar with the subject matter. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. However, given all the recent deletions, I don't think anything would really suit it as a merge now. There are some basic things that can be put into a "the RPG is played as such" section in the pages for Requiem and Masquerade, but not much else. On the differences between the two: they're basically two different games. The basic idea (you have clans, which are classes, and you have three different Disciplines) are the same, but the games don't have enough in common to really justify making one group article.
      The ones in Masquerade, I'd say, are probably the only ones that have any chance of notability, but since I couldn't find any sources neither of the games' clans could reach our standards (because I've found, like, no sources).
      In all honesty, if this is kept, it will just redirect to World of Darkness -- and that's not really going to cover the subject in any length, so it's not a great redirect. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect/whatever. There is no evidence that this is meets our notability criteria, so it should not exist as a standalone article. I don't care what else happens to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also related group nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyles (World of Darkness). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VolaSalerno

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

Extremely short-lived airline (or maybe rather a mere branding of Orionair?) which clearly fails WP:CORP: VolaSalerno has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Therefore, this article should be deleted. --FoxyOrange (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spectacularly unnotable: they had 1 aircraft (which was leased, not owned), and they lasted a couple of months. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 05:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makura

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

Some of their visual novels are notable but the company is not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 13:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage of the company to establish sufficient notability or justify a self-standing Wikipedia article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 26 February 2013 (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 - Named geographical place, and nominator indicates willingness to withdraw. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Island

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

Non-notable private island, owned by private citizen. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no references or statement of notability. Web doesn't show any good content.TCO (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not so sure about this. It's a real, named island, and as such maybe ought to be kept under WP:NGEO. Some facts about the island's history as farmland for the keepers of the nearby Colchester Reef Light are mentioned in the article about the lighthouse and are verified in New England Lighthouses: A Virtual Guide[62][63]; I'm not certain about the RS status of that source, but it does seem to be cited in a lot of our lighthouse articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how this meets NGEO. I'll not deny that Colchester Reef Light is notable, and this island should certainly be mentioned there, but notability isn't WP:INHERITED. If the OR content were removed there would be no content, and even with the OR, this is no useful information in the article. Why shouldn't this be deleted and made a redirect to the lighthouse? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a geographic feature per WP:NGEO and WP:5P - Wikipedia is a gazzeteer as well as an encyclopedia. Being privately owned does not render an island unnotable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to withdraw my delete. I don't have a large picture on what the threshold for notability of a ___location is (are street corners notable?) If other users feel it meets the Wiki norm, fine with me. (Just being honest on my level of knowledge...not being a pushover.) TCO (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 04:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Hayes (musician)

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

This guy is a pretty decent guitar player (check out some YouTube videos). But the article is really not good: it's practically a promotional piece even after I did a bit of pruning. And I don't think he's notable by our standards--there is no record label, no notable shows, etc. There's some coverage in GNews but it's all from the Buffalo newspapers, and I don't think it rises to the level of notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2013 (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/2013 February 14. Snotbot t • c » 11:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—lack of good quality source coverage. Additionally, three Premier Guitar external links were added alongside the footnotes none of which even mention Hayes. According to the article, a few companies endorsed the artist, but that does not necessarily establish notability. Who knows though, maybe one day this guy'll be a huge rock sensation, perhaps part of some band; he's got some talent. But right now, no. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Well everyone I think the article should be left up. It looks great for one when you compare it to most articles on here that no one seems to mention. He is a NYS legend, he just played with Stevie Wonder 3 weeks ago in California- I watched about 10 different videos on Youtube of this that I could find (pretty impressive too actually). Just because a musician is not signed to a record label does not mean he is not worthy enough. I found that this artist has songs published through "Could Be Entertainment" and "Crucial Music" which is now the equivalent of a record label considering labels only sign musicians that suck (Nicki Minaj for example...). Everything is referenced and could probably be a little tighter there, but now a days this is how things work for musicians. He has... what does it say- 13 companies endorsing him? So I believe that it should be left alone and lets just make suggestions to the editor to tighten the article up.

Mick Hayes is an up and coming musician that is now playing all over the country with plenty of companies behind him- those companies do NOT affiliate themselves with just anyone. We should be encouraging musicians like this as I'm afraid there are less and less in the world. Also- sorry I did not sign in to write this I'm on a work computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.50.53 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a good look round but couldn't find any news or book hits, and not much web hits beyond this, whose reliability I would question anyway. The list of endorsements is straight out of WP:GARAGE. Regarding 76.180.50.53's comment about him being "an up and coming musician" - that just means it's too soon to have an article - when he's got some chart success or major national news coverage, he can have an article then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Someone that has played on stage with Stevie Wonder in the prime spot at the worlds largest music trade show (NAMM) is by no means a 'garage band'. All of his endorsers have pages for him on their websites- he's amongst some of the finest musicians on their websites [64] Keep the page this guy has it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.50.53 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source is affiliated with the article's subject, which means it is a primary source and an unsuitable source to establish any notability. Ask yourself this - if he really is that good, why has he had no chart success, and why have Rolling Stone never written about him? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 26 February 2013 (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.