Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 January	4 January >

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) — Yash ^[talk] 05:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental laws by country

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

This is a list of mainly redlinks that is not going to come to much for quite some time, making it of little use to readers. I had moved it to project namespace as a to-do list but there was an objection (later changed to a support). See the discussion at Talk:List_of_environmental_laws_by_country#Requested_move. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This has been thoroughly discussed already on the article's talk page. The result was "No Consensus". Some editors, myself included, see value in retaining the article despite the large number of redlinks. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As noted on the article's talk page, some of the listings for particular countries are reasonably well developed and can and perhaps should be spun off as articles in themselves. This is indicative of the value of the present article as an 'incubator'. And I think it would be an unnecessary loss to delete this article en masse. I agree that the incubator function can be accomplished by other means, but see no compelling reason to delete this article. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 23:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep and improve. This seems no less valid than any member of Category:Lists of legislation. List of anti-discrimination acts, in particular, may serve as a model for this article. I suspect some of these redlinks should stay to encourage creation, while others are too obscure, and the value of listing them can be discussed on the talk page. But I don't see a valid rationale for deletion. A large number of redlinks is no reason to delete. Environmental law is plenty notable, and by established practice, lists of legislation are valid topics for articles. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the question is too many redlinks, then delink anything that's unlikely to ever become an article. A comprehensive list of environmental laws would, if it were even reasonably complete, be a great resource. So - the content is notable, the scope of the list is - or can be - reasonably defined, and it appears to be in keeping with WP:LISTS. Guettarda (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it can not be kept in article space as it is, then move it to user space for the necessary improvements before its restoration to article space.—Wavelength (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Create the articles first, then use categories to tie them together. - Mr X 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per guidelines, the question is whether this "group or set" is notable. I think environmental policies of different nations probably are. Most nations have some Environment/Interior Secretary/Minister/Director, indicating this list isn't just made arbitrarily. Indeed, there are international environmental groups (both UN organizations and NGOs) that document environmental policies on a broad scale, so this matter has been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite educational and encyclopedic topic material, useful for readership and editors alike. — Cirt (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. definable, notable (both individual laws and how environmental protection is legislated globally)...we just need to do some writing...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good to know the names of all the environmental laws in each nation. Not all of them are blue linked yet, but even just this alone is good encyclopedic content. Dream Focus 17:18, 8 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Tacoma Cobras

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

Article about a non-notable team, without references. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON - Mr X 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any good news sources. They exist for sure. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:52, 9 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mosekilde

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

A surname shared by 11 people, including our two redlinks does not satisfy WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As far as I can tell, the two listed individuals aren't notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though the two academics listed are probably notable, based on Google Scholar and this search on Politiken – the latter giving results mostly about Leif. However, as long as nobody has written Wikipedia articles about them, the surname article lacks a reason to live. Favonian (talk) 13:28, 5 January 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. AfD nomination withdrawn; I will move as suggested to 8-4-4 Curriculum in Kenya DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8-4-4 Curriculum

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

Article is Kenya-centric. This school system had been in place elsewhere far before 1985. Bensci54 (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how's that a rationale, based in deletion policy, for deleting an encyclopaedia article on the subject less than an hour after it is first begun? Uncle G (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it deserves its own article, and certainly not with its current title. With its current content, it should be named 8-4-4 Curriculum in Kenya, as this system is not unique. I think this information would be better off in either a main article for Kenyan/African education, or a main article for similar schooling schemes worldwide. Bensci54 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kenya implementation had far reaching impact on the country see: Davy Koech Commission, Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education and Kenya Certificate of Primary Education. It not just a change in timing was also a change in Content/Subject matter taught,examination approach and University entry. I think the move to rename it may be better than a deletion. Kenyabook

Move Perhaps I was a bit too hasty with my deletion nomination. I agree that a page move to "8-4-4 Curriculum in Kenya" would be a superior alternative to deletion, as this content has value. Bensci54 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per nom's comment above. I suggest that you withdraw this AfD and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:40, 5 January 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. A10. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of the destinations of Mariscal Sucre International Airport

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

The article has no references at all. Furthermore, it's a compilation of information that should be included in all the articles related to the airlines serving the airport (and their list of destinations if they exist), and airports with direct services to and from it, apart from the fact that the content is included in the airport article itself. Hobbyist-aimed, it has little or no encyclopedic value at all. Also, please bear in mind WP:IINFO.Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The airport's main article Mariscal Sucre International Airport already contains the same information in a more compact form. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unsourced, harder to maintain. bobrayner (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 5 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 disestablishments in New Jersey

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

Non-notable and useless list. This can be converted into Category:2012 disestablishments in New Jersey. Tinton5 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:2012 disestablishments in the United States will suffice. And lets not set the precedent for this type of article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category can handle the need. Dough 48 72 02:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One 'disestablishment' was a natural disaster and venue will likely be rebuilt; disestablishment is a business term, not a term for the destruction of something. As management intends to rebuild, removing Casino Pier from the category also, thus this article should be completely empty and not needed. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 5 January 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. Consensus is that the event is significant enough for inclusion. Sandstein 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rape of Savannah Dietrich

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

This about a crime incident appears to violate WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia generally does not maintains articles on living people that are only notable for one specific event. Unless the person in question is notable for other events as well, this should probably be deleted. In addition, there is also no main "Savannah Dietrich" article. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep You have no understanding of these policies. This is an article about an event - not a person, therefore WP:BLP1E does not apply - and in fact specifically advises to make an article about the event instead of the person . In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.. I suggest you withdraw your nomination. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the person in question is only notable for this one event, per WP:BLP1E, it is still regarding the person, especially considering you first sentence which is about the person itself. It is about her and the event, so that does apply. In addition, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and hence should not cover these sort of topics. The policy itself states that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." You do not see article on event murder, rape, or crime that has occurred everywhere in the world. Please also remain civil in discussions like this, I removed your inappropriate comment about me. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored my comment. per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil;. The article is about the event, not the person. Obviously the event focuses on the person, but none of the informatino is biographical, and is all in reference to the event. If you think the event does not pass WP:EVENT or WP:GNG, then make that argument (which I also believe will fail, as it has received significant attention, including international) but your given rationale 100% does not apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. People get raped all the time (sadly). Of course it was covered in the news, but that doesn't make it notable or warrant its own article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The event has been covered in Newsweek and the ~~New York Times~~. This isn't a normal rape case, the significance is in Dietrich being forced not to release the names of those who assaulted her and related events. Ryan Vesey 22:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it was not the subject of the coverage by the New York Times; however, the coverage by Newsweek and other news outlets is significant. Ryan Vesey 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~NYTimes coverage here. Swliv (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Do you have a link to the newsweek article? I didn't come across that in my ref search. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added it but didn't realize it. The Daily Beast is Newsweek's website. If it has a "In Newsweek Magazine" tag, like this one does, it was actually in the magazine. Ryan Vesey 22:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject violates WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How? We have depth of coverage, which I mentioned and duration. Articles range from July to December. Ryan Vesey 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", while WP:EVENT claims "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." In addition, WP:BLP1E will agree with my opinions; and that is a policy. WP:INDEPTH does tend to agree with you, though. I will also, however, admit I was acting in WP:RAPID when tagging the article for deletion. The duration assessment may be something though. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWSPAPER is intended to avoid Run-of-the-mill coverage of routine events; I hope the topic of this article is not considered routine. You misunderstand WP:BLP1E; it applies to biographies, but this article describes the event and is not (and should be not) a biography, which is the preferred way to cover notable events about living persons. Diego (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, condition 3 at WP:BLP1E is not met. The event is significant as indicated by persistent coverage, which allows us to have an article about it. Diego (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT and move to Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich as suggested by Auric. We don't have biographies about people notable by one event, we keep articles about the event itself such as this one. The event was more than one day news; the social implications have lasting repercussion as shown by coverage during several months. Diego (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIME and criminal acts are the guidelines directly relevant to this article. It's important to follow the WP:AVOIDVICTIM section and not provide details that are too detailed or unrelated to the assault. Diego (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ryan Vesey; continued coverage in significant sources/etc. —Theo polisme 03:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --do ncr am 03:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also discussion of this event at Steubenville_High_School#Steubenville_Rape_Case. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be conflating two different crimes. R. Baley (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Slowly getting sorted out. Swliv (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rape is never routine, that is why the media reports it. Move to a better title, Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. --Auric 09:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may happen all the time (hope that's not true), but the media has reported this for quite some time. Coverage of rape to this extent isn't routine. Zappa O Mati 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with name change to "sexual assault". Not mentioned I think is that it's not just the event but also the coverup. SDietrich broke a gag order to name names and gained some increase in the judge's sentences. Documents are still being collected, including by Anonymous. See "Inside the Anonymous Hacking File on the Steubenville 'Rape Crew'" by Alexander Abad-Santos, The Atlantic, Jan 2, 2013 and others at that site.Swliv (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Wrong case; two cases were melded in one article for a time. Swliv (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Steubenville case is entirely different. Ryan Vesey 01:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Swliv (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ryan; CNN is also going hard on the story now and The Atlantic published a story about the subject today, and inevitably most of the cablers and broadcast news departments will follow. This isn't the usual Nancy Grace/Dateline/Investigation Discovery overhype we see with these "murder of..."/"assualt of..." articles. We have good sourcing, though I would personally suggest a move to a title which does not name the subject. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Steubenville case (in The Atlantic) is a different rape than than the one this article is about. R. Baley (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but expand and the article does not mention when it happened, where or anything. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something like this got ample coverage in different nations. Its a notable event. Passes WP:GNG just fine. Dream Focus 13:03, 7 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kluger

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

Duplicate in subject matter of existing article The Kluger Agency. There has been a long history of these being created as self-promotion and then deleted, so a re-creation of this page is not desirable. K7L (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Previous postings of the article under this name pre-date Kluger being named one of Forbes' magazine's 30 under 30. Kluger was the one named 30 under 30 not his agency. This is also an entirely different article from prior articles, which were written by somebody else. The material was not written in relation to the Agency's article's copy. Previous deletions of the Adam Kluger page were based upon unambiguous advertising, which this article does not have. The article also focuses on Kluger's career as a businessperson, not the story of the Agency, which is written differently on the Kluger Agency page. As an individual, Adam Kluger passes the notability requirements of Wikipedia. You could make an argument for changing the content, but not that Kluger is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page at this time. The repetitive material is not copied over, and in my opinion is there only to provide a bit of additional explanation to the page. Stating that prior article attempts didn't work out, thus a new one cannot be desirable, isn't a good argument for deletion in my mind. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's nothing here to establish notability for this person for anything except The Kluger Agency, which already has an article. If Forbes mentioned this person, it is in connection with all of the advertising which The Kluger Agency is passing off as music video content. The same article just written differently is a duplicate and adds nothing of value. K7L (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Forbes did not "mention" him, he called him one of the thirty most important figures in the global music industry under the age of 30, an honour mostly bestowed on those that have mammoth Wikipedia pages :) Also, read BLP notability policy please. Start with Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers's clause that a subject can "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" if you want to look at him in the entertainment industry. Or try Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles if you want to call him a music industry member, where he "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Or we can go with Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, where "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" or "The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications". Or we can go with Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria, where "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times", being named a 30 under 30 by FORBES MAGAZINE!!!. Or lets just go with the basic criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." These sources have been added. How many eligibility requirements do you need before you decide to arbitrarily nominate an article for deletion less that two minutes after it was posted. There is no possible way you could have read the article and checked the references I was talking about before you nominated this article :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak weak keep. A long Businessweek article and a few mentions in Forbes (30 under 30 and this quote) plus some odds and sods from less reliable places just barely push him over the bar. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I do not accept the inclusion of "30 under 30" as indicating anything like notability. notability is not age dependent. Forbes may thing it interesting, but it has nothing to do with notability for an encyclopedia. However, now that we will apparently have this article, some of the material about him as an individual can appropriately be removed from the article on his company to avoid duplication. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 7 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leland Brewsaugh

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

Seems like this article is a trubute written about Brewsaugh shortly after his death (by a relative?). He seems to have been an artist, sculptor and illustrator and while there are general claims to success (awards, carving in the White House) I can't see any proof online. Unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST at the moment. Sionk (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A previous reverted edit in the article history attempted to assert copyright on the article text, so there may have been past WP:COI editing. AllyD (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the evidence, non-notable. Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have added the one 3rd party reference that I could find, a Florida Times-Union obituary which at least gives some verification for the White House mention, but it does not feel strong enough on its own to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:08, 5 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burton (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a borderline A7 too. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played or managed anywhere near professional level, so fails WP:NFOOTY, and fails WP:GNG too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Difficult to think of a more minor footballer. Fenix down (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played or managed a team in a fully pro league, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 10:55, 8 January 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. notability has been proven, and the nominator gave permission to close the nomination in question. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 20:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Tay Estuary

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

No edit from some time after the creation. ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is hardly a rationale for an AfD (especially coming less than 6 hours after the article's creation). AllyD (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment - Hold on a second. This was created 5-6 hours ago, so I request you clarify your deletion rationale. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources already in the article indicate that subject of the article is designated as a Local nature reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest; passes WP:GNG. I recommend WP:BEFORE for the nominator. AllyD (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I choose it because i think these 5-6 hours are enough and user is no more interested.I might be wrong because i have just started working in deletion matters.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 20:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is whether the subject of the article meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines, not the editing frequency of a new editor creating their first article. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as i should not did it without checking facts.Sorry,plz remove tag.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 20:38, 3 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets For September

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

No indication that this article meets WP:BAND. No works charted, most likely unsigned, and all information in the article comes from primary sources. Significant coverage from independent sources is just not there. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - It seems they are new to the music scene and haven't received that much attention but I found some here (this mentions the tours and their album was produced by Yoad Nevo), here, here, here and here. It seems they are best known for the two charts and touring with other bands. The first news article I provided mentioned they played at the Q2 Academy Islington and I found additional support here. Although this link would not be considered sufficient or reliable for Wikipedia, it does have photos and mentions the other bands. Honestly, I'm divided between weak keep and weak delete because it seems it is probably too soon. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND and poorly sourced. Cresix (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references cited in the article are self-published blogs and as such do not count as reliable sources. The mentions in other media have been local and most likely generated from self-submitted press releases. For example: [1]. The two BBC mentions are of similar nature. Local BBC radio (in this case BBC Radio Devon) is not to be confused with the quality or status we associate with BBC coverage and the BBC brand. 64Winters (talk) 10:49, 7 January 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.

Ian Gillan discography

The result was Keep. There is clear consensus to keep something in the article, so I am withdrawing this. I would comment I am disappointed that none of the keep !voters commented on this for the five months that Ian Gillan was sat unreviewed at WP:GAN. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreferenced and orphaned fork of a parent article. When asked for a reason for forking, the page creator simply said "Read MoS" with no further explanation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's the MoS section about discographies: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Discographies. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most established musicians have their own discography page. This one may need some maintenance and its creation may have been arbitrary, but I think that it's worth keeping. Plus, the article was very long and cutting it shorter might have some benefit. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems perfectly reasonable to split this from the Ian Gillan article. Some of the sections could be summarized with links to full discographies in the articles for Gillan (band) etc., but it would still be large enough to split off. The vast majority is easily verified. --Michig (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even setting aside the point that "unreferenced" ≠ "unverifiable" and thus that is not a valid deletion argument, I don't even understand the claim that this is unreferenced. A list of published works, regardless of the medium, is a list of references. It seems that there are nevertheless people who get confused by the simple fact that we are listing published works for their own sake rather than using them to provide citations for another article topic (and yes, we do cite to albums themselves as reliable sources). When you are given sufficient information to identify the published work (title, author, and date are often enough, though more is helpful) there is no need to add a reference from yet another published work to prove the first published work exists. We'd otherwise have an infinite regression of sourcing.
If the complaint is instead simply that there is no reference to verify that the discography is complete, that's not only irrelevant to deletion, but it's also easily fixable by linking to the musician's entry on Allmusic, for example.
As for the "forking" complaint, at best this would be merged back to the parent article and so should not have been brought to AFD at all per WP:ATD, because the Ian Gillan biography does not contain this discography but instead only links to it. WP:SIZE alone would seem to indicate that WP:SPLITting this off was a wise decision, however. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 4 January 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. Airplaneman ✈ 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran edwards

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTY: hasn't played in a professional match yet. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has gained 7 international youth caps making him notable of an entry. Stormy44 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fullly pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, the latter of which explicitly excludes youth international caps as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN minor league footballer. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fail WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 10:57, 8 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alvi Awan (Birote)

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

Looks plain nonsense. Full of spelling mistakes and puffery (a highly intelectual tribe). Written by Birotvialvi, who is clearly close involved. Sourcing is dodgy and is closes with a list of websites (To be continued). Only 11.200 Google hits in Western script (more possible in other scripts) The Banner _talk 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed on the nonsense part. I can't gather what this is even talking about. Could be a joke or hoax. Make sure that you don't simply go by the number of hits on Google to judge notability. See WP:GOOGLETEST. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of the fact that other scripts can offer much more sources, but I am unable to read or search in them. The Banner _talk 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The copyediting tag led me here, but no way copyediting will allow the production of a readable article. Deletion is the remedy here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:43, 4 January 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) — Yash ^[talk] 05:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christina Aguilera tours

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

Per WP:NMUSIC and WP:NCONCERT this is not necessary as its a summary of concern tours which all have their own page with their own significant coverage. Details on opening acts and set lists are already contained on the tours' pages and as a search term it seems highly unlikely someone would come to wikipedia and search "List of Christina Aguilera concert tours". Its more likely someone would go to the artist's page and click on the tours section where it lists each of the tours. Each of the tours is already mentioned on the artist's page and so I don't understand how anyone would actually end up on this page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the concert tours all have their own pages, then this satisfies WP:LISTPURP as a navigational index of notable topics. The bare list in Aguilera's main article is only annotated by year, with far less information than this list contains. Whether this list could be merged there is a matter of editorial discretion based on WP:SIZE concerns. In short, I don't see why time should have been wasted on this AFD at all, and I'd recommend to the nominator not to just mechanically nominate every list of tours he finds as he seems to be doing. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SAL; a navigational index of notable topics. The article is too large to fit into the main article, and a link is posted there. It does not matter how useful or visible it is, it is if it is warranted rather. Another difference is this article places the items in list-form, which is handy, but not absolute. As noted before, the main Christina Aguilera article contains far less, detailed information on the subject generally. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It satisfies policy as a navigational index. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 21:35, 3 January 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 WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rihanna concert tours

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

Per WP:NMUSIC and WP:NCONCERT this is not necessary as its a summary of concern tours which all have their own page with their own significant coverage. Details on opening acts and set lists are already contained on the tours' pages and as a search term it seems highly unlikely someone would come to wikipedia and search "List of Rihanna concert tours". Its more likely someone would go to the artist's page and click on the tours section where it lists each of the tours. Each of the tours is already mentioned on the artist's page and so I don't understand how anyone would actually end up on this page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find this kind of boilerplate nomination really poor practice when the particular lists vary widely in substance and development, as these concert lists you've nominated do. This list clearly has far more information than the bare list of concerts in the main Rihanna article, and it is standard practice to index a group of articles together per WP:LISTPURP, so it is not a good deletion argument to say this information is found in each individual concert tour article. So keep. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SAL; a navigational index of notable topics. The article is too large to fit into the main article, and a link is posted there. It does not matter how useful or visible it is, it is if it is warranted rather. Another difference is this article places the items in list-form, which is handy, but not absolute. As noted before, the main Rihanna article contains far less, detailed information on the subject. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It satisfies policy as a navigational index. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable list. There are hundreds of these types of articles. She's had enough tours to warrant a stand-alone article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete. A reader might get here by going to the Rihanna article, navigating to the Tours section, seeing that there is a link to a more detailed article, and clicking on it. QED. --Michig (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NMUSIC and WP:NCONCERT are not applicable to lists. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a notable list and there's no reason to delete. VítoR™ • (D) 02:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has had enough tours. AARON• ^TALK 15:32, 6 January 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 without prejudice to re-creation. The sole content of the article was: "Jim Sokol Born January 16th, 1961 Wilmington DE." The article happens to have been created by User:Jpsokol. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sokol

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

This about a living person appears to be non-notable. According to an internet search, it maintains not enough reliable sources for significant coverage, although there is a couple sources regarding him and aviation, but not enough really, so I propose deletion at this point. Please note, however, it probably would fail A7, as there are some sources providing existence, so this seems to be the appropriate venue. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 17:24, 3 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium (album)

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

Album which is not notable per WP:NALBUMS. Its been re-recorded several times and had loads of false starts. No concrete information, last confirmation was a September release but Sep 2011 came and went and nothing more was said of the album. WP:FUTURE and WP:CRYSTAL apply. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL AND WP:TOOSOON as album not due out for another 2 months Seasider91 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It is simply too soon to have an article on this topic, which is scheduled for release in March 2013. I would probably suggest recreating in two months, when the due date is, or something when it is officially confirmed, because it was already delayed once already. Thus, the subject also appears to be non-notable in reliable sources for significant coverage at this time. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lil-unique & Seasider. GregJackP Boomer! 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 4 January 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 Omar de la Cruz#Mixed martial arts. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Training Academy

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

Fails WP:GNG. Recognising that Ghits are not everything, I still can find no reliable sources to assert or verify the notability of this organisation. The founder may be notable, but his organisation does not inherit his notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Omar_de_la_Cruz#Mixed_martial_arts - A regular Google search almost rarely provides useful links as only social network profiles and other popular websites are listed. But a Google News search, which I have done, is more likely to provide better results (this is mentioned at Wikipedia:BEFORE section D). However, in this case, it provided nothing useful aside from one minor mention (I found this while searching "Omar de la Cruz"). Unfortunately, a search with the other fighters did not provide any other links and searches at Dominican Republic newspapers Dominican Today, El Nacional and Listin Diario provided nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that outcome. Equally I would be happy if the article could be improved. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Omar_de_la_Cruz#Mixed_martial_arts I found nothing to show this school is notable, so redirecting it to the founder's article seems like the correct decision. Jakejr (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect as per above. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:02, 5 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Welling

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

Fails WP:ENT. Aside from a lot of promotional work for her 2012 Hindi film, which was a critical flop, there is nothing of note for this person. Her role in the 2012 film is not even recorded by the critics, her other two alleged roles are not mentioned at IMDb, and the main contributor to this article is someone who appears to be her sister - Reema Welling - who is now blocked per WP:NLT. She (Pooja) appears at present to be a bit-part actor. Sitush (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - COI aside, there's not enough references about her, so she fails WP:GNG. Her only roles are minor roles, so she fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as she does not appear to be all that notable - while it's true there aren't always a lot of sources on Bollywood actors, this is something else entirely. Appears to be a bit-part actor. May become notable in future but until then she's not done enough to warrant an article just yet. — foxj 13:51, 9 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Veiled Woman of Achill

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

bookpromotion. Book itself fails WP:GNG as most sources found on Google are related to the booklaunch, not the book. The Banner _talk 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-advertising non-notable article about true crime book, padded with information about notable case. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not-notable book (or author), self-authored. Snappy (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all references are about the subject of the book, not the book itself. -Drdisque (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable secondary sources, independent of subject, included in article.--Haughtyone (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always interesting to note when a new user's 3rd edit is a keep vote, while their first 2 edits are to the article nominated for deletion! Snappy (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when you are unable to locate these reviews... Quack? The Banner talk 22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quack Quack Quack waddle waddle! Snappy (talk) 23:42, 10 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qool

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

Fails the notability guidelines for having no reliable sources Lakokat 12:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No obvious reliable 3rd party sources; failed WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 07:05, 8 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Il fait beau dans le métro (TV Series)

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

An article that only consists only of an infobox. It is unacceptable to have this sort of page in article namespace. It could be userfied. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A more significant reason to delete is that it is completely unsourced and lacks any indication that it meets any sort of notability guideline. Agent 86 (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did a quick search for references and was unable to find any sourced evidence that this ever actually existed as a real television series — it's not even listed in the IMDb credits of anybody whose name appears in the infobox, and the website listed for it doesn't exist either (not even after I corrected it for the actual spelling format of TVA's real webpage URLs for its programming.) Rather, the closest I could find was a small clutch of television commercials for the Montreal Metro which aired in the 1970s — which means that as currently written this looks very much like a WP:HOAX. If anybody can produce real sources for the existence of the claimed 1997-2003 television series, then I'm willing to reconsider — but in its current form it's a definite delete (maybe even speedy.) Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. This series fails WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no context. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:23, 6 January 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 Britain's Got Talent (series 6). (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 05:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Rainford

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

Didn't win - not notable -- Patchy1 11:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - where does it say you have to win the talent show? WP:GNG is still a priority, and [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] I'm pretty sure it's met. If you want more RS and such found, then I'll go and find some more. The article needs major expansion, but she IS notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 6). No lasting notability outside of this TV show, as per all the other finalists. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signing a record deal with Sony of all people is not notability outside of the show? Lukeno94 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but only once she has 2 albums completed, or one of her songs charts nationally. Give it time, and break it out if that happens. The Steve 10:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts. Having a record deal with a major label doesn't make you notable outside of the TV show. It doesn't matter if you add 50 references to the two sentences in the article, she's still notable for just one event (WP:BLP1E). The article Britain's Got Talent (series 6) already states her age, the fact she is a singer and the position she finished in, so an independent article adds nothing to that. –anemone projectors– 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 6). Living people that are only notable for only one specific event are generally prohibited from having articles, per WP:BLP1E. I concur with the above, as well. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts and WP:BLP1E. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect -- If she acheives something notable in the next five or more years time, we can always reinstate the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 5 January 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. Deleted as a copyvio — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crispito

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

A three line article about a non-notable dish. Wikipedia is not a compendium of all known recipes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of any kind of reliable sources or indicia of notability indicates that it is not an encyclopedic topic. Agent 86 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem notable. Sources are available that mention crispito, but not in any in depth. Also, Crispitos is a trademark which I suspect is where the word originated. It probably belongs in Wiktionary or a cook book. - MrX 13:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crispito is a product that was introduced by Tyson Foods after it took over Mexican Original. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's gone, as a copyvio of this thing, from which the first sentence was lifted. What's funny is that that's a site that sells them, pace the last claim in the article, "they are not available for purchase in grocery stores." Incidentally, the last claim was copied from this page or something like it. Uncle, care to write up Crispito, a delicious Tex-Mex snack served up in such establishments as Raymond Central in Wahoo, Nebraska? Drmies (talk) 19:42, 4 January 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyamdi

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

Google maps show no place called Kyamdi in India or near Uttar Pradesh (Uttarpradesh). A regular search reveals no hit results for "Kyamdi India" though "Kyamdi" India showed a user submitted ___location on WikiMapia. At the very least seems unverified and should be deleted unless someone can find an actual reliable source that mentions it. Mkdw ^talk 09:45, 3 January 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. I suggest that those interested in renaming the article open a requested moves discussion, as while there was broad consensus that the current title isn't appropriate, there was no consensus as to what the new title should be. —Darkwind (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Arias trial

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

No cited evidence of WP:Notability - although some interested locals would be clearly interested - this is a minor issue to all uninvolved Youreallycan 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Youreallycan 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that there are signs of WP:Notability. However, I thought it may be deleted as WP:NOTNEWS, etc., etc., but I couldn't resist creating it. It has a high chance of being recreated later on anyway. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here[13] for why I titled the article the way that I did. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing in the article to show that it passes WP:N - it appears to be just a routine murder case of routine significance. The prediction that this is "the next Casey Anthony" is noted, but WP:CRYSTAL applies. The article can be re-created if that happens. In the event that the article is kept, it should be renamed "Murder of Travis Alexander", in line with WP:BLPCRIME. Formerip (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP, if this were just "a routine murder case of routine significance," would it (especially if you Google "Jodi Arias") be receiving this much media attention?[14] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's routine for murder trials to receive media attention. Also, I'm not saying it's routine (just it appears that way), because I don't know all the details. But there's nothing in the article or in the sourcing to the article that could justify keeping it. Formerip (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder trials don't usually receive this much media attention. Most of them obviously don't receive any media attention. So I think the article's existence is justified. Regarding the Casey Anthony comparison, it's not just a prediction that this case will be "the next Casey Anthony case." It's that sources are already calling it that because of what they see as the similarities between Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias and because of the media attention the case is receiving. See this[15] for an example. I wouldn't say that this case is yet as famous as the Casey Anthony case, though. It's obviously not. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Trial of Jodi Arias - has had persistent coverage since the very first report years ago. The article is not about Jodi herself but her trial for a crime which has recieved alot of attention and is notable per WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:CRIME. Andrew³²⁷ 18:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. She is innocent until proven guilty. Including material from the murder in this article would make wp the judge and jury, not a true court of law. We can have a re-direct from this to a murder article or an article on her. Just my thoughts though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe1967, as long as this article is about the murder, it's going to include material about the murder. So I don't know what you mean about including that material making us judge and jury. Other articles have done the same thing while their subjects' trials were going on. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Murder of Travis Alexander. This is gaining enough attention in the media to where I think it passes notability guidelines at this point in time. It'd be premature to delete it right now. HOWEVER, Arias herself is not notable outside of the murder of her boyfriend. Did she do it? Dunno. I'm not on the jury and not all of the info is out there at this point in time. It's best to retitle it as "Murder of Travis Alexander" because ultimately that is what the trial is about and that murder is what is notable. It's also be far more neutral than titling it "Trial of Jodi Arias", as that title might be seen as biased for or against her. It also gives her undue weight, as the murder of her boyfriend is what is ultimately the most notable.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Travis Alexander may be a better title until a conviction. Assisted suicide is still in the realms of human nature, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I'm not so sure that it was assisted suicide. He'd been "shot in the face, his throat was slit from ear to ea[r], and he'd been stabbed 27 times". That's not exactly the portrait of assisted suicide, although I have no true issue with it being renamed "Death of Travis Alexander". The only thing is that regardless of whether or not she did it, it looks to have been a murder and I think that's what the police have established it as. (Murder, I mean, not that she specifically did it.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I do think that if this is kept right now, it should be revisited/reviewed a month after deletion to see if it's progressed further. It's fairly hot-button right now, with the major networks covering it, enough to where I'd say it should be kept for now. This sort of falls under the other end of the WP:CRYSTAL spectrum where it'd be too hasty to say it won't become this huge "Casey Anthony" or "Amanda Knox" type spectacle.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to differ with that, all reports are about Jodi Arias and her trial she is the main focus. Secondly these actions of Jodi have recieved continued coverage for years so it is not something that has popped out from zero coverage before to 100% coverage now, ofcourse a trial will get extra coverage but the coverage concerns Jodi and her trial so the name should stay as it is. Even if she is found not guilty this will still be the Jodi Arias trial or as I would much rather prefer a name change to Trial of Jodi Arias. It has recieved continued coverage for years so when it comes to coverage this subject has reached notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, I don't understand how "Jodia Arias trial" or "Trial of Jodi Arias" might be seen as biased for or against her. It's a trial about the murder. I was going to say that I agree that there's no problem using "murder" in the title because that's the way it's been investigated. But Arias and the defense are claiming that she killed Alexander in self-defense, which is another reason why Canoe1967 is wrong to say that there's a possibility that it was assisted suicide. She's admitted that she killed him. Like BabbaQ, I think that "Jodi Arias" and "trial" should say in the heading because that, "Jodi Arias case" and "Jodi Arias murder case" are the WP:COMMON NAMES for the topic. But it won't bother me terribly if the article is titled "Murder of Travis Alexander." Or "Death of Travis Alexander" until, or if, a murder conviction comes about.

As an aside, I changed "27 times" to "29 times" because sources are now saying that he was stabbed 29 times. Because he'd been stabbed so much, intersecting stab wounds included, the medical examiner(s) had missed two stab wounds. For now, I left a note in parentheses that the original report was 27 times. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding revisiting/revieweing this article after a month for notability, I direct everyone to WP:NOTTEMPORARY (notability is not temporary). Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. If we have any doubt as to the notability of the murder, we need to do it the other way round - delete, review and resurrect if needed. Formerip (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The trial itself has become highly notable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:42, 5 January 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 per CSD#G12. The article was deleted by User:TexasAndroid as "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25163-Y-DNA-haplogroups-of-ancient-civilizations." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics Of Ancient Indians

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

Article is unreferenced, lacks a lead and it is very difficult to determine exactly what it is talking about. If not deleted, it should converted to a userspace draft Skrelk (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by nominator. This almost looks like a fragment of something that belongs in some other article, but without more it is not really possible to suggest that this should be turned into a redirect, or where it should point to. Agent 86 (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this may be a WP:COPYVIO from this forum which has been there since 2010. If not, then plainly this is unsourced, a fragment, and in no way a coherent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is talking about the genetic structure of Indian males, in particular the haplogroups on the Y chromosome. Such information is already in the article Y-DNA haplogroups in South Asian populations, in more detail and much better cited and referenced. The only bit of this article that isn't in the other is the inference of sources of the haplogroups; but haplogroup history is already discussed in the article Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. At this point, the article adds nothing beyond what is already in Wikipedia and should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 19:03, 3 January 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. Consensus has been given for approval to speedy keep, as it passes WP:ATHLETE. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 20:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Jun

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

Nothing I am seeing/searching makes her Wikipedia:notable - BLP was created by User:Blofeld - note - it was uncited and I trimmed it to the bones in this diff - edit summary, trim to the bones - cite it if you want - Youreallycan 08:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Youreallycan 08:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:ATHLETE, "sports figures are presumed notable... if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." She has also won a medal in the Asian Weightlifting Championships so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply either. De728631 (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the original article nominated for deletion here was about a landscape architect, but the nominator Youreallycan then changed the focus to the athlete with this edit while keeping the afd. Therefore the original afd rationale is no longer valid. Speedy keep for procedural reasons. De728631 (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. As this diff shows, the article was about a weightlifter all along, and was simply hijacked by someone in the United States. Ironically, Youreallycan's edits completed the process of bringing it back to practically its original form. The so-called "bones" were actually the real, original, article. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ATHLETE. Some anon. IP scum had changed the bio in between creation, AfD nom and how the article reads now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:ATHLETE. ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as articulated above.Andrew³²⁷ 18:04, 3 January 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. Clear case of BLP undue; she would not otherwise be notable, and the matter is minor. I am relatively reluctant to use this provision for deletion except in the most obvious cases, of which this is one; DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Schmidt

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

I'm nominating this on behalf of a newer user that isn't entirely familiar with all of the deletion processes at this point in time. The rationale behind the request for deletion is as follows: (taken from the PROD)
"I would like the entire entry deleted ASAP. It is a violation of personal privacy; created without permission of Ms. Schmidt. She works in the criminal justice system and initiates criminal complaints against dangerous individuals with her name signed on those complaints--this listing is a potential danger to her personal safety. The information submitted to the press and published in the LA Times was inaccurate and provided by an opposing counsel to sully her reputation. Subsequent to the publishing of the articles, she was exonerated as having done nothing unethical. Therefore, since the biography suggests unethical conduct, this material is potentially libelous."
I'm relatively neutral about the whole thing for the most part, although I did request a speedy when the article had been blanked to remove what I'd assumed was the libelous content. Since the editor is still interested in progressing the deletion of this entry, I'm submitting it here for discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I have concerns about the WP:UNDUE on the accusations it DID garner coverage in reliable sources and the person does seem to have some notability. As far as security risks that is something they know going into those jobs may happen and is a non issue for me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. She was accused of bad judgment bordering on the unethical, which doesn't even rise to WP:ONEEVENT. None of the other references spotlight this deputy DA, but rather the cases she was working on. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Clarityfiend: most of the coverage is entirely WP:ROUTINE, merely mentioning that she was acting as a lawyer; there's only one event in which she was more prominently involved, a minor case of alleged corruption which is too insignificant to qualify as a notable event, and she's not notable for being involved in it. The argument about security risks is questionable - Wikipedia has plenty of articles on people doing more dangerous jobs and there's still plenty of information about her online and e.g. in legal directories - but she's not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have searched for more information on Juliet Schmidt. The sources currently in the article do not establish notablity. Only 3 of them are even about her, the rest mention her as part of a case. Two of sources that are about her are both about the same event but there is never any followup to show continued coverage. The 3rd source is just the California bar record and doesn't go to establishing notability. I could not find any additional info about her in any sources. This appears to be someone who does not meet our notability standards. GB fan 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The sources cited do not a biography make, and my searches for more come up empty. (The sources cited don't even support the content they are cross-linked to. The "numerous appearances" in the newspapers is not actually mentioned in those newspapers cited as purported sources, and the "appearances", presuming that the reader is intended to draw this original conclusion directly rather than confirm it from sources, are neither numerous nor even centre-stage.) This person's life and work simply hasn't been properly documented outwith wikipedia in the first place to the extent that a full biographical encyclopaedia article can be properly written. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Angeles County District Attorney (which could just as easily be the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, where even the current district attorney, let alone any deputy attorneys, have their own articles. maybe a brief mention there would be possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG. The lady simply is not notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not appear to be notable as there is not sufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable sources of the subject herself, and thus fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. There is an event which received some coverage in a reliable source, but the event is not notable itself, and thus, even if the subject were found to be notable within the context of the non-notable event the biography article would be merged into the non-existent article of the non-notable event per WP:BLP1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost seems like self promotion. Simply not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nursery Rhymes 2

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

I'm nominating this because ultimately this is a non-notable children's film that was released back in the 90s. I did a search and was unable to find where it has received even a passing mention in reliable sources, let alone enough to show that it passes WP:NFILM. It exists, but existing it not notability. PROD removed without comment by article's creator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above. We really need a speedy delete option for films/books such as this where the creators/authors don't have articles and the individual film/book lacks demonstrable notability. Noms such as this seem a waste of everyone's time when it is obviously going to be deleted anyway. Mabalu (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per general notability guidelines. I've searched for results but cannot find anything at all to indicate notability. If someone else can do better than me, I will look at whatever results and reconsider. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NF. The article format is a horrendous list article and does not offer us enough information to aid searches. If the author wishes it back, fine... but this current version has no place in mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 4 January 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 One Year War. the consensus after relistings is clear. Will someone who knows the work please carry out the merge, including sufficient material. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic Treaty (Gundam)

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Claritas § 12:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to One Year War —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 19:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N also merging non notable things into another article wont really help here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The inclusion of things into an article does not follow the WP:N, as long as it is related and important to the said article. The One Year War Article itself is well sourced and studied. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that with merges like these when the AfD result does end in the merger the article sits there for months with no merge done (Im not calling people lazy some just dont know what to merge), I dont know enough about Gundam to cherrypick what is needed and what isnt, but okay I will opt for a Merge to One Year War. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with merging is that One Year War isn't notable either. Claritas § 20:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging the two articles together would create 10 references for One Year War, the sources are 2nd party sources in Japanese as it is far more notable over there than it is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, believe me, all the sources in Japanese are terrible. Almost nothing Gundam related is actually notable. Claritas § 21:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, your comments are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT, these are actual sources that are secondary, you cannot simply make accusations like that. We are talking about a 50 billion Yen franchise here, not popular in the USA does not mean it is not notable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 08:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I actually like Gundam, but I don't think Wikipedia should cover it in so much depth. The problem is that the Japanese sources tend to be published by the same people who publish Gundam, so they're not secondary. Claritas § 08:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Most of the said sources are not published by the same people who publish Gundam, for example, OUT magazine is independent and published Gundam Century, 宝島社, 双葉社, Model Graphix, PHP, Nekkei, Hobby Japan, etc. are all not Bandai/Sunrise/Sotsu Agency. The most you can say is Ascii Mediaworks and Dengeki Hobby are Companies that have a long term relationship with Bandai and Sunrise and Kodansha publish official manga work and Gundam Officials for Bandai. Gundam is much more notable than you think, you get shelves of Gundam books that are not primary sources in Japan. BTW if you claim you actually like Gundam, can you tell me, without looking at the article, when did the said treaty appeared? In real life?(What series/publication?) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Uhh, about 1982, in the Gundam Century companion book ? Close relationship with the publisher/regurgitation of primary sources is a serious problem with all of those sources you've mentioned. --Claritas § 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it appeared in the original TV Anime. And Gundam Century is NOT a companion book, OUT magazine is actually older than Gundam, and is just a general Anime magazine. You are saying Science journals being too closely related to science researchers so they are primary sources. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 16:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If Gundam Century featured an original, creator-approved piece of fiction, then it's a companion book, through direct licensing and artistic ties to the creators/copyright holders. There are numerous cases of licensing deals like this, and they are part of the huge advertising campain for the anime. For example, Ginga Shuppan, publisher of Gundam Century, also published the official design plans for the 1:1 Gundam statue in Japan. Gundam Century is not an independent source, and it is not even used to provide commentary to the article but merely more plot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Year War. Simply too in-universe without enough real-world coverage to warrant a separate article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to One Year War. Agree with stated reasons of Narutolovehinata5. And if not merge, delete it. Mang (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. But would support merge in the interest of reaching a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator fails to explain how multiple references for article do not meet our GNG, he simply asserts it without evidence. While I don't read Japanese, I would expect that someone so confidently nominating a fictionaly element with a foreign-language origin would be able to give a detailed appraisal of the sources, per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not providing any rationale to keep. Your comment is liable to be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: It appears that this should have been relisted in the 24 December log but wasn't added there, so hasn't appeared in a log since the 24th, relisting here for further discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Shooterwalker and Narutolovehinata5. Fails WP:GNG but if there's a suitable merge target, why not...Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:20, 6 January 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 Allan Baillie. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Taste of Cockroach

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

It's unlikely that this book satisfies WP:BKCRIT. I found nothing in the Google News archive; and a general search returned only the expected listings on the publisher's web site, Amazon, abebooks, etc. The author himself seems to be notable, but not so notable that criterion #5 applies. Alexrexpvt (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allan Baillie. The author seems to be notable but I can't find anything to suggest that this book is notable outside of one mention in a book, which I added to the article. A redirect would probably be best in this instance.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Its not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allan Baillie until third party sources appear. Leave history intact as non-offensive and of possible value to merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 10 January 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bommidala Ventures Private Limited

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

This article about an Indian tobacco company appears to be non-notable. According to an internet search, the topic maintains not enough reliable sources for significant coverage requirements, so I propose deletion at this time. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 05:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I conducted WP:BEFORE and did not come up with anything. I've nominated for A7 corp. I've also left User:Bommidala a {{Welcome}} that notes WP:COI. Mkdw ^talk 05:31, 3 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sohail Khan's Next

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

This article about an upcoming film appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL. It is an unnamed, upcoming movie that has not been certified yet, and it is not certain to happen, although there are possibilities. Although there seems to be reliable sources for notability indication, it violates other important guidelines at Wikipedia. I propose deletion for now, and recreation at a later time when the film is certain to officially occur. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 05:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's beautiful when someone hands us the perfect WP:CRYSTAL to go along with WP:NFILMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice as being TOO SOON. This project is in pre-production and is sourcable only to speculative mentions. As this planned project IS sourcable as, perhaps we can redirect readers to Sohail Khan or to Salman Khan filmography as a planned project. Allow it back only when filming commences AND only if production gets the coverage to show notability under WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 5 January 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. After discounting the several opinions by people evidently unfamiliar with our inclusion standards, what remains is experienced users disagreeing in good faith whether this should be covered as a standalone article or in the context of another related article. Sandstein 10:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fazhengnian

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

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

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

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

This article qualifies for speedy deletion per G4. That is, it is substantially similar to an article that was deleted via a deletion discussion in September, and has not address the problems that led to the first deletion. In particular, the creator has failed to demonstrated that this concept has garnered more than a trivial mention in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—that being the basic condition of notability for a stand-alone article. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from admin who declined G4 nomination: I disagree that this article qualifies for G4, considering the extensive debate that ensued on the talk page after the speedy deletion nomination was contested. The sheer volume of discussion suggested that the G4 nomination wasn't uncontroversial, so I declined it, suggesting a new AFD be opened. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 3 January 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 January 3. Snotbot t • c » 03:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep: These artical is well translation and should be kept.And I thing some Falungong personail will hate it,BUT it is proved to be truth.Warning,some personail seems to be pay special atttentions to articals about Falungong.I thought they would be have some relationship(especially for money)with some kind of group.--Edouardlicn (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "fazhengnian" probably deserves a mention in the Falun Gong article. HOWEVER: You have not provided any arguments for keeping the article. Being a translation is irrelevant, and not a reason to keep. If some Falun Gong people hate it, that is also irrelevant, and not a reason to keep. If the article might be true, that is also not a reason to keep, because verifiability, not truth matters more on Wikipedia — and I understand the community has established that the Chinese government is not a reliable source of information about Falun Gong. Finally, financial motives implied about editors who monitor Falun Gong articles are not appropriate and come near violating the policy forbidding personal attacks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well,I'm just talking something about money,lol.But I thing I should be kept.or ~~at lease merge to Falungong~~. --Edouardlicn (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete: As per previous discussion, "quality, third party sources to show notability" are still wanting in this version. Wikipedia policies and guidelines have specific requirements for sources. Previous rationale to delete still holds water. --Hanteng (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the movement's article and then lock. That or delete and salt. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Falun Gong. This article is short, just a handful of sentences. I see no reason why a sentence or two couldn't be salvaged for inclusion in the parent article and be done with it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The article has improved a great deal since nominated for AFD, and its sourcing may now merit keeping. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for failing to meet WP:GNG. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to write a complete or balanced article on this topic (most of the information currently in the article is cited to sources that are not reliable and/or not independent). If scholarly articles are produced in the future that offer a more detailed explanation of this concept and its role in falungong, then it can be revisited. —Zujine|talk 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced content with Falun Gong and keep title as a Redirect. First Light (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep: some small even tiny articles are existing at enwp. But article like Fazhengnian, which is the well-know signal of Falun Gong failing to meet WP:GNG? Is here has different criterions for things from different culture?--AddisWang (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Though I'm not going to get involved in this war.--Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 07:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions on this topic seem to draw in lots of participation from users for whom zh-wiki is their primary account, and maybe that's why there's always some confusion about which policies are relevant. I'm not sure if zh-wiki has different general notability guidelines, but ours can be found here. This isn't a cultural issue, and neither is a matter of liking or disliking the subject matter. I don't think anyone disputes that fazhengnian is a real thing of importance to falungong practitioners. But there is simply not currently enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for a stand-alone article (which is why it was already merged with Falun Gong after the last AfD). —Zujine|talk 13:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder why the article should be rebuilt after a consensus of deletion.--Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 11:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good question that probably doesn't have a good answer.TheBlueCanoe 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge with Falun Gong, somewhat notable but lacks neutral deep-in references.Keep, improved. --Make cat 08:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This looks more like a spell, what with the hand motions and the words. Is it intended as such? --Auric Talk 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Aparently it is a word blocked in Chinese internet. If the Chinese government is wanting to stifle it then I presume it is notable. ok HAN? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:PortlandOregon97217, please give your arguments because here "consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes".--Hanteng (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing your argument. Chinese government block many kinds of keywords at different times for different reasons, I am not sure it is a reliable or accepted source of deciding notability according to WP:N. I am not sure if all blocked keywords automatically merit an encyclopedia article because of the chinadigitaltimes source you provide. Perhaps you want to further expand your argument? --Hanteng (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. In addition to the "fazhengnian" meditation, Falun Gong has five other meditation/qigong exercises. I would wager that there is more written about each of those exercises in reliable sources than there is about fazhengnian (which is not mentioned at all in the leading books on Falun Gong), yet I don't think anyone would argue that they each need their own article. Just take one or two more well sourced sentences from this page and merge with main article. I can volunteer to do this, depending on the outcome of this discussion.TheBlueCanoe 16:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commented Here is the list of what might appear as solid scholar secondary reliable sources currently used to support the article:
- Rahn, Patsy (2002). "The Chemistry of a Conflict: The Chinese Government and the Falun Gong". Terrorism and Political Violence. 14 (4): 41. doi:10.1080/714005633.
- Yu, H (2004). The New Living-Room War: Media Campaigns and Falun Gong. Canberra: Asia Examined: Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the ASAA. pp. P108. ISBN 0-9580837-1-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher ___location (link)
- Eugene V. Gallagher; W. Michael Ashcraft (1 October 2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America (Five Volumes). Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-313-05078-7. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
- Kai-Ti Chou (2007). Contemporary religious movements in Taiwan: rhetorics of persuasion. Edwin Mellen Press. pp. 159–160. ISBN 978-0-7734-5241-1. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
- Noah Porter (July 2003). Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study. Universal-Publishers. pp. 27, 32, 218. ISBN 978-1-58112-190-2. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
- Penny, Benjamin. "The Body of Master Li" (PDF). Humanities Research Centre and Centre for Cross-Cultural Research, The Australian National University. p. 3. Retrieved January 6, 2013.

The article evolved substantially, since it was submitted for the AfD review. Do we still need to Carthago delenda est and salt the ground? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've done a commendable job finding additional sources --I think you've likely discovered every reliable source there is that mentions it, save maybe one or two, and I think it would be worthwhile to take a couple sentences from you've added and integrate it into the parent article. It had already been established during the last AfD that there are some mentions of this concept in reliable sources, but these are evidently minor mentions, and not enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article per the relevant Wikipedia guideline, to wit: "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The key word here is significant. If we actually examine how much attention Fazhengnian received in the sources you've cited, it's minimal, typically not exceeding a few sentences, and many of those mentions are redundant in terms of their content. As other editors have noted, the most authoritative books on Falun Gong's teachings and practices don't talk about this subject at all, which doesn't bode well for establishing its significance, and also means that we're lacking the kind of in-depth, balanced analysis that would be necessary for this article to have real value on its own. This is not to misunderstand the obvious significance of the ritual to the FLG, but it appears for now that like the other meditations, exercises, spells, teachings etc etc of Falun Gong, this should be simply be briefly summarized in the Teachings of Falun Gong article, and still doesn't seem to warrant separate treatment. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should correct my previous comment. I checked again one of the leading books on Falun Gong (David Ownby's). He actually does mention the fazhengnian practice once. It takes up all of half a sentence, so it was easy to miss. But that seems to reinforces the point that it's a trivial mention.TheBlueCanoe 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a concept of Falun gong for ten years.It should not be part of Teachings of Falun Gong,and a new way that Falun gong itself struggle with Chinese govenment.It is completely outstanding significant.And if you suggest to merge to Teachings of Falun Gong,it will be unproperbly.--Edouardlicn (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is similar (at least in appearance) to some of Falun Gong's other meditation exercises, but another idea is to merge to Falun_Gong#Falun_Gong's response to suppression. TheBlueCanoe 04:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there are so many evidences and content,why merge?--Edouardlicn (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the additional sources were added, I'm actually still not seeing that there's really so much evidence and useful content here. As I said, I think more has been written in reliable sources about each of the five other Falun Gong exercises, but to me, common sense dictates that they shouldn't have their own articles just because there's lots of coverage of them. None of the secondary sources cited cover fazhengnian in much depth, and many describe it in one- or two-sentence mentions. If you took out all the material in this article that is repetitive (whole paragraphs repeat), irrelevant or insufficiently sourced interpretations by other editors, you would still end up with only a few sentences or a couple short paragraphs of useable material, and that's if you really stretch it. Now, maybe that's good enough—there might be enough properly sourced information to provide a basic explanation of what fazhengnian is without having to do original research to fill in the blanks. But if that information can be concisely summarized, I don't see why it shouldn't just be merged. Either way, it needs major improvements yet.TheBlueCanoe 12:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I !voted delete at the previous AfD. The article is much fuller, and I think sufficient shows the notability. I gather the objection is that the article is written in such a way as to ridicule the practice and the movement. I think perhaps the description of how people claim to have used it for what is inappropriately selective, and may rely on sources that might be unfair. (I note that this possibly biased content was the entire content of the previous version). This can & should be fixed by editing. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite tempted to agree with this view. The only issue is that if we were to delete all the primary sources, there would only be half a dozen sentences from sundry academic papers left - not enough for an article. It would be good if someone actually did a proper study of this FLG ritual. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I share User:TheSoundAndTheFury's assessment. I have been asking for substantial third-party secondary sources (one would be at the very least required) so that other non-third-party primary sources can be partially supported by this third-party secondary sources. Since the content of this article, as Zujine has mentioned above, has been merged into the Falungong article, I would suggest that editors who want this entry to revive wait for one or two substantial third-party secondary sources published, otherwise I do not think the current sources are enough for a stand-alone article. --Hanteng (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have again checked the sources to see if there is any significant improvement for a keep argument. So far, none of the third-party secondary sources have specifically addressed the ritual with substantial accounts. For instance, the new Penny Benjamin's lecture provides few short mentions of "righteous" paths etc., which altogether does not amount to the ritual "Fazhengnian" itself. Note that this lecture focuses on the "body" of Master Li as a neglected research area, not about Fazhengnian rituals and concepts. So the source's support for this "Fazhengnian" ritual or concept is at best tangential, thereby not enough to support a standalone encyclopedic article (unless the article is on The Body of Master Li.

{{cite web | url=http://users.esc.net.au/~nhabel/lectures/penny.pdf | title=The Body of Master Li | publisher=Humanities Research Centre and Centre for Cross-Cultural Research, The Australian National University | accessdate=January 6, 2013 | author=Penny, Benjamin | page=3}} -Hanteng (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt seems that Hanteng(That was used blocked in chn wiki by editing chn version of Wikipedia:No original research ITSELF,just for deletion of Chn's Fazhengnian,see here)and some users are overusing Primary Source as their del reason.I repeat several times about "Chinese govenment's source is not a primary source at all".--Edouardlicn (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what hanteng said is really reliable?Or he is trying to treat westener who don't know Chinese?--Edouardlicn (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is peculiar that User:Edouardlicn chose to criticize a Wikipedian (me) in this dicussion that is based on the merits of the arguments, not individual Wikipedian's credibility.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that, User:Edouardlicn has been blocked several times because of his actions on the zh talk page on Fazhengnian, which is directly related to the delete discussion here. Please note all four blocks listed the reason for the blocks due to "無禮的行為、攻擊別人" (lack of Etiquette, personal attacks):

2012年9月7日 (五) 05:50 治愈（討論 | 貢獻）更改Edouardlicn（討論 | 貢獻）的封禁設置，到期時間爲3天（禁止此IP/使用者建立新帳號）（無禮的行為、攻擊別人：于Talk:发正念,违反WP:NPA；使用多个傀儡绕过封禁，经申诉后改为封禁3日。） 2012年9月6日 (四) 14:55 Jimmy xu wrk（討論 | 貢獻）更改Edouardlicn（討論 | 貢獻）的封禁設置，到期時間爲2012年12月6日 (四) 09:01（禁止此IP/使用者建立新帳號）（無禮的行為、攻擊別人：于Talk:发正念,违反WP:NPA；使用多个傀儡绕过封禁） 2012年8月31日 (五) 16:55 Jimmy xu wrk（討論 | 貢獻）更改Edouardlicn（討論 | 貢獻）的封禁設置，到期時間爲1周（禁止此IP/使用者建立新帳號）（無禮的行為、攻擊別人：于Talk:发正念,违反WP:NPA；使用匿名用户绕过封禁） 2012年8月31日 (五) 09:49 Kegns（討論 | 貢獻）「Edouardlicn（討論 | 貢獻）」（禁止此IP/使用者建立新帳號）已被查封，終止時間為3天（無禮的行為、攻擊別人：于Talk:发正念,违反WP:NPA）

Note that 'Talk:发正念'(zh) is equivalent talk page of Talk:Fazhengnian(en). WP:NPA is mentioned for each block.

I mentioned these four recorded incidents not to futher inflame the discussion here, but rather hoped that User:Edouardlicn can recognize the fact that the afd discussion here is based on the merits of the argument, and that User:Edouardlicn, like all other Wikipedians, can continue to help the discussions here by providing valid sources and cliams to pursuade other Wikkipedians in this discussion. --Hanteng (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As for user:Edouardlicn's claim on the block on my account, the actual record is here, I personally thank those who support me during the what I and some Chinese Wikipedians think is unfair decision on the short block. Note that User:AddisWang who decided to block me made a mistake in blocking me for 7 days and then revert back to two days. Whether this block controversy (on better translation of zh version of WP:NOR) can be related to what user:Edouardlicn described as my own narrow consipiracy to adovocate for deletion for Fazhengnian article is open to public examinization and interpretations. I believe that any sensible Wikipedians, when reading my edit records in both en and zh Wikipedias, will find that I am interested in enforcing Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sources, including appropriately using templates such as thirdparty and primarysources, and making them clearer and better to match what is written in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This ongoing efforts are directly related to the relevant discussion here on whether there are substantial reliable sources to support this article.

Here in the article page, I took the effort by adding a few such templates (thirdparty and primarysources -inline templates), hoping that these issues can be addressed properly so that those who want to keep the articles can know where to start to enhance the article, with necessary links pointing to talk page for discussion. However, all these templates are quickly removed by user:Edouardlicn without further discussion and addressing the issues on the talk page. I am not sure if it is accepted practice (removing other Wikipedians' added templates such as primary and thirdparty inline templates without actually addressing or refuting the issues on the talk pages, but I find it to be rather unnacceptable editing behaviours to do so.

I wish those who want to keep the articles good luck in finding substantial third-party secondary sources to support this article. However, I do not think what user:Edouardlicn has done so far is acceptable when it comes to removing other Wikipedian's template without addressing the issues raised (e.g. third party and primary sources inline). --Hanteng (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, improved a lot so far. Others are the same as my reasons in the last afd.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assert that it would be easier to find sources if the Chinese government didn't censor the word. Since it's root is presumably Chinese I would imagine there is but a trickle of info leaving China about it. If this is true then I would have to presume it is notable. And as for the user who was banned in chinese wiki for editing I am not surprised. Not surprised in a bad way. The saddest part is Wikipdia's mantra is verifiability over truth. This makes me sad deep inside.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your argument. You might want to separate the issue of the article List of blacklisted keywords in the People's Republic of China from the issue of this article (or notability issue, in relation to the lack of substantial third-party sources). Again, Chinese government blocks many kinds of keywords at different times for different reasons, I am not sure it is a reliable or accepted source of deciding notability according to WP:N. I am not sure if all blocked keywords automatically merit an encyclopedia article because of the chinadigitaltimes source you provide (Self-discousure: I met and knew the people who run this website on several occasions). I would like to believe that if such Wikipedia articles for some of the blocked words do exist and survive, they do so mainly because of their foundation of reliable sources (per Wikipedia policies), not because of these words are blocked by Chinese authorities. --Hanteng (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think their censorship is so much about the word itself, but the whole idea of something. I assume you are not only able to talk about the word, but the whole idea of the word and all that it encompasses. But that is neither here nor there, and it is also why I cut my arguement short. I realise this is a very sensitive topic, and if I were a Chinese citizen and found to have participated in this conversation would be subjected to forced labor at best. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important concept of Falungong. 南蠻北夷東狄西戎不懂中华文化的精妙，这像话吗？Daveduv (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, i updated the Fazhengnian procedure according to original source and delete CCP Kaifengwang' intentional misleading source. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Marvin 2009, Please understand that what you consider to be "original sources" are not reliable third-party independent sources, and hence your change of position from delete to neutral does not seem to consider the main issue here: Do we have substantial reliable third-party independent sources to support this article? Please provide such sources if you can find one. --Hanteng (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Hanteng,is you be blocked in zh wiki and you troll there,any evidence make you looks like wrong.OK then,you can still be here and keep trooling eng wiki,in here,seems that no one can stop you to del this artical just for your angry.--Edouardlicn (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Please focus on the "merits of the arguments" so the concensus can be better reached. --Hanteng (talk) 01:56, 12 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon T. Boodram

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

WP:Vanity - Article was created by sockpuppet of WP:PAID
WP:GNG - Sources listed primarily discuss her book "LAID"

Warning: WP:BIAS - I am biased towards nuking all of the WP:PAID, WP:SOCK, etc. flooded articles that have been dropped by the SockMaster and suspected associates: here PeterWesco (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Glad you have declared you are biased to the point where you won't even investigate to find out what major Canadian media sources are. Ill be filing a complaint for abuse regarding this AFD - its improper - and was clearly not researched. Any editor on wiki who knows much about Canadian media knows this article is based off of the gold standard of the Canadian media establishment.

Let me put all of these lovely references in the article - FYI what are you talking about.

http://thosegirlsarewild.com
http://madamenoire.com/237774/how-they-launched-it-taking-eccentricity-online-with-the-those-girls-are-wild-video-blog/
Book:
http://www.thestar.com/article/727822--what-teens-are-thinking-about-sex
http://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/word_out_2010/2010/08/laid-editor-shannon-boodrams-vlog.html
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Laid-Shannon-T-Boodram/9781580052955-575139-Review.html?cookieCheck=1
http://www.torontoobserver.ca/tag/shannon-boodram/
http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/Desi-News-Corp/desi-news---february-2010/2010020401/10.html#10
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/16/warning-parents-might-freak-out/
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/life/health/article/67040--laid-a-compilation-of-real-sex-stories-for-young-people
http://www.sealpress.com/books.php?author=216
TV:
http://metronews.ca/news/136307/little-camera-leads-to-big-things/
http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/schoolsguide/centennialc/article/861919--centennial-college-older-wiser-more-diverse
http://theagenda.tvo.org/guest/177974/shannon-boodram
http://houseofartisan.net/shannon/
http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=237&amp;rid=71&amp;gid=105125

~~Canadaindiefilms (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have spent many hours on your AfDs, sock puppetry, etc. these past weeks. Each one discussing the same issues of WP:GNG. As stated in the AfD the sources focus on her book. The book might pass WP:BOOK. As to the links you have posted: Rogerstv.com - no clue what this is supposed to show. TheAgenda.tvo.org is a tiny blurb that states she was a guest and a "blogger". Houseofartisan.net is a website. TheStar.com is about Centennial College - a search in the article for "boodram" produces 1 phrase: "notable graduate". The metronews.ca article is a puff piece put is about her (+1 ref). madamenoir.com is an interview (WP:SELF). http://www.thestar.com/article/727822--what-teens-are-thinking-about-sex - interview with her mother Olivia about her daughter's book. http://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/word_out_2010/2010/08/laid-editor-shannon-boodrams-vlog.html - Video Blog by subject of article (about book) - WP:SELF. http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Laid-Shannon-T-Boodram/9781580052955-575139-Review.html?cookieCheck=1 - This is not a source - It is a book seller. http://www.torontoobserver.ca/tag/shannon-boodram/ - Lifestyle section blurb on the book. PeterWesco (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:And what say you of MacLeans? Is it not a source? How about City TV? Is it not a source? Torstar mentions her as a notable Centennial College grad in a piece about the College - and wrote an interview with her mother about the book. As for it being in the Lifestyle section? Why is that relevant - that is where a SEX BOOK WOULD BE. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanie, Boatingfaster, or whichever sock I am talking to right now. We have these same debates on every AfD. 1 article, mixed in with 10 crap sources, does not mean WP:GNG. I am done debating sources with you, as I must handle the bogus 3RR you filed against me. Be gone sock... Be gone... PeterWesco (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Whoever those people are - they are not relevant to this. Its not bogus. What is bogus is that you didn't do your homework before nominating a legitimate article for deletion.~~

Here is a Youtube Video of her being called on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT4EiBCpoa4 - on CP24

One on CBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PbhBgqLnPU

TVO with Steve Paikin - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJajAFCZPM4

Guests on New Series Millions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf6z4sxtBZ8

On Much Music talking about you guessed it - sex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v08auRPdMaE

~~Sure they're on Youtube but they are what they are - When the Ontario Gov't thought about changing sex ed rules 18 months ago sCanadaindiefilms (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

You charged someone for that poorly written article? Good thing it was only $5. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As if someone paid for this? looking into the person more.Moxy (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book may be notable: author seems not to be. most of references & tv appearances relate to it. All google hits are trivial or self-published. Certainly no claim to be a photographer other than having a flikr account. TheLongTone (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing how this author is notable; being a "supporting host" and making a few media appearances plugging a book doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the references in the article: one to a major Canadian newspaper distinctly about Boodram, two distinctly about her and her work in compiling a book that is published by a division of the Perseus Book Group, who is not a vanity press by any means. Having been featured on television due to her work, and the attention, it seems that this is a page that should exist, but needs to have the promotional issues ironed out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:WRITER, having written a book which received considerable Canadian press attention. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only element of notability is the book.It's possibly notable. Normally when there's an author who has written a single notable book,but nothing else, it's a problem deciding whether to have an article on the book or the author. I usually advocate having the article on the author--someone who has written one successful book is reasonably likely to write another book, and the author's article gives a place to put it. the article on a book, on the other hand,i not going to be expandable, except in the very rare case it become the basis for a movie. Our decisions, though, have been inconsistent. In this case, I am somewhat concerned by the fact that the article does not seem to distinguish; under notable credits, it lists first her non-notable TV career. I conclude that the purpose of he article is promotional, and I would therefore would reject it. Given the current situation of WP, and the attack upon it from everyone who wants to use it for promotion, I now decide borderline notability by that factor. (Some editors here would delete for promotionalism alone, but I am unwilling to do that if the subject is clearly notable & it would be practical to rewrite. A year ago, I'd have said that for borderline notability also; now I do not. If someone without COI wants to write an article on the ebook, let them try. Incidentally, the ed. and his socks & sockmaster were blocked indefinitely on Jan 5. This article was started on Jan 1. A few days later, and it would have qualified for Speedy G5, as will any further work from this editor. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHi im from Toronto and doing a research project on boodram right now for school. I dont know how this works but Women's Post has named her the new breed of business women. http://www.womenspost.ca/articles/career/new-breed-businesswoman and she also writes for them. I may be a little biased but I think she's pretty cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.109 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While it's certainly possible that she might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, this poorly written piece of crap ain't that article. Delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody who knows how to write and source Wikipedia articles correctly — and who isn't charging service fees for the effort — decides to take on the job of writing a proper article. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 8 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitium

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

Contested prod. Although the promotional language was removed, the primary concern of the prod (notability) hasn't been addressed, and I can't find anything on GNews. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is too soon. Google News and Books provided nothing and it seems there isn't an official website for this company. As a desperate measure, I performed a main Google search but found nothing useful. However, one of the links I found, this Venice Beach guide, suggests they are indeed based in Venice Beach, California. Considering its foundation was nearly a year ago, it's probably too soon for the company to receive significant attention or the company to have achieved any significant activity. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, per SwisterTwister and per the fact the article creator doesn't even know the name of the community in which his company is based.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per suggestions, I edit the page to contain only notable information on Bitium. References: LA Mayor on Silicon Beach^[1]^[2]^[3] Amplify and Bitium^[4]scottkriz 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottkriz (talk • contribs)

Delete No coverage found for this one-year-old company. References provided above do not seem to mention Bitium. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 8 January 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 as these high mountains seem to be covered in snow. Warden (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-thousander

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

No proof that this is a widely used term. Sources do not use the term at all, and only verify each mountain's height. A search for "eight thousander" + "mountain" turned up nothing in the way of reliable sources. The fact that a footnote in the article even points out an arbitrary "generally accepted" cutoff shows that there is no way to objectively denote everything here, thus making this list WP:OR on its face. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some kind of joke? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep:[16],[17],[18]: Google search term was "Mountain climbing 8000", seems to be a widely -used cutoff to describe a seriously big mountain.TheLongTone (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gargantuan Keep: There's a reason that every article here about reknowned Himalayan mountaineers (at least in the modern era) links to this article. Arbitrary or not, summits of the 14 8,000'ers is the ultimate measure of the most elite mountaineers in the world. Is this a suggestion to rename the article? If so, this is misplaced. Steveozone (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Sorry Hammer, but even I've heard of 8000ers,[19][20][21] and the closest I've come to mountain climbing is watching The Mountain. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!!!: ALL that I do here on Wikipedia is related exclusively to mountaineering, especially related to 8000ers, and this probably is the main page that I use. I concur with User:Racerx11; is this some kind of a joke? Qwrk (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to the above arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a widely-used term, to wit the book by Reinhold Messner, arguably the world's greatest climber, which is titled All 14 eight-thousanders (Cloudcap, 1988), and The American Alpine Journal by the American Alpine Club, which uses the term. No brainer. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:17, 3 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South American nations at Fifa World Cup

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

Info borrowed from the articles about the separate world championships, so all information double. Why just about South America? The Banner _talk 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or trim and rename as a list with links to the relevant articles—or is there some sort of world-wide index article that does the job already? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we are to have anything, we should have articles about each individual country's historical performances at the World Cup. – Pee Jay 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what does the article intend to do? Seems like overkill to me. Giant Snowman 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with PeeJay a country by country series of articles would be more focussed, the article as it is is very cumbersome and I am not sure how it would be effectively used, especially when the individual world cup articles have essentially the same information presented in a more useable manner. Fenix down (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with PeeJay, no point in having such article for a whole continent. Deleting this or splitting it into individual countries seems like the best solution. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hero State

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

Makes a claim to notability, but I don't think it passes muster. No sources, reads like self-promotion. InShaneee (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking a bit, I see it's also been speedied twice. The only thing added since the last speedy is the thing about them being angry at Youtube. InShaneee (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely undocumented band. The article cites no independent reliable sources, and I can find no such sources. Uncle G (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until reliable independent sources begin to write about the band, per WP:N. I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources to support WP:N (or WP:BAND) notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- reads like a NN band to me, but I am no expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sucsess that i know of and they've only relessed two songs [22] 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.170.145 (talk)
Delete. Good luck for the future, but for now I cannot find anything that meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 13:46, 8 January 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. WP:SNOW and WP:G11. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roomsurf

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

Yet another non-notable web-based business, with an article propped up by press releases, passing mentions, and directory listings. PROD tagged, but tagged pulled by an IP on the grounds that a couple of passing mentions in newspapers are sufficient: they're not. Calton | Talk 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - currently a very poor, promotional article based primarily on the company's website and press releases. The local Orlando Sentinel article gives (just about) reasonable coverage, while the more distant news sources mention Roomsurf only briefly in the context of other available roommate matching options. There's this article too in the NYT, but it may not be the sort of coverage Roomsurf want to be reminded of! Sionk (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Promo-SPAM 173.13.150.22 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't really even try to claim notability unless you count the claim of number of users, and even if you do that number is self-cited. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The present article is dependent on press releases,and listings on college web sites. And of course there's the nYT article. That it is not mentioned in this article is further proof that anyone who tries to conceal things by this kind of editing will be very foolish. I recognize people have gotten away with this sort of thing in the past, but I hope we're getting more vigilant. Even after a number of other articles from this editor were deleted for promotionalism, they contributed this one; that should have served as warnings, so I have given them a level 4 warning for promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 6 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of tournaments during late 2011 and early 2012 on the Sunshine Tour

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

The Sunshine Tour and PGA Tour of Australasia went to calendar-year-based seasons in 2007 and 2002, respectively. These lists duplicate parts of the respective season articles: 2011 Sunshine Tour, 2012 Sunshine Tour, 2013 Sunshine Tour, 2011 PGA Tour of Australasia, 2012 PGA Tour of Australasia, and 2013 PGA Tour of Australasia. They are redundant to the main articles and serve no useful purpose. Tewapack (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons stated:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Tewapack (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. If the seasons on these tours are based on the calendar year, it's not useful to report the seasons on a non-calendar year basis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. They are duplicating the stated articles, so there's no reason to keep. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. PK T(alk) 23:53, 6 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Plascrug Aberystwyth

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

Primary school. I believe these are generally regarded as non-notable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What has the fact that it's a primary school got to do with anything? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The consensus is that Primary Schools are generally NN. We sometiems merge them into an article on education in a town, but here there is nothing worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - schools are organisations but, because they are publicly owned and run they often get coverage in the news. However, in this case there is no evidence at all put forward that this school meets WP:GNG. I can't see any online either. It can easily be mentioned in the Aberystwyth article if required (though I notice there are no primary schools currently listed). Sionk (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary schools are generally not notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Elementary schools are generally regarded as non-notable because there are not enough reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:58, 10 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saeeda Lone

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

Usually with Indian subjects you can find several passing mentions in Google News Archive even if those mentions do not establish notability. This lady has none whatsoever (which suggests the name may be incorrectly spelled, but I don't know the alternative spelling.) but I am very surprised that an "award winning" Bollywood costume designer has zero hits in Google News Archive, and indeed, looks like there's nothing on her on Google either apart from a book ~~she's co-written~~ that rehashes the entry, all epic eighteen words of it. Article has not been expanded or improved since 2008 despite being tagged. Completely fails WP:GNG but am submitting for discussion rather than speedy delete in case someone realises the name is misspelled and there are actually lots of reliable sources for the correct spelling... Mabalu (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As not verifiable. I was unable to find any information about this award winning costume designer. This includes web searches for unreliable sources that might provide hints or clues for finding coverage in reliable sources. I also tried the Saida instead of Saeeda as an alternate transliteration with no better results. This person may very well be a notable Bollywood costume designer, but with no sources in ther article, and apparently not even a hint of sources in internet searches, verifiability policy say this should be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 2 January 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 00:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless links establishing notability have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 3 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Crispino

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

Non-notable recurring character from SNL, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article has no references cited (most in Google News consist of mere mentions of the character's name) and consists mainly of quotations. The character has not really entered popular culture, and there's not much to say about it critically. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG per the total absence of sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:30, 6 January 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. Soft delete - I'll be happy to userfy this on request or undelete if additional sources are found. —Darkwind (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Aaron

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

Non-notable surfer and surfboard designer. Blatantly promotionally (for the product line; see article) and puffily written (by an editor with a COI-indicating name), a Google search brings up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors or other sites with the same article verbatim. One Orange County Register article, cited and linked there, covers him in some depth; but, if I understand the relevant guidelines correctly, this alone does not suffice. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient significant coverage found in reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs a major rewrite, but he does seem to have received a lot of coverage in regional reliable sources (the Orange County Register, the Dana Point/San Clemente Times, the North County Times) and in surfing magazines. His notability is either regional or limited to the surfing community, which is why I said "weak" keep, but IMO regional notability (as opposed to purely local) is good enough. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point, I wouldn't have expected that given the article's tone. By the way, the link you provided does not work for me. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It works for me, but here are examples of some of the articles found there: [23] [24] [25] Unfortunately all of these are to the same source: Orange County Register. There were articles in Fox News LA, Dana Point Times, San Clemente Times, and Beach Reporter but they are all dead links now. There are also many links to Surfline but they smell like press releases so they don't count. So that leaves only the O.C. Register that is still online (of course, being available online is not a requirement for a Reliable Source). There are also articles in Portuguese [26] which I cannot evaluate. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pathetic Keep - (that's less than "weak"!). Melanie, that Portuguese article is more or less a passing mention, maybe a hair more. Honestly, this one is right on the wire for me - so I default to a keep, conditional on a drastic rewrite of the article. I have commented out most of the promotional content in the article just to see what is left. In time, Aaron might just garner a few more sources. David_FLXD (Talk) 20:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job on rewriting the article, the tone is fine now, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced of the subject's notability. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly? If I'd found it the way you did, I would have nominated it too! Now I've come over all politically correct WP-style. David_FLXD (Talk) 20:24, 11 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven H. Rosen

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

Only claim to fame is founding Resilience Capital Partners. While the company may itself notable, Rosen (other than founding the business) just serves on various boards and writes the occasional article. Fails WP:BIO guideline. Some of this information could theoretically be merged into Resilience Capital Partners, perhaps under a "Founders" section. —Theo polisme 01:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While he's mentioned in a small number of news articles, they are just brief notices. In sum they don't imply notability. Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though he sometimes makes comment in news articles there's almost nothing about him that's verifiable (or of interest to the press). Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 01:15, 3 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Masroor

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

I suspect this is an autobiography; regardless of this, it appears to concern a non-notable person who does not meet WP:NACTOR. The only film listed in the article that has been released and features on IMDb is Harud and suggests Masroor is credited as a writer. A quick check on IMDb shows no such credit. Their other claims to fame are either insignificant or fail WP:CORP. Pol430 talk to me 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NACTOR and WP:BLP no notability that I can see.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's current sources all seem to deal more with Masroor's expose of laundering illicit funds within the Bollywood film industry, than with Masroor himself. If more were forthcoming that dealt with the filmaker's purported-as-award-winning Harudh (2011), a Hindi film about the Kashmir Conflict, we might be better able to make a sounder determination under WP:FILMMAKER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:22, 2 January 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 00:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon - Aside from the guest blog for IBN, the 4th reference from the top is the only link that mentions him and yet it is brief. Despite multiple detailed News searches, I haven't found much and although this could be because he is foreign, his LinkedIn profile even shows that he hasn't established himself as notable. The article claims Gubaare was a short so it was likely an indie film and the article also never clarifies information about Winter (says "unreleased" but also lists 2008 as the release date). At best, the article could be selectively merged and redirected somewhere but there wouldn't be much to support it. I'm willing to reconsider if non-English sources are found but, considering the few projects he has had, there probably wouldn't be any. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 10 January 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akasha (catamaran)

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

Article seems to be an advert; appears to fail the GNG. Plenty of ghits but they're advertising (yacht charters &c) rather than substantial independent coverage. bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, nice boat. Plenty of web pages on yacht charters show that the boat is popular and notable in some sense, but I also have not been able to locate independent, reliable, secondary sources about the boat itself. Mark viking (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Mark viking above; the boat is very nice. And who doesn't like a nice boat? But WP:ILIKEIT isn't a great argument for keeping the article and I can't find anything independent that gives coverage of the vessel itself. Lots of touristy, "holiday on our lovely boat", type things, but nothing you could use to build a reliably sourced encyclopaedic article. Stalwart111 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried again and failed to find some independent reliable sources for the boat. I am clueless about notability guidelines for transportation-related articles, but an apparent lack of independent RS dooms this article to deletion. If such sources become available, article recreation is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This topic appears to fail WP:N. Source searches have only provided this passing mention in Creamer Media's Engineering News and this passing mention on AOL Luxist. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:14, 3 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JunkYard 69

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

Seems to meet none of the criteria in WP:BAND, and a Google news archive search turned up nothing. Alexrexpvt (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After several source searches, not finding any coverage in reliable sources. This band also does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Criterion N.9 - Has won or placed in a major music competition.

On June 2012 Junkyard 69 placed first among many Greek bands and won the MTV Greece competition,and achieved to be the first Greek hard rock act playin' at the Mtv festival,which is one of the biggest music festivals taking place in Greece.

Links:

Competition results

Playing the winning song,after they had won the competition

Opening the Mtv Festival

http://www.allhardrock.com/artists/profile/junkyard-69

http://www.sleazeroxx.com/news/00965.shtml

http://www.metalkaoz.com/the-underground/5646-junkyard-69.html

http://www.burst.gr/reviews/ep-demo/item/821-junkyard-69-on-a-wing-and-a-prayer

http://minizine.berock-live.com/html/greek_bands/junkyard_69/junkyard_69.html

--JunkYard 69 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there seems to be only one good source and it is of questionable reliability. --Guerillero | My Talk 08:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since the band won at the the competition that the Greek Mtv hosted,and also participated at the Mtv festival,it seems it meets at least one of the criteria,which is the one said before Has won or placed in a major music competition.

Mtv is worldwide known,and in Greece it hosts on of the biggest festivals every summer. So I see no reason to delete the article since it meets on of the criteria. Except from the links above,which if you translate them from Greek to English,you'll see that they're good sourses,also found this article from the official Mtv Greece website,that proves that Junkyard 69 did won the competition and also open the festival. I want to believe that this is considered as a reliable source...Just translate..

http://www.mtvgreece.gr/news/mtv-specials/item/17274-to-mtv-to-str8-pragmatopoiisan-to-megalytero-live-toy-kalokairioy

http://www.mtvgreece.gr/media/k2/galleries/17274/26.jpg

Also,if you google 'Junkyard 69',you can find many articles,interviews,images,reviews(most of them in Greek), and furthermore,all these links provided below,seem to be reliable sources that meet the criterion No.1 of WP:BAND Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself

http://hardrockhideout.com/2012/01/16/new-video-junkyard-69-we-want-war/

http://www.metalkaoz.com/the-underground/5646-junkyard-69.html

http://www.allhardrock.com/artists/profile/junkyard-69

http://heavyparadise.blogspot.gr/2012/02/rosewood-festival-proudly-presents.html

http://www.rockinathens.gr/?p=9969

http://www.rockoverdose.gr/news_details.php?id=12567

http://www.rockoverdose.gr/bands_details.php?id=431

http://www.sleazeroxx.com/news/00965.shtml

http://www.metalkaoz.com/the-underground/5646-junkyard-69.html

http://www.burst.gr/reviews/ep-demo/item/821-junkyard-69-on-a-wing-and-a-prayer

http://www.mycampus.gr/str8_to_concert/extra/apotelesmata.html#.UOosXG9NWHh

http://www.radarrock.gr/

http://minizine.berock-live.com/html/greek_bands/junkyard_69/junkyard_69.html

http://dawnofbattle.blogspot.gr/2011/12/junkyard-69-on-wing-and-prayer-demo.html

http://avalon.zikforum.com/t2353-junkyard-69-on-a-wing-and-a-prayer-2011-sleaze-glam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ue_x0b4H8o

http://www.citybee.cz/zabava/:/akce/5932/

http://hardforeveral.blogspot.gr/2012/01/junkyard-69-voce-conhece-o-som-desses.html

~~--Nikotinn (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nikotinn has been blocked as a sockpuppet of JunkYard 69, who has already posted above. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Numerous non-reliable sources (blogs and interviews); article claims appaearance at an MTV Greece event, which is not a major competition. Fails ALL aspects of WP:NBAND (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So an MTV competition is not considered as a major music competition?

And why all these links,are not considered as reliable sources? --Nikotinn (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links you are listing are user blogs and other non-news sources (Blogspot and forums are very rarely used as a source), the only acceptable blogs are news blogs from reliable news sources. Additionally, piling them all together confuses which ones are relevant to a certain sentence or paragraph. Video interviews are acceptable but, due to link rot, distorted quality or the video being removed, it's sometimes preferred that interviews are text. Please visit Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to use ref tags which will organize the references better. It may also help taking a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Contact me at my talk page and I'd be more than happy to continue helping you. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 8 January 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 S-L-M. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sliem

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

It's a dictionary entry. Wiktionary wikt:sliem has most of this (the cognates are behind a link, but that is fine). — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Wiktionary The article has much more detail than Wikitionary.. going through it's background even. Wiktionary only tells us that it means peace.--Joey (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary: definitely a dictionary definition with no potential for growth. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 12:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S-L-M; merge if there is any relevant information not already covered there, but I didn't see any. As This-that points out, Wiktionary already has the definition, etymology, and link to the greeting 'Sliem għalikom'. Cnilep (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging the content to S-L-M would be a good idea, only that it isn't necessary, as you mentioned; but redirecting seems odd, as most Semitic words belong to a triconsonantal root: this is equivalent to redirecting "proclamation" to "clame", no? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I understand your objection. If 'Sliem' were merged to 'S-L-M' a redirect would be left in place both to preserve edit history and to direct users to some useful information. If, as I think we agree, merging there is not necessary, then redirecting to S-L-M would at least direct users to information relevant to what they are probably looking for; currently, Maltese sliem is listed as one of the Semitic-language words based on the root. Would you argue, instead, to delete the Wikipedia page? or to soft-redirect to the Wiktionary page? I can envision logical arguments for either of those following a transwiki to Wiktionary, but I think the information on this page is already included in Wiktionary, either at wikt:sliem or wikt:Appendix:Proto-Semitic/šalām-. Cnilep (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

belongs to wiktionary. nothing to say about the word. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S-L-M per Cnilep. The focus of this article's writer, at least, was how "sliem" relates to that Semitic root. As a second choice, delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per S-L-M per comments above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, or redirect to S-L-M. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 21:15, 3 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Robert Plumlee

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

Biographical subject was the ancillary focus of an investigative series of two articles by Nick Schou for the free alternative newspaper OC Weekly. Those two articles, "Men in Suits" (2006) and "Cocaine Airways" (2006) have more to do with allegations of CIA drug trafficking than with the primary subject. Plumlee has not been the focus of multiple secondary sources about his career. Aside from outright deletion, a redirect to the Kerry Committee report may be acceptable if it can be proven that he actually testified before that committee as he claims. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP. In my search for reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, all I could find was the Playboy article... and that was only in conjunction with an allegation he made. The rest of it is built from primary sources or from self-published conspiracy authors who take his claims of being a CIA pilot as fact. If someone else finds reliable source, please post them. [Edit: Don't hold your breath on the Kerry Committee testimony. Like with every other assertion about this subject, the OC Weekly said his "testimony remains classified until 2020." Sure it is.] Location (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coat rack for material about CIA drug trafficing. Too few reliable secondary sources for a biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Viriditas, Location, and Tom Harrison. Using cherry-picked primary and self-published documents to accuse anyone of criminal activity is not acceptable practice, ever. (Note: by the time I viewed the article, the only citation left was the one from Playboy, referenced above by Location. However, the history shows the FOIA requests and the external links to conspiracist and other dubious sites.) I doubt it would be possible to ever construct and article about this individual which complied with BLP, NPOV, and RS guidelines and policies, and although WP:COATRACK is only an essay, this is a prime example of it, since it's not about the subject, it's about the others whose alleged dirty deeds he has abetted. Horologium (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG's requirements for multiple, independent and reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to the specific subject of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:51, 10 January 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. Appears to meet WP:N, and headcount follows that. Wily D 10:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpois0n

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

This product does not appear to have significant independent secondary coverage. There is very limited coverage in brief passing for example "such as greenpois0n", press release derivatives and vast number of duplicate recycled sources that gets omitted in Google News search, but it does not appear that there is significant coverage and information in current article is based almost entirely on user generated contents from a wiki based source. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of independant coverage indicates it isn't a notable product. 1292simon (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article isn't in good shape, but the subject seems notable. Note that I have a self-disclosed COI on jailbreaking-related articles. Some available sources:

September 2010 PCWorld article, October 2010 NetworkWorld article, and another October 2010 NetworkWorld article about the upcoming Greenpois0n jailbreak.

October 2010 Ars Technica article, October 2010 Wired article, October 2010 TUAW article, and October 2010 PCWorld article about the Greenpois0n jailbreak. October 2010 PC Mag article and October 2010 ReadWriteWeb article comparing Greenpois0n to another jailbreak.

February 2011 Wired article, February 2011 Register article, February 2011 TUAW article, February 2011 PCWorld article, and another February 2011 PCWorld article about an updated version of the Greenpois0n jailbreak. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment When I searched Google news, this source came up, and the rest were hidden and though I didn't audit each source, the snippet view looked strikingly similar and perhaps Google's consolidation indicates derivative contents? I've read some of your sources and I noticed that some are things like "via twitter... developer announced that". Reviewing Notability Criteria those references appear to fall under routine coverage of "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,".
- routine announcements:
- "The Chronic Dev team of eager iOS hackers at GreenPois0n has announced an untethered jailbreak ....."
- "The Chronic Dev Team, set to launch its greenpois0n jailbreak tool on 10/10/10...." and so on and on.
- "via Wired" this is re-blog of a rather trivial coverage.
- Now, notability usually means multiple, in-depth independent coverage and not mere re-tweet and in-depth coverage. Not just "via Wired". or "it announced..."
- Please also see general notability guideline, which states "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." -Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll refrain from discussing the sources to give other editors a chance to look at them independently. I'm working on a a new version of this article as a proposed draft on Talk:Greenpois0n, combining the existing subject with the related subject at Absinthe (software); that article can be redirected if this AFD is closed as keep. Also, before this AFD nomination, this article only had tags noting referencing and technical language issues (not notability issues); WP:BEFORE says "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag". Dreamyshade (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re That one doesn't look like it warrants its own article own either. Wikipedia is not a repository of any and every products and companies on the face of earth. I feel that this deletion nomination is reasonable per our nomination guidelines Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re, #2 I believe WP:GOOGLEHITS is of relevance here. What I'm seeing is a collection of routine, announcement of product release, rebroadcast of one source by another and a collection of trivial mentions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: it does seem to be somewhat notable as a jailbreaking tool, but it does seem to be lacking decent references in the article. Many news articles are in languages other than English, there are some reasonably notable sources such as http://www.businessinsider.com/it-took-a-long-time-for-hackers-to-jailbreak-the-ipad-2-and-iphone-4s-2012-1 this] and a lot of references in technical sites which are often cited as being reliable in this topic area. The article does seem too technical though, I certainly don't think it needs to go into that much depth, but it should include more background information about the tools and developers IMO. Shritwod (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:PiRSquared17 just implemented my talk page draft, so now the article is much different. It has less technical detail (since I couldn't find secondary sources for that information), more independent sources, and a new section about the related Absinthe tools. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re It would appear that much of addition consists of matters that do not help establish notability as they're aggregation of routine trivial mentions and announcements like "Absinthe 2.0 Jailbreak Now Available for iOS 5.1.1 Devices". MacLife. Retrieved December 18, 2012." WP:ORGDEPTH is the policy I am referencing to in this specific comment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Here's what I said on the talk page, since it seems relevant for this deletion discussion: These articles aren't ideal, but they include details about the software and its development. WP:N also says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." It has multiple independent sources. And WP:N says "'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." I did not have to do original research to write this article; it's based on independent sources that address the subject. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re:ReBut it doesn't say that small fragments of highly trivial pieces can be aggregated together and in the list of specific exclusions "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued" is one of them, which includes but not exclusive to "oh hai t3h greenp0ison absinthe came out" Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Here's the list of selected articles I posted on the talk page that I considered more than routine/trivial coverage. I know you weren't convinced by them, but this may be useful to other editors looking at this discussion: Ars Technica on background information, NetworkWorld on background information and more background information, PCMag on background information, Wired discussing the release. And for the sub-topic of Greenpois0n Absinthe: International Business Times on background information, CNet discussing the release, VentureBeat discussing the release, PCWorld discussing the release. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Source Commment PCWorld "The new jailbreak, dubbed Absinthe and part of the Chronic Dev Team's GreenPois0n jailbreak tool, arrives about 10 months after the first A5 device, the iPad 2, hit store shelves. " is a routine announcement. Shouldn't really be admitted. further comments be added as I screen each source. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. That article and the others include multiple paragraphs with detail, not just trivial/routine coverage. Are you applying a more stringent standard to these references because I'm a COI editor? WP:COI says "Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other," and Template:Request edit/COIinstructions says "Avoid excessively high or low expectations. The quality of content from a request edit only needs to be comparable to our expectations from an average volunteer and be an improvement to the article." I know this isn't the same situation as evaluating a requested edit, but I think those recommendations are useful to consider. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Re to comment though I may pay closer to attention to whats inserted for a WP:COI editor because there's a often a natural tendency to be partial,but no, I apply same standards to how I scrutinize sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Significant coverage in many reliable sources. -—Kvng 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment which ones do you consider significant? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] and [37]. -—Kvng 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage in multiple different sorts of types of varying sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources listed above demonstrate notability, including PCWorld. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:02, 11 January 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 Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead (song)

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

Per WP:NSONGS this song has not charted nor has it received awards/covers by several artists. There is not substantial coverage from reliable third party references and thus an independent article is not warranted as this is a stub which is unlikely to ever grow considering that this album era is also now over. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is next to no information for this song at all. AARON• ^TALK 01:15, 9 January 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 Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of Prey (song)

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

Per WP:NSONGS this song has not charted nor has it received awards/covers by several artists. There is not substantial coverage from reliable third party references and thus an independent article is not warranted as this is a stub which is unlikely to ever grow considering that this album era is also now over. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was cited as one of the best songs of 2010 by major magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.215.11 (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough information. Lot's of articles are created now if there is enough info, regardless of charting. AARON• ^TALK 16:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Redirect - Actually, looking at this again, a lot of the information is spaced out making it look like there is more information than what there is, however there is more than "Bobblehead" (which I think should be deleted). I think this should be redirected, as with some more information and proper copy-editing, this could be a better article, regardless of charting or not. AARON• ^TALK 01:19, 9 January 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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse

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

I have looked for sources on this shooting and it appears there was just a brief spike in news coverage after the shooting. The only apparent reason for it getting national news coverage is because of the Virginia Tech massacre. Beyond that tangential link, sources contain no meaningful contextual coverage that I can find, just a detailing of events. This is a classic WP:NOT#NEWS case for deletion. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not indicative of enduring notability for the event. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am having trouble believing the !votes at the previous AFDs. This is nothing but a routine crime, with routine coverage. There's nothing there that would elevate to anything resembling notability. The title should also be salted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. Nothing special about this murder. A Google news search for "Deriek Wayne Crouse" comes up with only one result. JDDJS (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, you are claiming "NOTNEWS" while also citing a lack of current news articles about the subject? Huh? Everyking (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - Not notable. I suspect a bit of bad faith on some of the previous !votes in previous AfDs. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources establish notability beyond any doubt. "Routine crimes" do not receive that level of coverage. It doesn't matter why the story got national attention—what matters is that it did. It would be notable even if the reason was completely asinine. Everyking (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Received national media attention. Tiptoety ^talk 07:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something that got national and even international coverage. We don't have an article on it because WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ROUTINE is explicitly meant to cover these types of situations. Geographical scope of coverage is the weakest argument for keeping possible because nowadays any number of minor criminal acts can get a brief flurry of coverage over a large geographical area. Obviously not every crime gets that kind of coverage, just those that play best before a wider audience either because it allows society to poke fun at the fatties or because it happened at some place where a far more notable crime happened.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thousands of people are murdered every year. WP policy is not to have articles on these events, unless sources discuss some larger importance than a crime and the death of a person. In this case it was a murder and a suicide, but still not uncommon. Borock (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This received significant media attention for some time, but not because of the event itself. Looking at WP:CRIME, the phrase that sticks out there is "historic event". I dont think this event passes that measurement. Yes there was coverage, a lot of it, but not because this event was historic. At its core, this was a murder of a police officer during a routine traffic stop. It received attention not because of the event itself but because it happened on a college campus, and a campus which had been the site of very notable gun violence years earlier. While the media may impart notability of this event from the 2007 Virgina Tech Shootings purely because of geography, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should as well. RadioFan (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was certainly tragic, and coverage was widespread, but the media attention only lasted a short time. No notability. Howicus (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would like to inform TDA that it's common procedure to notify an article creator when something is sent up for deletion. Now to my vote. Yes, delete, this wasn't what I had expected when I wrote the article back lo how long ago, media attention didn't last beyond, at the most, two weeks after the incident. Buggie111 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". The article is well referenced, and the case is covered by major media like cnn and bbc. For what matter the case is known, is not important, as the coverage is the criteria for notability. Grrahnbahr (talk) 05:30, 10 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Yang Xin

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

During a search for sources, nearly all coverage that pops up is from around the time of the murder or is just detailing the progress of the court case. Other than that I found a single book source that appears to just be an extensive listing of violent incidents in universities. The only apparent reason for it getting international news coverage is because of the Virginia Tech massacre. Beyond that tangential link, sources contain no meaningful contextual coverage that I can find, just a detailing of events. This is a classic WP:NOT#NEWS case for deletion. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not indicative of enduring notability for the event. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm going to argue here that the coverage is not WP:ROUTINE because of the international aspect to the incident. I dislike "Murder of X" articles in general unless they're of historical significance, but the notability guidelines seem to back up keeping this one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National or international coverage can definitely still be routine coverage. That should not even remotely be entertained as proving notability on its own. All we have are reports chronicling the event and providing occasional updates on the case, with the only actual context being that it happened at some place where a notable event happened. In other words, this is not demonstrable of this murder's notability, but of the enduring notability of the Virginia Tech massacre. Consider WP:INDEPTH as a corollary of WP:ROUTINE.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOT NEWS guideline and the notability is not established. --Cold Season (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no social impact of the event beyond being in the news. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 3 January 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 Towson Tigers football. (non-admin closure) — Yash ^[talk] 05:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Towson University Football; Milestones and Memorable moments

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

Wouldn't this article just be merged into Towson Tigers football? SarahStierch (talk) 00:06, 3 January 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 January 3. Snotbot t • c » 00:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can anyone explain the notability criteria for football games ? There is some coverage and a single news hit, so wouldn't call it overwhelming. Note that Coastal Carolina Chanticleers article already has information about the first game as a section, so merging the nominated article into Towson Tigers football will result in two identical pieces of information in two separate articles. Ezhuks (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any non-original research should be merged into Towson Tigers football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Towson Tigers football or 2012 Towson Tigers football team. Folklore1 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Paul and Folklore1. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There isn't enough well-sourced content to justify a stand-alone article, Wikipedia generally doesn't condone trivia sections, and it's a bad precedent to create such articles separate from the main college football team articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demand Progress

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

Nonnotable grassroots movement. Single-source text. The existing thrid-party refs are about thrd-party things and NOT about this org. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject appears to fail notability as outlined by WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 6 January 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) — Yash ^[talk] 05:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fognews

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

The reasons:

This site does not seem to be significant enough to deserve its own article, at least in English Wikipedia, specifically because:
- they publish made-up “news”, but without a clear identification of their nature (unless a reader understands their motto in latin);
- all their stories are in Russian only (by the way, the Russian Wikipedia does not have an article about it, and my personal opinion is that they lack notability even for russian audience, see explanation below);
- since their “news” are fake, most of citations by other mass-media are either unconcise reposts of “information” or apologies for such unresponsive reposts, or stories about such reposts and how fool are those who repost such “news”;
- the reference to “The New York Times” cannot be considered a reliable source, because it actually is “International Herald Tribune: Global Opinion — Views from around the world”, located in blogs subdomain, and authored by an expatriate.
The article might have been written as a form of self(?)-promotion, taking into account that:
- the very same day when this article has been created, a comment has been posted on MyWOT rating page, referencing this article in English Wikipedia as a sign of this site's excellence;
- the aforementioned comment was made by a recently created MyWOT user, which only posted 1 reputation rating and 1 comment (to this site), yet it quickly topped the comment list in the next 6 days — by being cross-approved by a small army of sock puppets.
To add to the “dark techniques of promotion” picture, — they might be responsible or somehow connected with the russian McDonald's site deface on April 1, 2012; they even didn't hesitate to post a story about this, including an interview with the hacker (which could also be a fake, unless they know each other in person). Anyway, the deface really took place — I saw it myself, this was exactly how I became aware of Fognews site.
- By following one of their site visitor statistics (in the bottom of any page), Top.Mail.Ru, one can see that the maximum traffic took place exactly at the time of McDonald's incident.
- In their article, they say that the hacker put the link to their site on McDonald's page in regard to their bravery in telling the truth(!), which is very doubtful, because their ___domain was registered just 2 months before that.
- By observing the very same statistics over the subsequent months, one can see that the traffic is extremely variating, with peaks perhaps connected with other incidents of unfair advertisements.
- Current popularity is about 1500 daily visitors, which is very few for a “notable” media.

I'm not about to speculate on hacking and rating manipulation, though, this is just to warn about their methods of promotion. The main reason for nomination is the lack of significance. 82.199.107.209 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Discussion page created on behalf of IP 82.199.107.209 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's received decent coverage in multiple reliable sources (I consider the NYT's international edition blog reliable). It appears to be Russia's version of The Onion:

It might only be three, but, that's multiple! SarahStierch (talk) 22:17, 2 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonable coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are reliable and in-depth enough for American coverage of a Russian "news" source; I imagine that in Russia it is proportionately much more famous. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources provided above by User:SarahStierch demonstrate that this topic meets WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:43, 3 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yank (physics)

AfDs for this article:

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

The term appears to be a neologism. I have been unable to find a serious mention of the term. The first AfD mentioned three sources: an FAQ, a mailing list (the link has since gone dead), and an article on arxiv. However, the arxiv article is self-published and only mentions the term in passing. I have been able to find the term mentioned in only one published book. However, the book only mentions the term once and warns that it isn't standard. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 23:53, 2 January 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 January 3. Snotbot t • c » 00:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no evidence of acceptance of the neologism. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I would proceed with caution before passing judgement on this term; as force is to acceleration, so is yank to jerk (physics), a reasonably sourced article, and I imagine that whoever would use jerk would use yank. In any case, the concept itself seems to be a simple physics concept and needs an article under whatever name, and, if renamed, there should be a mention of this term. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (to what?) and redirect - the concept is apparently used enough to have an article (unless we should create "general" articles such as "Higher-order time-derivatives of (physicists/mathematicians, please fill in the blank)".
Note that I have found a textbook that lists several non-standard names for higher-order derivatives including yank and tug. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the textbook I linked to above. If you notice, it mentions that "derivatives of the equation of motion are not much applied". Yank is not used elsewhere in the book (save for the glossary, where it's mentioned alongside terms like "zoor"). I did some research prior to creating the AfD and I was unable to find a source that mentions a use for the third derivative (or second, for that matter) of momentum. IHateChoosingUsernames (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops. I was sure you had linked to a book, but when rechecking I could not find the link. It must have been in my blind spot... Yet I still think there is enough currency of the term (search Google Scholar for "yank acceleration" [without quotes] and you will see what I mean) to warrant a redirect. The question is, what is the more formal name? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There isn't one. Both the book and the Usenet FAQ tell you that. And the blank that you want filling in is Newton's Second Law of Motion. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This seems to be a non-standard term and is, therefore, not widely used. It seems to be more like a proposed term. There really aren't any reliable sources for this term, and this includes a passing mention in a book. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. A Google Web search for ("yank" "derivative with respect") produced 6,230 results; for comparison, a search for ("acceleration" "derivative with respect") produced 758,000 results. The results of the former search ran heavily to blogs, wikis, and trivia compilations. The Jazar book, as mentioned, states that the terms for higher-order derivatives are non-standard; it lists names for derivatives all the way up to d^9 P/dt^9, which is downright absurd. Ammodramus (talk) 18:04, 9 January 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.

[1] ttp://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-silicon-beach-tech-20121212,0,5829230.story

[2] ttp://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201212141630/a

[3] ttp://venturebeat.com/2012/12/15/los-angeles-mayors-council-on-innovation-fathoms-future-of-l-a/

[4] ttp://www.finsmes.com/2011/12/amplify-launching-4-5m-fund.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]