Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 June	9 June >

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. postdlf (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

78.8 FM

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

Delete Redundant article as it is not a list of stations that broadcast on 78.8 FM.Pug6666 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' This conforms with all other frequency lists. It IS a list of stations on 78.8 MHz. Whether 1 or 1,000 stations operate on a frequency is irrelevant.Stereorock (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as conforming with the standard format for frequency lists. Was the AfD not craeted the normal way? It's missing the headers and not logged with the daily AfD listings. If this was created out of process, any discussion may be moot and a procedural keep would be likely mandated. - Dravecky (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dravecky (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and/or procedural-keep) Per Dravecky. Levdr1lp / talk 10:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn.

Vegan Reich

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable band; outside of the two given external links, i couldn't find any reliable sources. The only news I found about them was on blogs and based on speculation on their MySpace page. TKK ^{bark !} 23:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC) User:Carrite found numerous sources that I wasn't aware of; on that ground I withdraw my nomination. --TKK ^{bark !} 14:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The seminal band of the hardline subculture of straight edge hardcore punk. HERE'S a snippet from punknews.org on their reforming in 2009. THIS is coverage in a book published by HarperCollins, Everybody Hurts, by Trevor Kelley and Leslie Simon.HERE'S an interview (doesn't count to GNG) if somebody wants to improve the piece. HERE'S another blogpost (also doesn't count to GNG) on the relationship of the band to hardline. Yep, they get REFERENCED on the humor site Cracked.com — again, no reliable source but further evidence that this band was bigger than a bread basket. PASSING REFERENCE in Razorcake (formerly Flipside), which is a reliable source for punk rock. There is no doubt more; we've got a low bar for garage bands and this band was way, way bigger than that. Carrite (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to Carrite's finds, I'll add this biography from Allmusic. Meets WP:BAND and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 06:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To put things in perspective, this article was created as a result of the nomination to delete Hardline (subculture), which Vegan Reich is associated with. Wall Screamer (talk) 15:51, 12 June 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 G7 speedy-deletion (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Cheek

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article created solely to make the creation of a template possible. The Banner talk 22:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:10, 8 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kutulakos

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

I have attempted to locate significant independent reliable source coverage for her. All coverage I can turn up with searches such as this [1] show her being quoted, but not being a focus of the coverage. It seems her organization may be notable (but it already has its own article), but that she individually is not. And since notability is not inherited it seems too early to have a standalone article for her. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 20:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada China Business Council. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find various instances of the subject being quoted in-role as company representative, but nothing that would indicate individual biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, even a redirect is not merited. Hairhorn (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article cites no non-WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and no better reliable sources are easily located about her as a topic. If real sources actually start showing up I'm willing to revisit this, but in its current form it's a definite delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From TV Animation: One Piece: Grand Battle!

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

This is an improperly titled article containing a list of One Piece characters. There is already a full One Piece article and a List of One Piece characters. Additionally, some of the characters have their own individual pages. I was initially going to redirect, but it seems pointless with the non-standard title. More like a test page....or something. Taroaldo (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Not enough coffee today, obviously. I moved too quickly on that. Taroaldo (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I JUST started creating the article and I am not finished yet, so there is no reason to delete it so soon. Magicperson6969 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Magicperson6969[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. There doesn't appear to be any salvageable content. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo 20 wp

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

The article is an unsalvageable mess of POV, irrelevant information and WP:SYN from a single (blocked) user. Kolbasz (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I complained about the awfulness of this article quite some time ago at WikiProject Chemicals, and nothing has changed. In principle we could have an article about it (it's an insecticide), but if nobody is going to clean it up, deleting it is the best option. Looie496 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Unsalvageable mess" and "awfulness" don't go far enough. This article is basically a fraud. Almost the entire content of the article has nothing to do with the subject. Someone found a bunch of "references" related to potential health effects of some insecticides and extrapolated that into saying that this one insecticide causes all those effects and then began extrapolating further into pure fiction from there. There is no connection between the references and Tempo 20 wp. This is all POV-driven guilt-by-association style WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I don't know if it is intentionally deceptive or just the natural consequence of simple-minded editing from an extremely biased point of view, but it is unfortunate that Wikipedia has been spreading this article's misinformation for years. ChemNerd (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nom is clearly an example of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, as are the two previous votes. Subject matter is obviously both real and clearly notable given the already existing and extensive list of refs, as well as the (literally) millions that Google turns up. If it's so obviously bad, just fix it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion does not fall into any category where Wikipedia:Speedy keep could apply. ChemNerd (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever can be saved, if anything, in Cyfluthrin. They are the same substance (cfr. [2], [3] ); Tempo 20 WP is just a commercial name, apparently. And then redirect. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fringe POV pushing, OR and Synth. Also, content and POV fork. An valid article already exists on the pesticide. Nothing here is worth salvaging or merging, and not even sure a redirect would be appropriate without reliable sourcing that the product name is noteworthy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the couple of academic papers above use the commercial name indeed, so a redirect seems meaningful. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:56, 16 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Electoral Archive

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find reliable sources about this academic project. The references of the article are mostly academic newsletters. Farhikht (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are adequate for the subject. Such newsletters report academic projects, and if enough of them report a particular one, it shows that people in the field think it is notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relevant and timely. Keep for the reasons outlined above. Kabirat (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 June 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. postdlf (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Harris

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

Delete: I am sorry but there is no way this meets notability. Someone inserted it and I just came across it. If this stands then I guess every 9/11 victim and many more survivors get their own pages. Quis separabit? 18:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:ONEEVENT case. Some media coverage yes, notability no. --Bejnar (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bejnar on a clear WP:ONEEVENT. At this point, if the media coverage was enough to meet notability, then this article would be much longer with many more sources. User226 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a one event situation — big event, inadvertent involvement, coverage related to subject's place as a witness rather an active participant. Also has aspects of WP:NOTMEMORIAL coming into play. My condolences to her family and friends. Carrite (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I once fought long and hard to keep an article about a 9/11 figure, Orio Palmer. This one does not meet our standards for inclusion. For the second time today, I agree completely with Carrite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 10 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Melamed

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

Non-notable designer; seems to be an ad for him and his company. Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded it a while back. Doesn't seem to meet WP:N for biographies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. His official web page at U. Illinois, says his "work has been exhibited in The Pompideau Center in Paris, The Chicago Athenaeum Museum of Design, and The Museum of Modern Art (NY). His work has been reviewed in The Chicago Sun-Times, ID Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Design Perspectives, Business Week, Architectural Digest, Product Design & Development, Home World Design, Appliance Manufacturer, and CE Times". This needs proper sourcing, but if true, he does in fact meet the requirements for notability as a creative artist. Obviously, a total rewrite is needed; I've begun. This gives some signs of being a copypaste, but I have not found the source, and my rewrite should have removed most of it. If anyone find it, I can & will rewrite more completely. . DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This gives some detail of the Pompidou exhibit; it seems Melamed was directly involved, albeit as an organizer not a contributor. I also found an article in the LA Times from 1993 about him, widely reprinted in major papers e.g. here in the Sun-Times. I still can't find anything about the MOMA exhibit, but his contributions look real enough to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Working with/or exhibiting in the Pompidou, MoMA and The Chicago Athenaeum Museum of Design, which is verified, establishes notability. The article on the LA Times is helpful as well. I'd prefer to see more third-party sources but his scholarly record (per google scholar) satisfies WP:ACADEMIC and the article manages to pass WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 15:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Kabirat (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article really looks a lot better than it did when the AfD began. It is no longer a "POV rant". Perhaps a merge is still advisable. -- Y not? 20:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forced adoption in the UK

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

Without citations, the bulk of this article can only be treated as original research. If it can't be supported by reliable sources, it should be deleted. The Anome (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly rework into an article on ... whatever British legislation it is that's based on the U.S. Adoption and Safe Families Act, which has led to similar complaints in the U.S. (there was actually a 60 Minutes segment about this). But it'll have to be someone else, since I'm blocking the creator for their username. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've no idea what the previous comment is about (why does Daniel assume that British legislation is "based on" American legislation?) but this article is simply a POV rant from start to finish. Obviously there is child protection legislation which sometimes results in children being removed permanently from their parents. All countries have such legislation, and in all cases there will be disputes: claims that social workers have intervened inappropriately in some cases; claims that they haven't intervened quickly enough in others. This should be dealt with in articles about the relevant legislation, or on child protection practices. Even the title of this article is sensationalistic. It's presumably derived from Forced adoption in Australia which deals with historical practices that came to be controversial mainly because of their racial aspect (forcing Aboriginal mothers to give up children). The content of this article seems to have no connection to any comparable debates. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment. The title is inherently problematic. There is no such thing as "forced adoption". What there is, is removal of children from parents. They then enter the social care system. If it is determined that the parents will not be able to look after them, then adoptive parents will be sought. But "forced adoption" is a misnomer. It's quite different from the days when teenage mothers were simply told to give up their babies for adoption, which is what the article on Australia describes. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Keep if solid sources can be found. The article is rather nebulous right now.--Auric talk 17:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems to be a POV rant. Every time I look at a source in the article, it's been misused in some way, and I'd be amazed if those sources were a fair selection of what's out there. It might conceivably be possible to write a neutral article on this, but we'd have to start from scratch. bobrayner (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopaedic, NPOV-violating original research. What we need is a properly-sourced article on Adoption in the UK, which can then provide a neutral summary of the issue in a broader context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; the creator of the article, Statekidnap (talk · contribs), won't be able to comment here, as they're indefinitely blocked. However, I imagine they can still edit their talkpage if anybody wants to ask questions there. bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newuser2111 has appeared in his/her stead (there is no block evasion because the block was because of a problem with the original username). Paul B (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Criticisms of the article in its current form are valid but to suggest deletion is wholly inappropriate. Forced adoption does take place in the UK. This has been reported on in many reputable newspapers and websites, members of parliament and respected journalists have spoke on the issue, using the phrase 'forced adoption' so the argument about deleting the page seems extreme. Further more to deny that forced adoption is real is to be blind to reality, Martin Narey, Chief Executive Officer of Barnardo's, has himself used this phrase to describe the practice that the article relates to. Newuser2111 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Request that neutrality and citations needed flags are removed from page. What sections are in dispute. Please provide specific instances of what needs citing since there is not a single 'citation needed' flag in the article. Also state exactly what points are considered not to be neutral. It is not good enough to make claims that the article needs citing or is not neutral. Provide specific instances or remove the flags. Newuser2111 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clear POV problems, but it does seem that the news stories behind the piece might meet the GNG threshold. Not sure what the title would be, but I wouldn't dismiss that possible outcome. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any article on 'forced adoption' that made even a pretence at adhering to WP:NPOV policy would explain why the adoptions were taking place - best done in the context of a broader article on UK adoption policy. To read the article as it stands, you'd get the impression that the courts were doing it out of spite, rather than in what they see as the best interests of the child. Maybe they get it wrong sometimes. Hell, maybe they get it wrong often (though I'd like to see actual evidence for this, rather than the melodramatic hype in the article), but ignoring the broader context entirely is simply unacceptable. You can't make a neutral article based on a premise that isn't neutral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this is original research and synthesis, sprinkled with some serious POV (the original author's chosen username is 'Statekidnap'). The term forced adoption does not seem to be used as the central concept in most of the given references I checked - instead the issue seems to be a wider recognized problem with the UKs adoption system. If there were a series of influential articles or books or other material that referred to the issue this way then fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. If there were an article called "Adoption in the UK" then maybe that would be a merge target, but no such article exists - although there are a couple of per-nation articles: Template:Adopt. I don't doubt that this material merits some coverage, but not here, not in this wholly negative format, and not from a person who is obviously biased (with no prejudice as to what their motivation is) about the issue. Instead of truly documenting the issue, this is ended up as a case of WP:WORTHYCAUSE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is incoherent, inappropriate, and unsalvageable, per the frog and the grumpy guy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Create wider article, then merge I like Andy's solution, involving the creation of an NPOV Adoption in the United Kingdom article, which can then provide a neutral summary of the issue as part of a wider treatment of the subject in a broader context. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? There are countless articles that use the term Forced Adoption to describe the practice, many linked to from the page, there are also books that use the term. There's even a book called 'Forced Adoption' that covers the topic raised. What are you talking about? Do some real research! If you think the article is biased then make changes. It seems like there is a concerted effort to censor the topic. It is no good just saying it is biased, make specific allegations not just generalisations. What aspect of the page do you think is biased? The allegations here are baseless and biased. You are free to edit the page if you think it should be written in a different way, provide a justification of the practice is you like. Maybe a section on the history of forced adoption in the UK should be added. It should include the fact that in the 1970s tens of thousands of children were forcible removed from their mothers in the UK because they were born out of wedlock. Deleting the page is extreme. Rework the article. Newuser2111 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The nomination starts by saying "Without citations" but the article has many citations and they include reasonable sources such as the BBC. The nomination was made about 1 hour after the article was started and so it doesn't seem that sufficient time has been allowed for its development. The worst case is that we'd merge into some larger article about the taking of children into care which regularly generates lots of coverage in the UK. See foster care in the United Kingdom for another article in this area. Warden (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination was premature, made when the article was less than 90 minutes old. It is now 3 times the size in bytes it was then, and with far more refs, and only into its 2nd day. Hold off and revisit. Many of the critical points here (eg by Paul B above) make sense, but since we seem to have hardly any coverage of this area it seems unhelpful to descend on a new article and tear it to pieces.Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/chop/merge: The article positively has serious POV issues, and it isn't just a question of "what section", it's just that through-and-through it's written to accuse the UK government of child theft for whatever nefarious purposes, including "financial incentive". The paltry bits about the government's stance are rather token and almost push it even more POV since they're portrayed as defensive/apologetic (I removed the highly phrasing "the government insists"). Is there some useful content about criticism of adoption practices in the UK? Certainly. Is there a term "forced adoption" in some use? Sure. However, what we have here is a situation where the derogatory/accusational term has its own article, but the broader concept does not. There should be an Adoption in the United Kingdom, it should have a section on criticism which should be a pared-down version of the current with a careful eye towards showing both sides of the argument. If we're not having a greater article anytime soon, this page should be moved into a sandbox until the broader UK adoption page is created. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem merging this with the (as yet non-existent) Adoption in the United Kingdom. The article isn't really about "adoption". It about the forced removal of children from their biological parents. It's the removal that's the main thrust of the article. If it is to be merged, it should surely be to an article on UK social servives' child protection interventions, if one exists. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adoption is a red herring here. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors have knocked out most of the soapbox stuff so WP:TNT isn't needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/chop/merge as per MatthewVanitas: there is well-sourced material here that should be kept on Wikipedia in some format, but this article under this title poses various challenges to WP:NPOV. Re-titling to something more neutral is perhaps the best approach, but what that terms should be, I'm uncertain about. Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Once you remove the POV, there's not much left. Many sources are to articles by Christopher Booker, a columnist with an axe to grind; especially in this context, I don't consider him a RS. Miniapolis 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a highly POV article. The UK has a well-established procedure for child-safeguarding, which involves children at risk being taken into the care of the local authority. What happens to them is overseen by the court. The court has power to vest parental responsibilities in the local authority and to free children for adoption. This is inevitably only in cases where the parents oppose that course of action. It is inevitable that such parents will feel that their children have been stolen from them, but this will only follow a finding by the court that the parent cannot bring up the child properly. The process is a long one (perhaps too long for the child's good), but should provide enough time for the parent to reform her(/him)self to have the child back. Nevertheless, it is likely that there will occasionally be bad decisions by the courts, though not often enough to warrant this article. I cannot accept that such a POV article could be merged into something on adoption. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 18 June 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. --BDD (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Shadows: Faithful Kiss

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

Non-notable film. Looking at the production company's website, it seems like the film was never released [4][5]. jonkerz ♠talk 16:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 16:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NF. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Shot IN sweden, it appears the film had a very limited release in Sweden on June 17, 2011. That the "official website" apologized about their budget issues in October 2011 implies it did not get the final post-production touches they wished nor the hoped-for wider distribution. It can be viewed on Youtube, but lacking wider release or screenings and lacking commentary in reliable sources, WP:NF is failed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 9 June 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. --BDD (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Awake Club

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

The two entries on this disambiguation page can easily be included on Wide Awake. In fact, Wide Awakes already was. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by moving Wide Awake Club (TV-am) over the top of this. There's no reason at all for Wide Awake Club to be a disambiguation page between something that is called "Wide Awake Club" and something that is not. Dricherby (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –Quiddity (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The term has only one clear meaning, and therefore is unambiguous. bd2412 T 20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab page and move TV-am programme to the base name, with a hatnote to offer a link to Wide Awakes (though there is no mention on that page of the name "Wide Awake Club(s)"). PamD 17:08, 9 June 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. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plantarianism

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism. No relevant hits in Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, Google News Archive, or Google Scholar. General web search shows only self published sources using the term. Also, it's unclear what makes this different from Semi-vegetarianism. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of secondary sources. Notice also that the article is entirely positive. If nobody has ever said anything bad about something that is a sign it is not notable. (I've never checked out our article on Vegetarianism but I assume it has a section on "criticism of vegetarianism.")Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. "Concerns." Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this source which could count as significant coverage, if reliable. ^King Jakob _C2 17:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source King jacob found is the web page of the nutritionist who apparently invented the term, and says so. Classic example of NOT NEOLOGISM. DGG ( talk )
Delete as apparently my "significant coverage" is not so. The rest of the Google search is a huge mess of blogs, facebook pages, and SPS "sources". ^King Jakob _C2 23:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a variation on semi-vegitarianism that hasn't really gained traction. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 10 June 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 Titanium (band) . SarahStierch (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo (Titanium song)

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

Advertisement for the s=song (link to itunes) not notable, author removed my request for a speedy tag. Tyros1972 Talk 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Titanium (band) until song becomes notable. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the song already charted on New Zealand Single Chart. Satchikova (talk) 15:42, 14 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glosbe.com

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

No RS, seems like an advertisement to get page traffic and generate revenue via Google AdSense. Not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 13:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. If wikipedia is a place for pages like WordReference.com than it definitely should allow articles like Glosbe.com. Glosbe is a project very similar to wiktionary, as such it belongs to society, and having encyclopedic article in Wikipedia helps to build social community. I don't lsee any reason why having or not having Ads on site shall influence your decision. When page is ~10,000 position at Alexa saying, that the reason for this article to exist is to generate a few hundred visits more per month is wrong. But it's up to you. --Barman851010 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that WordReference.com has received significant coverage in many independent, reliable sources, and is therefore notable by Wikipedia's standards. On the other hand, I can find no such independent coverage of Glosbe.com. Accordingly, the article should be deleted. By the way, this is an encyclopedia, not a tool to build "social community". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get the point. Let me address the latter case: I meant wikipedia as a help of building "social community" in a sense: it is a place for encyclopedic data about a site. Information about site/community placed on site is non encyclopedic, it is, usually, full of marketing. The information about site/community/whatever placed in wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic - independent, short, without marketing, editable to people not necessary being creators of the site. In such a way wikipedia is a help for users, as an independent source of information. It is a help for users, I did not call it a tool for building social community. By "users" I do not only mean online readers, but also people using our API to build their applications and several Universities that published their data through Glosbe. To address the Notability: I didn't put "marketing" data in the article, what maybe was a mistake, as notability seems to be very close to marketing. Glosbe does contain the biggest translation memory available online (I'm sure that Google has bigger one, but it is not available for normal users), especially bigger than Linguee. Glosbe contains the biggest bilingual dictionaries for a lot of languages, to mention some: Avaric-Turkish dictionary, Belarussian-English, Polish-Czech, Polish-Latin and others; it provides biggest Bosnian-other european languages dictionaries. There are the biggest in a sense of number of phrases covered. It is place where Kah language constructors do build their dictionary. What I also consider notable, is that around 200,000 people uses is as an everyday tool. However you are right, I think that you won't find any mention about Glosbe in Times or even The Huffington Post. I don't think I could give any other reason not to delete this page, so please do whatever you think is appropriate. However I'd find it weird if what makes a thing "notable" is whether some "Big Website" mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barman851010 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barman, please read WP:NOTABILITY. Although as a new editor you may consider it "weird", what makes a topic notable here on Wikipedia is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This is the opposite of "marketing". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, such politics really surprises me. Thank you Cullen for making this clear. AFAIK there is one (not authors linked) article about Glosbe [6] and even one presentation made by an user [7] (not to mention some links and short articles on a few translators blogs). I assume those are too unimportant to be considered notable. Thank you for your time anyway. --Barman851010 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything at all about it from independent reliable sources at Google, Google News or Google Books. It seems to be brand new (the website says it is in beta version [8]) so maybe it will attract more notice later, but for now, it fails WP:WEB. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 10 June 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 deleted by admin RHaworth (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azan (Band)

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

Not notable can't find any RS on this artist. Tyros1972 Talk 12:54, 8 June 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Factors Lab (band)

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

Article does not establish notability per WP:BAND. All the article's references are either self-published, press releases, or passing notices of live performances supporting notable bands. Articles on this band were previously deleted and speedied; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab and deletion log. Muchness (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Band does meet requirement. As you've already stated there are noted press releases. The guideline states

" 1.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.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

should not be deleted. Meets guideline number 4 under tour coverage 4.Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the link you provided on the previously deleted page,it's obvious that that page was the victim of a malicious vandalism and in my opinion should not have been deleted. But that page being deleted is irrelevant because weather they meet the notability guidelines or not a couple years ago when that other article was written, they do meet them now and there is a large amount of press especially regarding their new album and their recent work with Chris Vrenna. As well as their tour with Kmfdm. Yes they were one of 3 bands on the tour but that was a international tour that they were billed as being a part of.

should not be deleted as per number 1.on notability guidelines the statement saying their press in only about bands that supported on tour is incorrect. Our of the 22 listed press releases on their site 21 mention there name as a main part if an article. References 1,9,10,11,12,13 and 20 on their page are independent press release ONLY about human factors lab. They meet the notability guidelines 66.87.149.168 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)mike[reply]

Comment: press releases do not count towards establishing notability. The coverage regarding tours is trivial; the articles only mention the band's name and state that they're supporting. The only non-trivial coverage I can see in the article references are this news article, which reads like a brief press release reprint, and this review, which is from a site that writes promotional reviews for a fee (source). I'm not seeing any evidence of non-trivial, non-press release/promotional coverage in reliable, independent sources. --Muchness (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of previous article is irrelevant to the claim that the band does not currently meet notability guidelines. Reading over the article for deletion discussion and statements from names like "bring them down" it's obvious these were fake names created to maliciously attack the bands wiki page. Also that page was deleted in 2010. Even if someone agreed that they were not notable then. The references provided showing notability are all recent in the past couple years 66.87.149.168 (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)mike[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the statement that coverage international tours in grade a venues is not relevant to them brig notable. If they weren't notable they would be on those tours. Also the coverage is buy die of the biggest online music magazine like blabber mouth and the gauntlet. But even if that were correct. There are articles that have nothing to do with them touring. There are articles about them producing albums with Chris Vrenna of none inch nails. And about the band in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.135 (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being direct support on major national tours the band has also redivided press from regen magazine. Another large online music publication regarding their own headlong tours. The first thing in the notability guidelines states press is relevant to them being notable. They had provided sources for multiple tour related and other no tour rested press releases. They meet the guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.135 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Note that the ~~Gunatlet article~~Gauntlet article referenced above reads almost identically to the Blabbermouth article; coincidence or cribbing from a press release? I think it's obvious. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - revised link as I linked to the wrong Gauntlet article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

""keep""- The gauntlet article you just linked was from oct 2011 regarding a new album. The blabber mouth article you linked claiming as identical was from 2008 and was about a tour with Mushroomhead. Totally different. Obviously NOT a press release. All it does is show that human factors lab receives lots of press coverage from different notable sources. And that they do meet notability requirements there is also an article from regen magazine listed in their sources covering the same album release. Written totally different showing its not copied from another source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for point that out. I have corrected my link above. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you yourself posted different links from different new sources should show the band obviously meets notability requirements. The links you provided were regarding one of MANY tours If that in itself isn't enough them the link you mistakenly provided as well as the regen magazine links, and the other 20+ sources should show they meet requirement 1. In the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Those were links in the article. The Gauntlet does not appear to be a reliable source. I checked this page and found this page which is an almost direct word for word copy, and credits the material to Facebook. The Gauntlet just seems to repost press release material. It's not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gauntlet is one of the largest and most reliable online news sources there is. The fact that the gauntlet ran an article on them seems to show notability almost in itself. Given their reputation it isn't uncommon for other online magazine to also run stories that te gauntlet runs. Sometimes word for word. I dot think this take away from the notability of the band though. But just to provide information here is a link to a different magazine that is covering the same topic. But not taken from the gauntlet http://regenmag.com/news/human-factors-lab-to-release-new-album-in-four-parts/66.87.149.168 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)mike[reply]

Delete. Band lacks INDEPENDENT coverage in multiple reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 20 references and examples given from INDEPENDANT media sources. How could you possible make a statement saying delete when it's so obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bombarding an article with second rate sources does not make a band notable. Sources are a mix of press releases, trivial mentions, concert listings, self published sources, blogs. None are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about Human Factors Lab. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does not meet WP:BAND; sources are press releases or passing mentions. Miniapolis 13:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this article meets WP:BAND or WP:RS. Jguy _Talk^Done 17:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, they meet the 1st part of guidelines with 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable,".. Just because something is covered by the press doesn't mean it should be disregarded. I don't see 1 single self published article listed, all are from independent notable news sources, on varies subjects.. its not like they were just mentioned once in a passing article.. they have been mentioned for multiple different things, at multiple times, by multiple news organizations. ... news organizations that have done stricles just based off them, because they are notable enough to be news worthy in the opinion of the writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that the "subject of multple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable" excludes sources which are trivial in nature. These sources just seem trivial, none are from any news organizations that I can see, save for a couple of small mentions by Orlando news sources. This alone is not sufficient enough to establish Notability. Most, if not all of these sources are secondary. None primary. Jguy _Talk^Done 19:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not meet WP:BAND UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [9]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

The Gauntet,Regen magazine,fabrika magazine,and blabber mouth are all very well established notable music related news sites. All of these have run Varies articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.215 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 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 Black Joy. SarahStierch (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black (video)

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing, and more easily searchable, article on Black Joy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychic TV. It's also a copyvio as it's just text from the CD. I have the album ;) SarahStierch (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kondole (album)

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

looks like copyvio from "CD inlay card" and WP:OR. No sources to back up claims The Banner talk 12:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Psychic TV. Poorly written and unsourced. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:01, 8 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhela

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

Very short, unsourced article about a non-notable subcaste. The article makes dubious claims. - Mr X 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 11:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although not all of the fifty or so clans of the Saini are listed in People of India: Rajasthan, some important ones are (p. 846) and this one is not. No reliable source found. --Bejnar (talk) 19:23, 8 June 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 deleted by admin RHaworth (non-admin closure). —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Atef

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

Article lacks any RS and notability. Unable to find anything on the artist in Google. Tyros1972 Talk 11:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 8 June 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. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Tales (British postage stamps)

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; I don't think this article is able to meet Wikipedia's notable guidelines. It fails. Ashbeckjonathan 01:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - there is some coverage at time of issue but no significant coverage beyond that time. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto Bluehotel (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A type of stamp with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 11 June 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. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Boheman

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

Non-notable politician (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to meet WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Riksdag. He is also mentioned in the Nationalencyklopedin [10]. Funny ^Pika! 10:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FunnyPika - meets criterion 1 of WP:POLITICIAN. The man was not just a member of the Riksdag, but also Speaker of the First Chamber for five years. In addition, a biographical entry in Nationalencyclopedin means that he meets WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 12:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely meets WP:POLITICIAN, completely incomprehensible nomination, please read the article and relevance criteria before nominating. Tomas e (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted the person clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Also of note is that they were Swedish Ambassador to the UK, France and the USA. While a recent request for comment came to no consensus on automatic notability of Ambassadors, it's quite plausible that he achieved significant coverage in those roles. Add to that the fact that he was at one point a serious contender to be UN Secretary General and we do seem to have a senior noteworthy politician. Valenciano (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 18:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of a national legislature and former senior diplomat and civil servant. Clearly notable. Should never have been nominated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am as puzzled as Tomas e above. Didn't the nominator read the article? --Hegvald (talk) 04:51, 12 June 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. L Faraone 01:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Habibi

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

References of the article are mostly blogs or news article that mention him very briefly among others. I've found nothing else after a search in Persian. Noted that both of the articles in Persian and English Wiki have been created by two different SPA users. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR.Farhikht (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not notable enough fro wikipedia. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BIO, references that only briefly mention the subject can still be enough to display notability if several of them can be found. If you are able to read Persian, could you provide some context for how Habibi is mentioned by the news sources? --Jpcase (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure:

In this source, a news article, the subject is mentioned 2 times: 1. An animation will be dubbed in Channel 2 of Iranian TV with Majid Habibi as the head of dubbing team of this animation. 2. Voice actors of this animation are Ehsan Ahmadi, Shohreh Rouhi, "Majid Habibi", and names of others.
This one is a brief interview with M. Raeesi, head of Iranian young voice actors, and he says that another animation will be dubbed with Majdi Habibi as the head of the dubbing team.
This one is a collection of brief news articles and one of them is about a movie which will be dubbed with the voices of Majdi Habibi and others.
I think that 1, 2, 3 are dead links.
This link also a news article cites Majdi Habibi among others as a voice actor of another animation.
The same news article published by Magiran, Iranian newspapers database.
Some photos of some voice actors.
This news article also talks about another animation with some voice actors among them Majid Habibi. and the same news artice.
1, 2 Again some photos.
Other photos.
An article by Majdi Habibi.
This is a report which cites Majdi Habibi.
This one is a short interview with Majdi Habibi about working as a voice actor in Iran.

Among these sources, Mehr News Agency is a good source I think.Farhikht (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do that. The references that simply list his name amongst those of other voice actors would be too trivial to establish notability, but I believe that the first two, which make special note of him for being the head of dubbing teams, might fall under the section of the guidelines that I mentioned. If so, then when taken together, multiple references like these would be enough to establish notability. I assume that more than two would be necessary, but then there's also the interview with Habibi, which I think would constitute significant coverage. So I'm going with a Weak Keep --Jpcase (talk) 21:21, 27 May 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, czar · · 16:14, 30 May 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, czar · · 08:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've thought about this one a bit and been unable to come to any firm conclusion, especially as interviews are close to being primary sources. I would, however, like to thank Farhikht for helping us with the Persian sources. Dricherby (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Dricherby.Farhikht (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent in other articles, see [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 June 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haifu Hospital

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

I deleted this page as a result of Afd earlier this month. Now it was recreated by the same user in a different form. There is no copyvio anymore, however, notability is not demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Claim of notability, verified as seen in this source.[12] Sources are Chinese language related, but that does not mean sources cannot be found and cannot be used. I'm not good at Chinese, but Panjk and other sites seem to have hits in their archives. Needs work, but is likely to meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 7 June 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, czar · · 08:24, 8 June 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:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Bad With Goodbyes...

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

No RS, looks like a promotion for this artist. Tyros1972 Talk 07:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd normally recommend a redirect to the artist's page, but I'm doubting that there is any notability for them either. I'm leaning towards nominating them for deletion myself if nobody beats me to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 08:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 08:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability shown and looks promotional. Normally I redirect albums to artists, but in this case there is no Wikipedia page for the artist. (Sorry, Tokyogirl, someone beat you to it! :)) öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete via CSD A9, so tagged as such. — sparklism ^hey! 09:57, 10 June 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 Sponge Cola. (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TedMark Cruz

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

No RS just YouTube, Facebook etc. does not seem notable just promotion. Tyros1972 Talk 07:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sponge Cola as per the paragraph at the end of WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same could go for the articles created on other members of this band Chris Cantada, Gosh Dilay, Erwin Armovit, who do not appear to have sufficient other activity outside the band to merit individual articles. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 08:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 08:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sponge Cola per above. Not enough notability outside of the band. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:07, 9 June 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. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic in Islamic philosophy

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

This article was created by an author who has since been banned. The resulting major cleanup left this a two-sentence stub that has little hope of being expanded. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, really? I'm no expert on this, but really it would kind of surprise me if RSs couldn't be found or if it didn't pass GNG. Islam, like Judaism, is pretty well-known for an intricate logical framework, if I'm not mistaken. (This is not a "keep" !vote per se; I'm not personally in a position to refute the nominator's claim, but I'm kind of skeptical.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand. I don't know much about philosophy but I'm pretty sure this is a legitimate topic. We should have an article on this subject. My point is, all we have are two sentences and some see-also links. Let's delete this and maybe at some point in the future an editor can write a responsible version. I don't see the utility in retaining a stub indefinitely. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 08:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom: "I'm pretty sure this is a legitimate topic. We should have an article on this subject." Being a stub is no reason for deletion. If there is concern that editors creating a new article based on the pre-stub history of this one would introduce its biases, a history deletion might be appropriate. Dricherby (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASZ is an essay, and not one to which I would subscribe. Is there any authoritative guidance or persuasive reasoning to explain why we should keep a two-sentence stub? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with all of ATA either, and I'm not sure what value the stub really has, but formalities aside, it definitely does not seem to be the usual practice to delete an article just because there's no one immediately available to enhance it to a useful state. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nominators are expected to give a policy-based reason for deletion so you (Chris) kinda shoulda checked that out already. :-) Anyway, no worries. Wikipedia's deletion policy says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Since you feel there should be an article on the topic, the only problem is that the one we have at the moment is too short, and that can be solved by regular editing. Since article topics are supposed to be notable and notability implies that there's enough material for more than a stub, we shouldn't have articles that can never be expanded beyond a stub, but this doesn't seem to be one of those. (Actually, WP:STUB defines a stub to be a short article that has the potential for expansion.) Dricherby (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was originally written almost entirely by the community banned User:Jagged 85, who was also the subject of one of the largest cleanup efforts on Wikipedia. The stubbing of this article was part of that cleanup. Here is an old revision of the article, that may contain some source material for expanding, but beware that very little that Jagged85 wrote should be considered reliable and sources would need to be checked and triple-checked for accuracy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article in its present form is truthful, then it obviously has a lot of potential to be expanded. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging from the external links alone, this topic has a lot of potential. Let's keep it around, and hopefully some scholar in the area who views Wikipedia will be so appalled by the coverage that they'll take to editing the article. Ray^Talk 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Islamic philosophy is the route by which much of classical Greek logic came to medieval logic. Avicenna, [Averroes]], and Al-Farabi are major names in both the history of logic and Islamic philosophy. Cf. SEP entry on Arabic and Islamic Philosophy of Language and Logic]. This is a very significant topic. --- — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we snow keep at this point? Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hurry? The discussion only has a couple more days to run anyway. Dricherby (talk) 16:47, 13 June 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 SpongeBob SquarePants (season 7). (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karate Star

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

Contested prod. Episode fails WP:GNG. Has only few sources, including IMDb and TV.com are not reliable failing WP:RS, nothing but fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 04:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for deletion as the same reason:

JJ98 (Talk) 04:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 7). Other than fan pages and trivial mentions of the episode airing, I can't find anything to show that this episode is ultimately noteworthy enough to merit its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This goes for the other episode as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 7) Mediran (t • c) 07:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 08:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 7). Was this a special? No. Was this half an hour instead of the usual 11 minutes? No. This is just a regular episode. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, nothing notable. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 16:04, 9 June 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 Hammerhead (band). (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Hole EP

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

Non-notable EP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hammerhead. Lacks content and coverage to justify a standalone article. If kept, it appears the correct title would be Memory Hole (EP) as 'EP' doesn't seem to be part of the title of the release. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 08:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Hammerhead. Not enough coverage or sources anywhere. I also agree with Michig that should this article be kept or reintroduced to Wikipedia, there should be parentheses around the EP. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:43, 8 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amp Beats

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

Time to put this one to rest: speedied twice already, and no more notable now than it was a few days ago. There's nothing but some vague claims to fame and a bunch of hits on mixtape websites: not a notable outfit. Perhaps SALT will go well with deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing to indicate that an encyclopedia article is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 08:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 08:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. STATic message me! 15:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reference in the article although I suppose the huge list of external links is meant to serve as one. I did not see a single reliable source in that list of links nor could I find one myself. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 10 June 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ise lyfe

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:53, 24 May 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 May 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i just added two references and a link to IMDB. he was in news today. I am right now neutral on whether he qualifies as notable, but now we have refs.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:38, 30 May 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, czar · · 06:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to meet N or GNG at this time, but userifying could be option as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:02, 7 June 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, L Faraone 02:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I added several references to the article and tidied it up a little; he seems to have at least local notability. If the article is kept its title should be changed to Ise Lyfe (with a capital L). --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 10 June 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. postdlf (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute of Market Research and Analytics (IIMRA)

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

"Private university" with no reliable secondary sources. Looks like this has been speedied a couple of times as unambiguous advertising; I prodded it earlier today after seeing it spammed across See-Also sections, but a new editor opposed it by adding a Blogspot blog source. McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added this page's link in multiple wikipedia pages (which are relevant to Market research and management). My intention was not to advertise but to spread market research in developing countries like India, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. I was not aware that my actions would be considered as advertising. Even I do not have any direct relationship with this University. But have to admit one thing, this institute is doing a great job in above mentioned countries where awareness about market research is very minimum. I tried to contribute some thing to the Bottom of Pyramid Youth population in developing counties by spreading market research (since market research has high employment generation capacity). I can remove those unnecessary links of this page in other wiki pages since it is seen as advertising. I am collecting the secondary sources right now and could add dome more sources soon. Believe you can understand. Thank you. Lincolnlatest123 (Lincolnlatest123|talk)

@User:Lincolnlatest123 This type of institute or private universities actually are responsible for hundreds of deaths. They do nothing good than monetary extraction from poor people in the name of employment. And re: There are many people who are thinking of "the Bottom of Pyramid Youth population in developing counties". So you do not have to worry. Solomon7968 (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 13:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 13:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 13:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A training program, not a university. When it has done great work to the extents that it is written about substantially in published 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases, then there can be an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 2 June 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, L Faraone 02:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found that this vocational training centre is notable. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Solomon7968 (talk) 10:24, 8 June 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 to delete -- Y not? 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florinel Enache

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

Interesting contradiction here: normally this would be NOT MEMORIAL or NOT NEWS, but he was awarded a national medal, apparently the "2nd highest medal for people without higher education" DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Romania differentiates between honours for people with and without higher education? Weird! But this is an NCO who has been wounded and awarded (as far as I can work out, given the number of grades of the higher orders) the nineteenth highest honour of his country. Not really notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's some stupid English translation. He received the medal "clasa I, cu însemn de război, pentru militari", which means "1st class, in action (war participation), for military personnel". 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has in depth national press coverage in Romania [13], with which this page clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't know if this page should be deleted as WP:BLP1E though. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally he should be mentioned on the Romanian Army in Afghanistan or something like that. But no such page seems to exist here. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the dispassionate argument here would be that a US soldier in a similar situation would not have received that kind of press coverage. In Romania there were a few short press articles when he was wounded, for instance [14]. And in the wake of this he became a bit of cause celebre for the Romanian diaspora in the US surely helped by his long stay at Walter Reed. Then the US administration, via their embassy in Romania, released those Obama photos (apparently on the 2nd Obama visit), creating the 2nd major wave of press coverage in Romania. Finally the 3rd major wave was upon his return to Romania and being decorated by Basescu. These last two events were a few days apart; some papers covered them in separate articles. Never mind related coverage like the defense minister visiting Enache's home village to check out his future accommodations [15]. There were also some side stories in the Romanian press, not exactly PR stunts, like the fact that the Romanian government apparently had to approve a new unqualified garbageman post for his son, who apparently had not obtained his high-school diploma at the time; this bit was in the local news, but I hope you get the idea on the level of interest his story got [16]... There were a few other articles on various details like how much his wheelchair costed and who paid for it, interviews with the neighbors in village, etc. For comparison, given their relatively low number and immediate disclosure by the authorities, most Romanian KIAs in Afghanistan have had at least one wave of reasonably detailed press articles, e.g. Petre Tiberius had [17], sans Obama photo but with posthumous decoration by Basescu. The wounded have generally not been individually covered by the Romanian press, until this case, and certainly not to this level. I don't know if the unusually high media interest in Enache's case translates into long-term encyclopedic interest... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-english sources need to be checked, has a claim of notability and received coverage internationally for a singular event, but the assumed bulk of coverage is non-English. This presumption is my reasoning for holding off a delete; Google has a major blindspot on international coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 7 June 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, L Faraone 02:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER but the coverage described above seems to go beyond WP:ROUTINE so I think this meets WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I should think Obama has visited hundreds of injured servicemen.Deb (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this article meeting WP:GNG and the coverage does extend beyond WP:ROUTINE as pointed out by User:Dricherby, it just needs some cleanup and some more sources, which can be gotten easily, it seems. See WP:PRESERVE. No reason to trash an article such as this. Jguy _Talk^Done 18:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be consensus that this is not a thing. Happy to provide the content to people if it is after all a thing and better sources are found. -- Y not? 14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary orthomanual medicine

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

Disguised SPAM for a veterinary clinic over several Wikipedia (including the Dutch) with an assistant. The Banner talk 21:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medical-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 23:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Great, someone has invented horse chiropractic. This gets no genuine book hits; nor does "orthomanipulation". Looking for "orthomanual" alone picks up books on chiropractic. It's inconceivable that a significant veterinary technique would not appear in a book somewhere. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why you say it doesn't appear in a book - I did supply a fair amount of references. Including this:

a b van de Veen, EA; de Vet HC, Pool JJ, Schuller W, de Zoete A, Bouter LM (February 2005). "Variance in manual treatment of nonspecific low back pain between orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 28 (2): 108–16. But maybe the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is not good enough for you? But if you still don't believe me, why don't you look at this: http://www.vomtech.com/whatis.htm Or: http://corebalancetherapy.com/manual-therapy/ If this is a new method of treating certain types of injuries affecting dogs, I don't see why it can't be included. We do have a "Canine physical therapy" article in Wikipedia. I don't quite see what is the difference between these two, as this is a type of canine physical therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoranBar (talk • contribs) 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what your interest is in this article and that of Dorit Aharon? The Banner talk 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "orthomanual" produces hits for chiropractic. Not veterinary. We need medical literature hits. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userify - If this is worth a standalone article then I would expect more coverage and independent coverage; Wikipedia should not be publishing or pushing practices that are not peer-reviewed and promotional. The sources in the article are largely statements unrelated to the development, practice and standing amongst academic and practicing peers. Userifying is better than deleting at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:20, 7 June 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, L Faraone 02:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument that the coverage of alternative medicine is inherent "pushing it" is against policy. Rather, we cover it objectively. It needs expansion , and an attempt to see if it has been discussecd in the mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We made that attempt: it is not. If you think otherwise, find it. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or delete. Notability is not established after suitable attempts. -- Scray (talk) 15:23, 15 June 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 actual policy-based arguments weigh as delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Georgia Williams

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 18:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.

Keep. The high-profile disappearance and apparent murder of the pretty teenage daughter of a policeman. This will clearly receive a great deal more coverage in the national media. Jim Michael (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In case you do not want to read my long explanation below, this basically comes down to what you said about the coverage. There will be a "great deal more coverage" but there isn't at the present time. Also, the incident will have to have some time of lasting effect on people, in more than just the community where it took place. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jim, that is the criteria for a tabloid media or Sky News frenzy not an encyclopedia entry. Keri (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For Wikipedia EVENTS, the “rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).” This is receiving national and now international coverage. However, we need to keep in mind that “routine kinds of news events” (e.g. murder), “whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.” Here, the question is if this case will have a WP:LASTING effect. In this case, there would need to be something unusual about the case. For instance, kidnapping usually does not qualify for an article; however, events like this kidnapping qualify as there are many variables that make it unusual (rape, fathering of the child, captivity for so long, etc.) that will make it something for people to talk about for decades. In the case of Georgia Williams, it is possible that the story gets to that level, but it has not received enough attention at the moment to have a lasting effect outside of the community in which it took place. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons directly above.--85.210.99.191 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sad story, but not at present an unusual one or something that will cause it to stand out from others in history. In addition, an arrest has been made and the matter is sub judice, so any information about the circumstances of her disappearance etc will be of the nature of speculation and there are no truly reliable sources. Aside from any very controlled information which the police choose to release journalists are relying on information from sources who do not have direct knowledge, are witnesses who may have been advised to withhold what they know, or even those who have reason to spread disinformation. The best time to consider creating such articles is after the trial, when the lasting significance if any is clear and the facts have been tested in court. --AJHingston (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we don't usually wait until a trial has ended before an article about a crime/death is created. Jim Michael (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we probably should! It is very difficult to keep such articles to the disappearance and search themselves, and there are good reasons why the facts of what actually happened usually only emerge at trial. A decent interval also makes it easier to judge lasting significance and notability. --AJHingston (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not of sufficient general or permanent interest. that the individual is "pretty:, "teen-aged" and "the daughter of a policeman" is irrelevant to any encyclopedic interest. I am rather reluctant to delete under NOT NEWS if there is something intrinsically exceptional, or major international coverage, but I nonetheless cannot justify this article. FWIW, I do not think that the UK "sub judice" rule has any relevance to us. If we did know the name, we could include it (as the article does currently include it in the footnotes) if the article were otherwise justified. Our BLP policy is what applies, and our equally important policy of NOT CENSORED. (I recognize that editors in the UK may not want to add such information, but that should indluence no one elsewhere.) DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sub judice rule does restrict reporting in the UK, though, and accordingly what is reliably known. Rumours may be rife, but those in a position to contradict them will usually be unwilling or unable to contradict them. We have bitter experience in recent times of how speculation in such cases can run riot and even supposedly RS can convey information which turns out to be completely wrong. That problem is not confined to Britain. Wikipedians need to learn from that, and BLP needs to be rigorously enforced. This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with avoiding inaccurate and misleading information appearing in WP. --AJHingston (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication yet that this single event will have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance. Per the notability guideline: most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Keri (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the reasons given above. Nothing to suggest that this sad incident will have any enduring significance or any enduring significant coverage, which is what is required. The current media interest, which will no doubt continue with any subsequent developments or criminal trial, is mid-level at best; and even if it were greater we'd still fail the significance point – WP is not a newspaper or a place to round up crime and courts news reports. There are far too many of these kind of entries on WP, misleadingly justified by the claim that there are "lots of [media] sources". Let's not add another one. N-HH talk/edits 10:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, a very sad case, but I doubt it will have enduring significance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul MacDermott. See also Missing white woman syndrome. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Murder of Georgia Williams and Keep. This has been a high profile casein the British news. A body has now been found, and a person arrested. Whether we will keep this in the long term is perhaps a different question. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the delete comments have explained why news reports of crimes or incidents such as this are not, by WP policy or guidelines, enough on their own to justify retention of such entries, without any additional factors that would create enduring significance. Are there any policy-based reasons for retention, or policy-based rebuttals of those fairly comprehensive delete comments? As noted, it's not even that high-profile in the media, and even if it were, is that enough for an encyclopedia? And I don't see why or how the discovery of a body or the fact that a trial may follow shifts the nature of the discussion. Nor do I understand the suggestion that it is supposedly notable now, so we should keep the page for now, but that it might not be in the long term and that we may wish to delete it later. Isn't that back to front? Something acquires notability, it doesn't lose it. N-HH talk/edits 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it's not even that high-profile in the media"!! Come again? Have you actually been looking at the media in Britain recently? Most murders are not particularly high-profile. This one certainly is, and that's the reason for keep opinions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, I have. It is getting coverage, like lots of other tragic events and crimes, but it is not splashed all over the front pages every day. It is occasional inside page/down the running order stuff in serious media – as I said, mid-level. That aside, there is the issue of what such coverage, however wide, means for encyclopedic notability. As referred to already, from WP:EVENT:

"not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)"
"News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article"
"Routine kinds of news events .. including most crimes, accidents, deaths .. – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" etc etc –

Previous AFD debates are also pretty clear on this. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Murder of Georgia Williams and Keep has been high profile similar to the recent cases such as April Jones and Tia Sharp.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping this article. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See observation in response to post above, and detailed and reasoned points made in all Delete posts. Will AFDs ever be free from people simply posting pithy "Keep .. high profile", or "Keep .. meets GNG" comments? N-HH talk/edits 07:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will AfDs ever be free from nominators simply using the pithy "NOTNEWS"? as a reason for deletion of an article? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent Delete comments have more than elaborated on the detail of the arguments at stake, as well as highlighting the paucity of reasoning being offered in favour of Keep. As for my specific question here, the answer is, as evidenced by the main comment immediately below this one, "Clearly not". N-HH talk/edits 19:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the the nominator couldn't be bothered to come up with a better reason. As ever, it is easier to destroy than to create. You may not agree with the reasoning behind the keeps, others of us clearly do. We feel it is common sense to keep an article on an event with such a high national profile. This is not a minor story in a local newspaper. It is also incumbent on those trotting out WP:NOTNEWS to actually read what that section says: it doesn't say what you clearly think it says. This event does not fall into the categories covered, since it is neither a first-hand news report nor "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Nothing else is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. To quote WP:NNEWS: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." In what way does this event not meet that criterion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but none of the "Keeps" have, until now, even tried to explain anything at all. And even now you are talking in the first part of your comment about what you "feel" is "common sense". As for policy and guidelines, which you've now also addressed, the "Delete" reasoning has not just been based on the WP:NOTNEWS section of policy but also on guidelines such as WP:Notability and, more specifically, WP:EVENT. As for NOTNEWS, I know exactly what it says thanks, and you've rather significantly elided the "For example" that comes ahead of the categories cited, which presumably were chosen as being simply the most obvious things that it means when, before that, it explicitly says that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Your assertion that "nothing else is covered" outside of the categories named is just plain wrong.

As for WP:EVENT, I quoted the points it makes above – which very explicitly exclude from notability deaths and crimes based solely on news coverage. Even the main notability page qualifies the basic definition in GNG by saying that, "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage ... Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage". And, in response to your final point, what "widespread" impact is it being suggested that this tragic event has actually had? Nor do we have "diverse sources" – we have some contemporaneous news reports in the UK media, mostly sourced in turn from PA most likely, which is not, as noted, the "significant coverage" required by GNG. N-HH talk/edits 16:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to "the rules" in your edit summary illustrates perfectly how so many editors misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Which "rules" would these be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Death of Georgia Williams (since murder has not yet been proven in court) and Keep. Very high-profile case extensively covered and still being covered in the British national media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rename should be "Death of (name)" as 'murder' goes against policy guidelines and death has been confirmed, so disappearance no longer qualifies. Seems to meet GNG; just needs a lot more work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it. If the editors who are in favour of retaining this article could improve the article, we may be able to show its notability - similar to Murder of Joanna Yeates and Murder of Sian O'Callaghan. Jim Michael (talk) 14:21, 7 June 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, L Faraone 02:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - At least until we see if this type of event has any lasting impact. If it does, then we should rename it Death of Georgia Williams. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTTRUECRIME, WP:NOTNEWS. Kidnappings and murders are sensational events covered extensively in the press. Only when they demonstrate lasting historic importance are they encyclopedic topics, however. My condolences to the victim's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete people disappear all the time, I don't see it meeting WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vast majority of disappearances and deaths do not receive national media coverage. This is a high-profile disappearance and death, which appears to have been a kidnapping and murder. 188.28.139.156 (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC) — 188.28.139.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as before. Tragic but fails WP:NOTNEWS. Charges have been brought and the media has moved on to other stories. No objections to the userfy option if he wants to do that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The media are limited about what they say about the case and the suspect, who has been remanded in custody, until the trial begins. The coverage will continue then. I don't know how to userfy - I guess this means moving the article to my user page. Jim Michael (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it. The page would be at something like User:Jim Michael/Disappearance of Georgia Williams. I'm not sure whether you can move it now or if you have to wait for the debate to be over then ask for it to be restored to your userspace. Alternatively you could click on edit, copy the latest version of the page then create a new page in your userspace. Perhaps someone else can offer advice here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG and AJHingston above and as WP:NOTNEWS. --Bejnar (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the news. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:08, 17 June 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 Near East University. I think there's enough consensus to merge. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Near East University Herbarium

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

Non-notable institution; article created (and then prod removed) by COI-afflicted editor who is creating a number of articles on topics that should be covered (if at all) in the main article on Near East University. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into University article - We don't have a unique standard for herbaria, but I would suggest that they should be considered along similar criteria with libraries, archives, museums, and other kinds of collecting organizations. That is to say, a unique resource and collection would be notable for inclusion. It may not merit a stand-alone article if it's a small collection or part of a larger entity. I would like someone with more expertise on herbaria to say whether it's small for its size and in particular if it is a unique resource for Cyprus. I would say it would not be notable if it is not intended as a research collection but as a teaching or student collection, but according to the article, it sounds like a research collection. --Lquilter (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it warrants a separate article is something to be judged with reference to whether there are sufficient sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Near East University for now until it warrants a stand-alone entry. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would have been nice to have {{afd-notice}}'d the article creator (though not required), especially considering the mention in the nom. czar · · 23:03, 7 June 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, L Faraone 02:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Near East University per several points already mentioned and my personal belief that there's almost always something to merge or redirect to. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:29, 8 June 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 David Crowder Band. (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pour Over Me

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

Non-notable early release from a notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 22:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Crowder Band or create a discography page for non-notable works like this. It doesn't meet standalone N, that's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:30, 7 June 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect - to David Crowder Band until (and this is an if) there are enough references for this to become notable again. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Crowder Band. "Pour Over Me is the extremely rare independent release" - such a rarity would pretty much have to be groundbreaking to be of any notability. Adabow (talk) 06:53, 13 June 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.