Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 March	6 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Reitan

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the National Math Contest he supposedly won was notable, then he might be notable, but it's still got large amounts of unsourced info on living people.^King Jakob _C2 23:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article makes an awful lot of unsourced claims amd name drops heavily. Of the claims that woudl give rise to notability, I was unable to substantiate any of them in independent reliable sources. Coverage about him is scant with this item being the best and is rather slim. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I have know Dan for 14 years. The "name drops" you reference are people who he knows and/or worked with. Please search on HackFest Reincloud to see Reincloud's and his recent significant success winning Best Overall Hack for Augmented Realty Gamification TV. Sdljb (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - I have known Dan for over 17 years. I have collaborated closely with him on multiple projects and welcome his conciseness of design and development. He has always been able to see the larger picture and is forward thinking in his designs and implementation. I value him as a friend and colleague and believe that his accomplishments have enhanced our quality of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlrj3 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnlrj3 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)johnlrj3Johnlrj3 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion is to determine if the article on Dan Reitan meets with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For those not familiar, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources are needed. -- Whpq (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I know Dan Reitan and very closely follow his work for about 15 years. I know that many of the "dropped names" were 100% granted because he really worked with these people. Also there was another recent article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek about the same event: [San%20Jose%20Mercury%20News||docSource||McClatchy-Tribune||provider||ACQUIREMEDIA&ticker=AAPL]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubashev (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timetrip2 The Banner talk 18:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was a recreation of Adrian Visby and Adrian.Visby, which were deleted via AfD Bgwhite (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Visby (artist)

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

Seemingly non-notable person as I can find no coverage (in-depth or otherwise) in independent, reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by page creator. Gong show 22:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of a similar lack of coverage; appears to fail WP:NALBUMS:

Comment. This subject was deleted in 2011 and 2012 with minor variations of the title. Quite possibly a hoax and/or sock. Gong show 22:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Weak-ish keep, bordering on no consensus. Keeper | 76 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ferguson (musician)

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

Self-published biographical article which lacks reliable sourcing. DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject appears to received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources therefore the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. At worse, the subject was part of a notable band No Knife, so if the majority opinion is that the subject is not notable the normal outcome of such BLPs would be to redirect the article to the band which the person is notable for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? I haven't been able to find any good sources that would show notability for the subject, and the article doesn't appear to have ever had any sources. - Sudo Ghost 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to echo this comment, which sources? Please, rather than claim that this subject is receiving significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, simply just cite said sources! It would really help move this discussion forward, and otherwise I would have to dismiss your claim due to lack of credible evidence. Sincerely, DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, as does the band itself. I was waiting for RightCowLeftCoast's response, but unless some reliable sources can be found that would show otherwise, the article's subject is not notable. I've searched online as best as I could, but I wasn't able to find any such sources myself. - Sudo Ghost 19:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the news sources here. Many are behind pay walls but appear to be significant coverage of the individual that is the subject of this AfD. Again, the individual was once a member of a notable band, and if the consensus is not for the subject being individually notable the common outcome is to redirect the article to the article of the band.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not present significant coverage, not enough to meet WP:GNG and certainly not enough to establish notability via WP:NMUSIC. Redirecting instead of deleting would also be inappropriate because (1) a parenthetical disambiguation would be an unlikely search term and (2) the band itself is not notable, and is very likely to be deleted as well. - Sudo Ghost 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added multiple third-party sources, in such publications as The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Grand Rapids Press (which reviewed his performance opening for Switchfoot), and NPR. Ferguson was part of the notable band No Knife, and today I added multiple sources to that band's article which I believe establish its notability through WP:BAND criterion #1. As a solo artist, Ferguson has been noticed by critics, and won a San Diego Music Award for best pop album. Although much of the notability is local, that's not entirely the case, and in my view there is enough here to keep a separate article about him. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few local sources about a band do not make each member notable enough to warrant a separate article; notability is not inherited. The fact that only local papers could be found is also an indication that the band is not notable, let alone the individual. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation is not an indication of notability. - SudoGhost 17:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I added were not about his band; they were about his solo career. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are still insufficient for establishing notability, they would be useful for verification, but not to justify any kind of article. - Sudo Ghost 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak-ish Keep per Paul Erik. There is some coverage, though much of it only points to local notability. I think Paul's various sources just about add up to scraping the bar at WP:MUSICBIO, though. — sparklism ^hey! 13:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not indicate the breadth of scope required for WP:MUSBIO, and being a former member of a notable group does not imply individual notability. Miniapolis 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. He appears to meet the criteria for touring. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for touring at WP:MUSICBIO requires sources showing non-trivial coverage, all the article has is a single source with a trivial mention that he opened for another band. They did not headline that tour, nor did any sources give any non-trivial mention of their participation of that tour. - Sudo Ghost 17:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to No Knife, does not meet criteria for individual notability. J04n(talk page) 22:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This deletion request has been closed as "Keep" twice before by two different editors and those decisions have been reverted by the involved editor SudoGhost. An admin should close this as a "speedy keep." The article added local sources to show local notability (item 7, in notability requirements). For the record I've never heard of him or the band he used to also tour with but the San Diego Tribune has and those sources are present. The Keep arguments are overwhelmingly more compelling than Delete arguments. The article appears well written with sources and consensus is to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

Given the lack of any clear consensus, NAC is inappropriate here, and per the discussion on my talk page you admitted to using a non-administrative supervote rationale that completely ignored any discussion here. The fact that it was a non-administrative close means it was not an administrative action but a bold edit, so it was reverted per WP:BRD. There is certainly not any clear consensus to keep the article, and "well written" yet again is not, under any circumstances, any reason to keep or delete an article and is irrelevant (also where is the consensus that it is well written? A close should reflect consensus, not a supervote opinion). WP:MUSICBIO #7 was never once brought up in the discussion, so where is this consensus that you used to close the discussion, as opposed to your own opinion? - Sudo Ghost 17:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned "supervote" at all. I assessed and judged all comments against the criterion as well as the quality of sources and the article. He meets notability requirements WP::MUSBIO 7, 10, 11 from the sources which overwhelmingly discounts the deletion arguments. I am the second closer to have reached that conclusion. You have reverted both of them. --DHeyward (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can show right now where there was any suggestion that he did or did not meet MUSICBIO 7, you've further demonstrated that you c,posed the discussion based on your opinion, not the discussion. Unless you can show any discussion that shows that the sources overwhelmingly discounted a single deletion argument, then you further demonstrated that you v.posed the discussion based on your opinion. This is exactly why non-adminstrators should not be closeing these types of discussions, because you have not demonstrated the ability to determine consensus, and your responses have in fact shown the opposite. You closed the discussion based on your opinion, and that is not allowed. Per Wikipedia guidelines. I reverted the close per WP:BRd, and there is no guideline or anything else saying that such is not allowed, so let an admin close the discussion. - Sudo Ghost 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one cited any of the individual points so I presume everyone is familiar with all of them, though perhaps you are not. Discussion "As a solo artist, Ferguson has been noticed by critics, and won a San Diego Music Award for best pop album. Although much of the notability is local" - and from 7: "Has become one of the...most prominent (of a notable style) of the local scene of a city" - from 10 "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" - the article is linked to by "The Sims 2" which demonstrated a song used as a theme, from 11 - "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." - from the references that were added, his song was played on a Southern California radio station. Arguments that have asserted Delete didn't say "how" he didn't meet the bar only vague references to WP:MUSICBIO. Arguments for Keep used the actual requirements for being notable. Again, I never heard of him until seeing this AfD but it's clear that the Keep arguments used the standards for notability. That's a normal part of weighing consensus and the arguments of consensus. Another editor, that you reversed, came to the same conclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly baffled how you claim that nobody brought up individual points, yet the keep arguments used them. while somehow failing to bring them up. Every time you respond you make it more clear that you used your opinion in lieu of an actual close rationale that used consensus, because you're using rationales that contradict themselves and are completely lacking in the actual discussion. But more importantly, you should not be closing these types of AfDs. You are not an administrator, you are not permitted to do so. It doesn't matter how flawed or perfect you believe your assessment was, you are not qualified to do so in the first place. - Sudo Ghost 05:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notice This AfD was closed twice and the closings reverted without a notice of the removal being posted in the discussion. The discussion was then closed for both a third time and a fourth time using a "Close in progress" banner. A comment was refactored without a notice being posted in the discussion. The detail of these edits is available in the edit history.

The edit that added this notice was used to remove the "Close in progress" banner and the Category:Requests for Close. Further comments should go on the talk page of the AfD, or to the talk page of the closing administrator. Unscintillating (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Skitszo. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I Got a Gun

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

Fails WP:NSONG. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skitszo, assuming that the album is notable. I'm not finding in-depth coverage for the song in independent, reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gong show 22:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skitszo. Not yet notable. All relevant information has been merged over to the parent article by myself. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP non-admin closure per WP:SNOW Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative for Germany

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

Fails WP:GNG and promo. In fact, a non-existing/just founded political party that never took part in an election. The Banner talk 21:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a crystal ball exercise. No prejudice against expeditious recreation as soon as the party is formally founded, which should be an event met with multiple instances of substantial independently published coverage. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will get out of the way to make way for easy consensus here, believing as I do in very liberal inclusion standards for political parties as a general principle... Carrite (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is an existing movement that is going to form a political party on 11 March [edited accordingly]. Wportre (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are large reports in German media, newspapers and television about their founding as a party, since it is widely supported by German people. Cruks (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only relevant opinion poll is the election itself. They can be wiped out before election day. They can fail to win any seats and crumble like a cookie. Or they can win seats and become a real political party. But at this moment it is still a crystal ball. The Banner talk 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it is worth: the Dutch version is nominated for deletion too. The German version (your version, Cruks??) is repeatedly removed already... The Banner talk 23:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Party is encyclopedic and will play a role in the next German federal election. Large news coverage on it. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, however they are all VERY recent. It maybe too soon to tell whether the group will remain notable. That being said it appears to pass WP:GNG so WP:ORG is moot, and per the primary notability guideline keep is in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I added some information on the page highlighting the potentially enormous appeal of this movement. I think that 25% potential electoral support for a party should settle the matter as to whether it might be a relevant organization. Just my $.02. Lukati (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newscoverage has spread all over Europe over this new party now. Cruks (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a load of coverage and blahblah. But when they don't get seats in parlement, the whole shebang can be gone before Christmas. The Banner talk 10:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very nice and informative article. I don't see a single reason to delete it. Keep it and make it better. there are also versions in more languages. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Considering that this party is serious about contesting the federal elections in September I see no reason to delete the page Guyb123321 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I find it difficult to assume good faith regarding this article's nomination for deletion. It is important to note that this deletion nomination was made less than 30 hours after the article was created. Since that time, the article detail has increased, and the party has gained further notability. While the party is relatively new, it has received extensive coverage in various media outlets such as Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/11/us-germany-eurosceptics-idUSBRE92A07F20130311

Gfcvoice (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Midst of Lions

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

Band that appears to lack WP:NMUSIC. I have not been able to find a point of notability and remember that notability is not inherited WP:INHERITED. I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band meets WP:MUSIC with two releases on Facedown Records, a label that fits the independent-label criterion of that bullet. Also, both of the band's albums reached the Billboard Heatseekers chart. The article had an HM Magazine interview, and I've added Allmusic and Exclaim! as sources, which meets bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC, and the article already mentions several national tours. Chubbles (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO through independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, plus multiple releases on a label of some standing. — sparklism ^hey! 07:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope for the Dying

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

Band that appears to lack WP:NMUSIC. I am One of Many (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band has two releases on Facedown Records and a third out next month, which would clear one hurdle of WP:MUSIC. Coverage by HM Magazine, Jesus Freak Hideout, and Blabbermouth.net would pass another. Chubbles (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG based on the coverage it has received. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO through multiple releases on Facedown Records and independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism ^hey! 07:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are also the most prominent progressive metal band in Illinois if I'm not mistaken WP:NMUSIC # 7 Sambarino (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first nominated this article, it looked like more of a self-promotional article for the band. However, the changes that have been made clearly indicate that it is independently notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Speedy Close as nominator has withdrawn. Chubbles (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history comments for this AfD, I am no longer sure that the nominator has withdrawn. It's rather confusing. In any case, I still think the proceeding is ready to close. Chubbles (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did decide to keep and it looks like a clear consensus to keep, but I did not withdraw the nomination. An IP withdrew the nomination. Only I can withdraw the nomination, so I reverted the IP's close, which was improper because IPs should not close discussion and it appeared the IP was acting an an imposter of me.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You voted "keep" in an AfD debate you yourself opened. That's withdrawing a nomination. The IP moved to close the proceedings, which he thought (as I did) were over. Chubbles (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could have withdrawn but as I understand it, I then close the discussion. Your request for a speedy close was then appropriate, but then an admin must close it or an experienced user who believe it a non-controversial close. The only reason I'm not withdrawing it myself is because my opinion was changed by others who made changes in the article that demonstrated its independent notability. I'm about 100% sure that an admin will come along soon and close it as keep.--I am One of Many (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, requesting a Speedy Close, as I believe the proceedings need tarry no longer. Chubbles (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If he plays and there is GNG coverage I'm sure an admin would be willing to restore. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fekete

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author without any reason. – Michael (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the author. Actually I did contest with reason, as explained on Michael's user talk page. Both players have been signed to a professional team, to play in this coming season. There is no point deleting them now, just to re-create the pages in one month's time. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 02:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may have signed with the team, but the fact is they have not played in a fully pro league match. And another thing I want to point out. Both players have been signed to a professional team, to play in this coming season. What happens if they suffer an injury that rules them out for a long time? WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Neither has received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning both articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. No prejudice to recreating either if and when the player in question makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A general comment: just playing in a professional game doesn't inherently make a person notable, just as not yet playing in a game doesn't mean the person is not notable. So I think those arguments should be avoided right now. We should focus on whether or not there are reliable sources right now that establish notability. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The articles does not establish notability, the subjects fails WP:NFOOTY as they hasn't played in a fully pro league yet. Searching google gave me no indication that these subjects passes WP:GNG, as I did not find significant in-depth coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Sells Stay Tooned

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 12 March 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, TB randley ^(review) 23:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of downloads ≠ notability. - Mr X 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MrX is right--should be deleted due to lack of coverage. Ducknish (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'not to delete'. there is no real consensus here as to what should happen with the information on this page but there is little support for outright deletion. Discussions concerning what to name the page or possible merging can continue on the appropriate talk page. J04n(talk page) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss referendum "against corporate Rip-offs" of 2013

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

Aside from the incorrect title format, the article is not required as it duplicates Swiss referendum, 2013 (which any useful text can be merged into). Author of article claims it needs a separate one because other language Wikipedias have them, but no other Swiss referendum issue has a separate article on the English Wikipedia – all are included on single articles about the (often numerous) referendums in each year (there are some articles on single referendums, but that is because they were the only referendum that year). If we had a separate article for each issue, we could end up with over 500 articles as to date there have been 571 issues put to Swiss voters). Number 5 7 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

585, not 571, see the reference in my remarks below. Smirkingman (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you provided gives 569 referendums, plus I have included the two Helvetic Republic referendums. See here. Number 5 7 22:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss Government website is the primary source. That spreadsheet contains 585 referendums, I'm not going to list them here. Bickering contributes nothing to the debate. 92.107.89.35 (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the primary source, but the Excel sheet does only contain 569 referendums - the last one is listed as 569 p - 03/03/2013 - Loi fédérale sur l'aménagement du territoire. Where are you getting 585 from? (Genuinely interested as there may be some for which articles weren't created). Number 5 7 09:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The 585 initiatives, counter-projects, etc.. They are indeed numbered 1 to 569, but when there's an initiative and a counter-project, that's two items; 82.1 and 82.2 for example. I shall not reply any further on this particular point. Smirkingman (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I created this page because it has equivalent pages on the German, French, Esperanto and Alemannisch - for this specific referendum question. If there's a problem with the translation, or someone has a better one, then that's fine. However, this (rip-offs - and in context, corporate rip offs) appears to be the correct dictionary definition of "Abzockereit". See here: http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/deutsch-englisch/Abzocke.html . The French word, for instance is "remunerations abusives". It doesn't really matter if this is the first separate page for a Swiss referendum question on the English language wiki. This was a big deal in Switzerland, and one of the most significant corporate law reforms anywhere in the world on this topic. That appears another reason why it has specific pages in the languages I mention. Thanks very much, Wik idea 18:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is why you cannot include this in the existing article? Number 5 7 18:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For one reason, this is the third highest ever referendum vote in Switzerland: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksinitiative_%28Schweiz%29#Angenommene_Volksinitiativen . Also, there are individual pages for all the other languages. Cheers, Wik idea 18:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as that not really being a valid argument, you are wrong about it being ranked #3 in terms of votes in favour. That table only shows a selection of referendums (People's initiatives that passed). There have been many more referendums which received a far higher proportion in favour. In just two pages of Nohlen & Stöver's Elections in Europe book (pp1906–1907, referendums from 1900 to 1919) I found seven referendums with higher approval levels. Number 5 7 19:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, I congratulate you on your research. You'll probably want to tell the authors of German Wikipedia who have written, "Dies war die dritthöchste Zustimmungsrate zu einer Volksinitiative in der Schweiz überhaupt.[1] and a journalist who they cite: Marc Brupbacher: «Die Demokratie explodiert». In: Tages-Anzeiger. 3. März 2013, abgerufen am 3. März 2013."

Life doesn't matter this much though. The page is important and should stand alone. Wik idea 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true and thankfully Wikimedia UK were kind enough to buy me the book in question to have the data easily to hand. The German writer may be correct about it being the third highest approval rating of a People's Initiative, but People's Initiatives are only one of five different types of referendums in Switzerland. Number 5 7 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the third most popular people's initiative ever. Great. That seems like a good reason for it's own page. This is, once again, a very, very significant corporate governance reform. I'd be more glad if you'd use your knowledge - you're clearly a good researcher - to improve the page than delete it! Wik idea 19:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very misleading statement ("third most popular people's initiative ever") given that turnout was only 47%. I still fail to understand why this specific referendum deserves special treatment. Number 5 7 19:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you still don't understand - not that I'd say you were "pathetic" as you've called me - I'm afraid I can't help. Wik idea 19:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also don't think it should be merged or deleted. Other Swiss referendums have their own pages in English: Swiss_military_referendum,_1940, Swiss_constitutional_referendum,_1848, ... There seems to be a confusion between "initiative" and "referendum", two totally different things. Whilst there doesn't appear to be any English WP pages specific to a single initiative, there are many in French and German: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_populaire_%C2%AB_Contre_la_construction_de_minarets_%C2%BB , http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidgen%C3%B6ssische_Volksinitiative_%C2%ABf%C3%BCr_die_Ausschaffung_krimineller_Ausl%C3%A4nder_(Ausschaffungsinitiative)%C2%BB , etc. The full official statistics of all referendum results from 1848-present in the Excel workbook at the bottom of this page http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/17/03/blank/data/01.html indicates that of the 183 **initiatives**, the Yes% for Minder's was 67.9%. The only 2 initiatives that bettered this score were the 1993 initiative to make the 1st of August a national holiday (83.8%) and the 1921 initiative on international treaties (71.4%). Minder's score is thus the 3rd best ever. It is difficult to find an exact translation of Abzocker. Cheater, swindler, deceiver and liar are all close. Abzockerei literally means rip-off, but Abzockerei isn’t slang. Scam is another synonym. In any event I don't feel that being the first English article devoted to a specific initiative is sufficient reason for AfD and I see nothing in the article that meets Wikipedia:DEL#REASON. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, Smirkingman (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasons the referendums you refer to have their own articles is because they were the only referendum issues in those years. I should have explained that more clearly. Number 57, 21:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep - this particular referendum has received press coverage around the world, indicating it is no ordinary measure. As such it easily meets the GNG. While it could technically be merged, doing so would overwhelm the other article and would not improve the encyclopedia. A malformed article title is a reason for rename, not a reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the concensus be Rename, I would suggest the initiative name be "Against the Rip-off", in order to remain as close as possible to the spirit of the original German title. ('die Abzockerei' is singular.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirkingman (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say Swiss executive pay referendum, 2013 is a good fit - "executive pay" is the term used by the BBC, the Guardian, Business Week, CBC, Euronews, Reuters etc. Number 57 21:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your proposed translation shows a complete lack of understanding of Minder's text, like your sources (Since when is a BBC journalist a reliable primary source to translate Swiss law? Why not the Sun and the Mirror whilst you're at it). I would suggest you read and grasp the original texts in [German], [French] and [Italian]. It's not a referendum on pay, it's about giving power back to the shareholders; if the executive does a good job, he'll get his huge bonus. Please, failing a sound command of one of our languages, be so good as to refrain from suggesting ridiculous translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smirkingman (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do not neccesarily name things by their official names or translations of official names - please see WP:COMMONNAME. It's quite clear that English-language media are referring to this as a referendum on executive pay. Number 57 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The French is equally official and it is "remuneration abusives" - literally "abusive pay". But the context of each language is about abusive executive pay, or corporate rip off. If this is now a debate about the name, this is not the place for it. Wik idea 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Thomas Minder states that the English title for his initiative is "against rip-off salaries". Email from his assistant:

Claudio Kuster <username_redacted AT minder DOT sh>
6 Mar 2013 23:52 (21 hours ago) to <username_redacted AT calvert DOT ch>
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your article posting. Could you please alter the name of our initiative to its official name: "against rip-off salaries"
Further, some dates are wrong. The initiative's launch date was 10/31/2006, the submission of the signatures on 02/26/2008. Proove: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/vi/vis348.html
Thank you!
Freundliche Grüsse
Claudio Kuster Persönlicher Mitarbeiter Ständerat T. Minder
Trybol AG Rheinstrasse 86 8212 Neuhausen am Rheinfall
Tel. +41 52 672 23 21 Fax +41 52 672 19 40 username_redacted AT minder DOT sh

http://www.minder.sh

As pointed out above, we do not go by official names, but rather the common name. Number 5 7 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's rather questionable whether we need "compilation" articles like Swiss referendum, 2013 constructing a "three-part referendum" - in fact, these are three very different referenda held on the same date. The "family policy" one was a change to the Swiss constitution proposed by the government (with mandatory referendum); the "spatial planning" one on the other hand was a federal law proposal which only was put to the referendum because the opponents gathered the required amount of signatures (the so-called optional referendum). And the one discussed here, the Eidgenössische Volksinitiative «gegen die Abzockerei», is a different case again, a popular initiative requesting a change to the constitution (not originated in Parliament or in the government). - As there are many referenda in Switzerland, there are often several grouped together for voting at the same date, but that's all they have in common. In my opinion (and practice over in the German-language Wikipedia), all popular initiatives in Switzerland which have been put to vote merit an individual article. Although there are only about forty articles for Swiss constitutional initiatives over at de-WP yet, according to the notability guidelines of de-WP, they would all be notable. Of course, this is the English-language Wikipedia... but I think they are not less notable here. After all, every Swiss popular initiative is about changing the constitution. And I don't think that "over 500 articles" would be a problem if they're good articles. If this is the first one - well, we have to start somewhere :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57 has, once again without discussion, and when everyone including Thomas Minder obviously disagrees with him, moved the page (which comes after twice trying to delete the page altogether). And this after we have an official email, which effectively resolves the name problem. All because he created his little Swiss Referendum 2013 page, and he just can't seem to stand that it isn't the centre of attention. Serious WP:OWN issue. Wik idea 09:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have messed it up by moving to an incorrect title and leaving double redirects everywhere. As you seem to be ignoring WP:COMMONNAME, standard naming formats and making personal attacks, sadly I think my initial assessment of your behaviour may be correct. Number 5 7 10:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted this page to dispute resolution :( Smirkingman (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the proponents' statements were true, this is not a notable Swiss petition. No evidence has been presented that it's more notable than most of the 569 or 585. (The fact that the article was moved while under AfD suggests that the AfD should be continued until the article is stable for 7 days at the same name, or at least until the AfD link was stable for 7 full days.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, could you identify the statements on this page you consider to be false please? Minder's initiative is notable because it was accepted just as the European Union is proposing new laws to curb the bonuses of banking executives. France’s Prime Minister Jean-Marc_Ayrault ["was inspired by it"] and there has been considerable press coverage both in Europe and America. WP articles are assessed for notability on their individual merit, not by being more or less notable than articles in a similar vein. Your 7-day suggestion is wise. Smirkingman (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify a bit: The list linked above, 585 initiatives, counter-projects, etc., is a list of all referenda ever held on federal level in Switzerland. Although I still don't think it would be a problem to say that they're all notable (585 or so articles - potential articles which might be created over time - are not an unmanageable number, and after all these are referanda of nationwide importance, every one of them), I think we could also restrict the notability to the popular initiatives amongst the referanda: these are requests by the electorate to change the constitution which have to be voted on, and the number of those which have been "zustande gekommen" (i.e. they gathered the required number of signatures and a vote has taken place or will take place) is currently 301, see de:Volksinitiative (Schweiz)... btw, I think it's a glaring gap in English Wikipedia that we don't have a dedicated article about Swiss popular initiatives (Volksinitiativen), ony of the major instruments of democracy in Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding the comment by Smirkingman, "There seems to be a confusion between "initiative" and "referendum", two totally different things", I think there's also some additional explanation needed: From a Swiss point of view, Smirkingman is of course entirely right. In Switzerland, the terminology is as follows: If the vote is about a proposed law which was challenged by gathering signatures, it's called a "referendum" (the opponents have "das Referendum ergriffen", as we say in German). If the vote, however, is a about a popular initiative, people don't call this a "referendum" in Switzerland. But in this context we have to note that such a vote is still a "referendum" according to English usage (i.e. "referendum" is still the appropriate English word to describe the act of entitled citzens voting on a particular issue, even if it's a change of the constitution). This fact, that voting on a popular initiative isn't called a "referendum" in Switzerland, might occasionally lead to confusion. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between "initiative" and "referendum" exists in California, as well, although, to add to the confusion, there are "legislative initiative"s. I'm not sure "referendum" is the correct word for this — whatever it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, in the English language "referendum" is a generic term for any type of popular vote regarding a law, constitution etc., but of course I might be wrong (my native language is Swiss German). I think we could call this article "Swiss popular initiative..." instead of "Swiss referendum..." - though I'm not sure that is very meaningful for the majority of English-language readers (i.e. it's probably not general knowledge that "popular initiative" in Switzerland means "request to change the constitution leading to a popular vote"). There are no "legislative initiatives" in Switzerland as such, i.e. a popular initiative can only initiate a change of the constitution (introducing new content into the constitution, or modify existing parts), but not initiate (mere) federal law (as said above, federal law proposals can be challanged through referendum, though). This is of course a rather strange situation leading to a bloated constitution containing things that would better be placed in "mere" law - and there are proposals to introduce legislative initiatives, too... but I fear I digress; after all, this is a deletion discussion ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge since we already have an article. The vote per canton is probably relevant content, but should we do this for every referendum?, DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss_referendum,_2013 is about the referendum which took place on the 13th of March 2013. This article is about Thomas Minder's initiative which was submitted in 2008 (and it should be updated to reflect this). Smirkingman (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd support a rename if this article is kept. Given that English isn't an official language in Switzerland, it's unlikely that the initiative was submitted as "against corporate Rip-offs" or "against rip-off salaries". Currently, it just strikes me as bad English to have either as an article title. Formal legislative titles tend not to use the term "against" (actions are implied in the text), "rip-off" (slang and POV) or quotation marks (requires additional context). Baring in mind the audience here, I think a more formal translation would be more appropriate than a direct transliteration - in spite of what the original author may want. Funny ^Pika! 23:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surojit Bose

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

PROD was rejected. Reason for PROD was that the player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. That reason still stands. The games he has played were with current fully-pro teams but they were before the I-League began in 2007. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is the nominator mistaken in their claim that Mr Bose never played in the fully professional I-League, see e.g. February 2008, May 2010, February 2011, he is in fact a full senior international for India, having played twice against Pakistan in 2005 while he was still a Tollygunge player, see e.g. indianfootball.com, and also against Fiji in the same year. He thus passes both criteria of the football-specific notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... your right. The international part was striking to me as I thought most of the squad from 05 were created but the source checks-out. Okay I will withdraw the nomination. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NFOOTY, I-League is a recognised league where Bose played multiple years and was also played international matches for India. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Struway2 and ArsenalFan700's reply! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is wide agreement that the subject is an encyclopedic topic and that problems with the quality of the article may be dealt with through normal editing processes. A change of title can be discussed further on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sales pitch

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

Badly sourced. Reads like an essay. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, may be notable, but I agree that the article needs references and a big copyedit for tone. If it can be sourced and changed in tone, I will change my vote to keep.^King Jakob _C2 22:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It should be copyedited, not deleted. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article on an important topic which should be improved, not deleted.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Lugia2453 and Gilderien --Penbat (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedic topic. Retitling to Sales presentation might be desirable, versus the slangy "sales pitch." Deficiencies of the article are something to be corrected through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a Further Reading section, which should amply demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic concept covered substantially in multiple independently-published books and articles. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely sure that a retitling of this piece to Sales presentation is in order after this closes a keep, having reviewed the literature a bit. "Presentation" is the formal term, "Pitch" is slang. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with the article was the lack of references. If the further reading can back up the info in the article, I'd say strong keep.^King Jakob _C2 19:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; not unsalvagably bad, and it's definitely a notable topic. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elastico

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

This is a non-notable character. Merging with the main article seems inappropriate since it doesn't even rate a mention on that page. Article was previously PROD'd. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it do be a very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachellains (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 March 2013‎
Delete no evidence of coming close to the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 5 March 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and a merge/redirect to El Muerto is not ideal in my view given the character appeared only once. Gong show 23:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I copied this article over to wikialpha for preservation. Mathewignash (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Agree with Ryulong, however, that the large amounts of unsourced "warnings" and user-guide should stay out unless verifiable, independent, reliable sources are found (currently, I have found Zero in a rudimentary search Keeper | 76 01:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zorpia

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

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

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

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

This article was deleted at AFD 6 years ago, and in the past 3 months it was recreated after a WP:AFC entry. After stumbling across this entity on another website, I looked at the article and it is clear that this service is not notable according to WP:WEB or WP:GNG. All of the sources in the article ~~are~~ were either directly to the website, complaints on blogs and forums of the website's alleged practices, or Alexa ranking data. The only other reference is something regarding the creator's intent, but the link is dead.

Once again, this article in no way shows that it is notable for inclusion. This website is barely notable for its notoriety and has zero web presence outside of people who were duped into joining it. —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page, unless, of course, it is false information. There are many of us who take this information into consideration before joining Zorpia. I have been invited to join Zorpia by family members I trust who say they did not send the invitation, and know nothing about Zorpia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Je1942 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Je1942 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not keep a page up just because it needs to be used as a warning for other people.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep zorpia is notable and notorious. Yes it needs better references Bhny (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's notorious doesn't mean it's notable. Unless you can find reliable sources that show anything in the page is true then the page should be deleted, as it was 6 years ago.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-uh. If it's notorious, it's widely known (see dictionary.reference.com/browse/notorious)^[1]. That means it doesn't have zero web presence. I just got spammed by Zorpia, and my friend's contacts are now compromised, so I'm one of the validators of its web presence. If Zorpia hadn't been on wiki, I would never have known what it was until, tautologically as Ryulong is, I signed up. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migemet (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Migemet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you got spammed by it. There's no notability for this web entity. The only thing out there is press releases and people complaining exactly about what you are complaining about.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are a few news articles covering it:

There were a couple of other pieces but they appeared to just be press releases. As a side note, Zorpia users apparently are angry that the article was previously deleted. (Not that it matters to the AfD process; I just thought it was funny.) --Atlantima (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any of those are reliable sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PandoDaily seems reliable to me. The author of the DigitalJournal piece, Andrew Moran, is an experienced journalist. Vatalyst is the one I'm least sure of the reliability on.--Atlantima (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong- It's not a good idea to delete most of the article that you have nominated for deletion while the discussion is still taking place. Bhny (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all statements from the article that were only sourced to various forums and blogs complaining about the subject which are not allowed under WP:RS.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no I disagree. there's nothing left worth saving. You removed all the helpful stuff. the remaining material seems to be from PR releases. I undid your edit Bhny (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "helpful stuff" you refer to is not reliably sourced and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia. In addition, the English Wikipedia is most definitely not a user's guide to the Internet so people do not accidentally send a mass email to everybody on their contact list just because of some stupid website that is patently not notable. There is no reason to have such a large amount of content dedicated as just some red flag to people who might have received one of these emails. We do not warn people about every website that's less than stellar. ~~Do not undo the edit, again.~~ I've left the content I deleted, but I have since removed every single source that is to some forum or blog posting about the website that was just used to say "I logged into Zorpia and sent everyone in my contact list spam". Outside of its completely unpublished notoriety for sending out emails, there is nothing to say that Zorpia does anything but exist. The only tenuous claim to notability it may have is its strong web presence in India and China, but even if the article is kept for those reasons and those reasons alone, that means that everything about the "spam" nature will have to be permanently removed unless some proper website discusses it. As of right now, those are the only claims to fame.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "bad faith" I meant that your edit seemed to deliberately make the article a useless PR piece so it would be deleted. You were using your edit to push your case that should have been discussed here. So far you are the only editor that thinks the page should be deleted. Not that you don't have a case, but obviously there is no consensus for deletion Bhny (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a useless PR piece if you hadn't transformed it from a neutral article about the website into some anti-Zorpia essay in the past 3 months (likely because you were subject to the site's bad practices). While I'm the only editor that is currently saying the page should be deleted, it seems I'm the only one with the experience and knowledge of what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia to make the determination that it should not be kept.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The site's name in Chinese is 若比鄰. Perhaps a user who knows Chinese can see whether the site is notably covered by Chinese sources?--Atlantima (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you know this because you checked zh.wiki. I might concede that the site is notable simply for its high presence in China and India, but all the "THIS SITE WILL USE YOUR EMAIL TO SPAM PEOPLE" garbage needs to go because it cannot be reliably sourced.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to claim that it's notable, and I'm not arguing to keep the article or the "garbage" in it. I'm just commenting that there may be RS covering it in other languages. Please don't reply so harshly.--Atlantima (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely remarking on the nature of the article. If there are reliable sources that is fine. I just doubt it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that there would be any discussion here.
First, Ryulong, my opition is it was not proper of you to remove sourced informations based on your opinion. If you read the mentioned policies (and don't act wikilawyer but read the intent) then you'll see that "source reliability" does not inherently exclude community articles, blog entries, webpages and other sources (especially not in a topic about a webpage and a spamming operation). These are excluded only in sensitive areas (like BLP) but not everywhere else. In this case the web notability guideline explicitely mentions that the sources should not be extremist, should be independent, and should contain the information referenced: I guess most of the sources you have removed satisfied these criteria ("reliable sources", "independent sources", "on topic sources"). (Yet to see your proof of any of them being stating false information, which would be the ultimate sign of an unreliable source.) The amount of not interdependant sources shall have established the fact that the service indeed well known and referenced (which could be deducted by simple searches either), which is another criteria for notability ("significant coverage"). So here we have covered all the aspects mentioned in General notability guidelines.
Apart from notability there may be a problem of the article not being encyclopedic enough, this may be right, and could be corrected. It would be an interesting project to go through the sources to establish the history of this semicriminal organisation, and would be useful from chinese fellow editors to contribute to the article, possibly about the background of how such a scam may operate legally. The article already contains information about the operation of this organisation. Still, notability does not mean there must be abundance of informations about a subject, and it should not be a deletion criteria by itself.
As far as I see there is Ryulong who wants to delete the article, Bhny who wants to have an antispam guide, and the rest of the world of which half probably uninterested and the other half would appreciate the information. :-) I agree with the removal of "howto" information (I wanted to remove it myself, too) but would appreciate the reinstallment of the sources (instead of me doing a simple revert).
All that said, I'm for strong keep since I see no justification for deletion; the article is not in good shape but not hopeless either. --grin ✎ 17:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grin, for someone who has been on this project so long I am surprised that you are forgetting that what goes on Wikipedia does not have to be true or false. It simply must be verified by reliable sources. As it stands the dozen or so blog posts and forum posts that were previously used in the article to cite the various alleged wrongdoings of Zorpia don't cut it, and they are also being used to violate the rule that Wikipedia is not an Internet guide and the article is most definitely not written from a neutral point of view. So throwing all those out means that all we're left is the small number of press-releasy pieces that just show that Zorpia exists, but that it is not notable. I mean, how can you honestly state that "icfun.blogspot.com", "productforums.google.com", "answers.yahoo.com", "www.mywot.com", "www.webutation.net", "www.baiterbase.co.uk", or "bot24.blogspot.hu" could possibly be considered to be reliable sources?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I told on my talk page in case of webpages you cannot expect scientific journal articles, and the lack of peer review does not automagically qualify a source "unreliable". People who detail the details of the Zorpia oparation in masses, in my humble and not always correct opinion establish widespread knowledge of the site as well as they happen to say all the same which kind of suggest reliability of the information. --grin ✎ 11:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but a post on someone's blog or a post on some forum that corroborate the same evidence does not make either a reliable source by any sense of the word, and we should not treat Zorpia as special just because we need to have the page as a warning.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And despite Bhny's vociferous opposal, it is fully within my right as an editor to remove content that is not reliably sourced. And Grin mentions that WP:BLP isn't involved here. Last I checked Jeffrey Ng is a living individual and it is his product that we are saying is a spam service and "semi-criminal organization" so any poorly referenced or unreferenced material has to go.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with Ryulong on this one. The article was entirely negative in tone, and the references didn't justify such treatment. Without coverage from any "notable" source, you are bound to include only a paragraph somewhere. Try obtaining statements from notable bloggers and from notable spam fighters. Also, many sources were not good at all: websites like www.webutation.net don't have quality controls to ensure that the information is accurate and factual. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said months ago that this article didn't pass WP:WEBCRIT. But the links provided by Atlantima are good, and the second says that The social network has gained a tremendous amount of media attention. One of its largest profiles was completed by China Daily, the biggest English newspaper in China. The Zorpia founder also appeared on Luyu, a television talk show that is considered the counterpart to Oprah Winfrey in China."[1] The profile is scanned here at zorpia.com.
If you look at Wikipedia:Systemic bias you will see that wikipedia has a bias towards certain topics. I think this would be an excellent opportunity to counter that bias. I don't oppose keeping this article. But please try to keep it neutral --Enric Naval (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seal Transportation

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

Not a good faith article creation. See editor history: Anthony Seldon (talk · contribs) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 15:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article basically exists to let us know that pinnipeds are sometimes transported, and that they can be injured in the course of moving them. The same holds true of ostriches, flies, tigers, geckoes, mulberry trees, and just about any other living thing that humans find here and would prefer over there. If it actually contained information on moving marine wildlife, there might be an article here; but this is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'KEEP' I do not like these slurs on my name. However, this should be moot when it comes to this article, which carries information about the transportation of seals in a neutral manner which has little to do with my life, history or actions. I also query whether this is grounds to delete an article. If the article about, say, Gloucester was created by a known criminal or villain, it would still be a notable subject. Anthony Seldon (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I see zero evidence that the transportation of seals is an encyclopedic topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Bad faith creation" or a user's contribution history are not in and of themselves valid rationales for deletion, but this article is 100% POV editorializing, and even if it was an encyclopedic topic it would need to be blown up and started over to meet the policy on neutral point-of-view. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTMANUAL Wikipedia is not a manual or how to. On a side note the editors history is moot remember WP:AGF Cameron11598 (Converse) 23:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seal Transportation is no more a How-To guide than Teeth cleaning and to claim so is disengenous. SAVE THE SEAL TRANSPORT Anthony Seldon (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate tone and content. Deb (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with WikiDan61 and others re. WP:NOTHOWTO. Moreover, the title is misleading: I would have assumed that the article covered the use of seals as beasts of burden. If kept, it should be retitled something like "Transportation of seals"; and it would give rise to a raft of other pinniped-care-and-maintenance articles, e.g. "Feeding of captive seals", "Skin care for seals", "Dental care for seals", &c., &c. Ammodramus (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User is not here to help. An additional nonsense article was created today, which forced another AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G12) by Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somali mental health

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

Pure WP:OR - unreferenced, poorly formatted mess of an article with no evidence that any of what it says is true. Even if the topic is notable, this mess needs to go. May fall under CSD G2, and could even be a copyvio, based on the lead. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As G12 of this. I tagged it as such. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, looking at the user's talk page, a casing variation of this was previously deleted for the same reason. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19th Century Arguments for Anti-Vivisection found in The Island of Dr. Moreau

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

Original research. This article represents the author's interpretation of plot elements of the novel The Island of Doctor Moreau, with no indication that such interpretation is drawn from any reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow. This really reads like an essay and quite WP:SYNful. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, Essay, POV, etc. Since I believe that all good WP articles are SYN I shan't specially accuse it of that, though it certainly is. Totally unencyclopedic, unrescuable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. If other (published) authors have discussed the connection, some material could be added to the article on the book. But unfortunately, without references to such discussions, it's WP:OR, being an original synthesis of material. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with above, POV. London prophet (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, school essay. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as an essay. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeper | 76 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. Nigro Sansonese

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced BLP. Notability is not clear. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 25. Snotbot t • c » 10:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure of notability just yet,Keep or redirect to The Body of Myth. I found a review of his book The Body of Myth here and another in the American Journal of Psychiatry seen in this table of contents. He was also quoted in this book, as well as this one and this one. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the American Journal of Psychiatry review of The Body of Myth, it is password protected though. For those without access, it is a 1,335 word review in a peer-reviewed medical journal with an impact factor of 12.539. J04n(talk page) 11:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An observation - Given how readily bio articles are created and our desire for adequate referencing of articles (especially bio articles) we should not have to scratch around trying to dig up refs. Should place the onus on the article creator to provide adequate refs? (well we do with {BLPPROD}) So haven't we got enough to do already? (and isn't 7,047,961 articles enough? ) We do waste a lot of time. Take this article: it was PRODed, REFUNDed and now AFDed! Editors are now scurrying around trying to find refs (an atheistic blessing on them!). Is this how it should work? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting the notability criteria for WP:AUTHOR on the basis of the reviews. I hope Alan above does not mean to imply that it is useless to improve articles. Preferences vary--I personally find it very useful to improve inadequate work, because it might teach the editor how to do it. If we limited participation here to those who can write finished articles at the first draft, our contents would be pathetically incomplete. DGG (at NYPL) 21:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG. I think this can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. The Yoga Journal review is the only one, and the mentions in other books cited are passing ones. The subject's work does not have the significance required by the guideline. Miniapolis 23:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the review in American Journal of Psychiatry? It is much more expansive than the one in the Yoga Journal. J04n(talk page) 01:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't access it, it sounds like it belongs in the article; one of my pet peeves at AfD is sources which are cited here when they should be in the article. However, I'm not convinced that this one book is influential enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. All the best, Miniapolis 03:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources may be few, but they seem reliable, and his works seem notable enough. In my personal opinion, the page could use more information, but there is time for that to be provided later. Kaoskitteh (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Arodaki

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

Not notable. Googling for just the name yields thousand of people called Yahya. Googling for "Yahya Arodaki" economist yields around 40 hits, all of which are either Wikipedia or copies or links to Wikipedia. I have also tried Google books, Google news and Google scholar, all to no avail. The corresponding article on the Arabic Wikipedia has been deleted (here's a translation of that), apparently several times. I have tried the Google searches using the name forms Yahya Arodgki and Yehia Arodgki that appear on that translation page as well as the form Yahya Arodaki -- all to no avail. --Stfg (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Don't Delete ,I'll Upload Important Pictures for him , The Sources not always important , also as I Stated , He is not Modern Person he is old ,he was born in 1926 and Died in 2009 , so you'll not find any good sources in english .GhiathArodaki (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you provide references in other languages? This is a global encyclopedia and thus not needing any English sources. mabdul 15:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All Sources :

http://www.neelwafurat.com/locate.aspx?mode=1&search=author1&entry=%ED%CD%ED%EC%20%DA%D1%E6%CF%DF%ED

http://www.furat.com/?Prog=book&Page=authorinfo&aid=9121

http://www.neelwafurat.com/itempage.aspx?id=lbb75280-35975&search=books

http://www.neelwafurat.com/itempage.aspx?id=lbb34454-32688&search=books

http://4kitab.com/books/search/%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%89%20%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%83%D9%8A

http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities/lccn-nr97-20151

http://books.google.com.kw/books/about/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%A7.html?id=Sj4ikgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

http://www.iraqnla.org/opac/index.php?q=%22%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%83%D9%8A,%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%89%22&hl=ara

http://www.iraqnla.org/opac/index.php?q=%22%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%83%D9%8A,%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%89%22&hl=eng

http://mezzeh.damascusculture.org/index.php?page=Books&gallery_id=107&lang=ar&lang=ar

http://ecat.kfnl.gov.sa:88/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=V3435681F3N84.19487&profile=akfnl&page=7&group=0&term=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A+-+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%A9&index=.SW&uindex=&aspect=advanced&menu=search&ri=1&source=172.16.17.75@!kfnl1256&1343568174765

http://hip.jopuls.org.jo/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=PUB.1016.1&p_p_id=search_WAR_fusion&p_p_action=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=0&p_p_col_count=2&_search_WAR_fusion_action=navigate&_search_WAR_fusion_navigationData=search~%3D1~!AL~!1~!%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%89+%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%83%D9%8A

http://hip.jopuls.org.jo/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=PUB.1.1&p_p_id=search_WAR_fusion&p_p_action=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=0&p_p_col_count=5&_search_WAR_fusion_action=navigate&_search_WAR_fusion_navigationData=search~%3D1~!AL~!1~!%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%89+%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%83%D9%8A

+ The Ones in the talk page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhiathArodaki (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To help evaluate the above, here is a summary of what the references cover:
- The 6th link (orlabs.oclc.org) is a WorldCat page that links to five WorldCat entries for four books by Arudaki:
  1. Arab common market (Publications of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and National Guidance, 1970); 3 editions published in 1970 in Arabic and held by 28 libraries worldwide;
  2. Modern Syrian economy (Ministry of Culture and National Guidance, 1972); in Arabic and held by 8 libraries worldwide;
  3. Foreign Economic Relations of Israel (1st entry) (Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the research center; Kuwaiti Economists Association); 1 edition published in 1971 in Arabic and held by 8 libraries worldwide
  4. Foreign Economic Relations of Israel (2nd entry); 2 editions published in 1971 in Arabic and held by 2 libraries worldwide;
  5. Fear, Disease & Medication (1996); publisher unclear, but may be self-published; 1 edition published in 1996 in Arabic and held by 1 library worldwide.
- The first four links are bookseller entries for these books. There are no reviews.
- The 5th link (4kitab.com) is a search, but it gives hits for anyone called Yahya; I see no Arudaki there.
- The 7th link is a Google Books listing of Foreign Economic Relations of Israel. There are no reviews.
- mezzeh.damascusculture.org is a dead link.
- ecat.kfnl.gov.sa is the King Fahd Natinal Library in Saudi Arabia. Google Translate rejects the link, so I can't tell you what's in it, though it looks like a library search.
- The remaining four links are to libary searches. Two are to the Iraqi National Library and Archives and the other two are to university libraries. I have been unable to get any book listings to appear in them.

There is nothing about Arudaki's role in trade missions etc. I hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best on the links searches but nothing because he is old as i stated, i have the pictures ready, also there are many sites like syria trade room don't write the history of itGhiathArodaki (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe the main problem with this article is that it cannot be verified from independent reliable secondary sources. BTW, I am adding here an interwiki link to an AfD on Arabic Wikipedia. The article there was deleted many times and re-created under different titles. --Abanima (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was re-created under different titles, Because you always protect it in the wiki.GhiathArodaki (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uhm so why not requesting unprotection and providing the stuff to fulfill the guidelines and the rules (means providing usable references)? mabdul 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Photos were uploadedGhiathArodaki (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: How do we know that he is really Yahya Arodaki? mabdul 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What kind of proof that you want ? -ID

-Passport

-People Knows Him

etc... GhiathArodaki (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assume good faith and assume for a moment that this really is Yahya Arodaki -- so what? What we're being shown is: (a) YA looking on while someone else shakes hands with Makarios III; (b) YA one of five people (shown -- we don't know how many are not shown) sitting at a conference table appearing to read some documents; (c) YA having tea and cakes with four other men; and (d) YA shaking hands with another man while three others look on. Whose are these pictures? How can we tell whether they are anything more than a non-notable person who has met some bigwigs, as many non-notable people have? Have they been published anywhere? Were these meetings reported in newspapers? We are being asked to believe that "The Sources not always important" -- but they are, by policy. If these meetings were notable, they would have been reported in Arabic-language newspapers and probably written about by Arab historians in books and articles that could be accessed and understood by readers of the Arabic Wikipedia -- but this article has been created and deleted several times there. Why? We also have a wall of links to library listings and booksellers concerning books that are published by government agencies, not mainstream publishers, and no reviews have been shown. Is there any evidence of notability here at all? --Stfg (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly do you want of sources ? ,

the photo a) he is making a meeting with Makarios III. b)this is the syrian delegation making a talk and he is the president of it, so he is reading one of the documents that it's important.

c)the four men , they are the soviet union delegation with the syrian delegation, making a meetings , you can see the flags in the middle so this is an official meeting, all the meetings include cakes and teas ,so it's not that problem if this picture include cakes and teas.

d)He is shaking hand with the president of soviet delegation, They accepted the conventions between the two countries.

So as you see old photos for an old person, the deal here , the word "OLD" so it's hard to find a newspaper talks about what happened, but these days all the newspaper talked about the meetings and reported that, you know , Arabian countries aren't that good in keeping sources, although , if they like the man , they keep him , if they don't , they will no keep him , that what happened for YA , he was a right man , in the right way , but they didn't like that , so they tried there best and they did to keep him away , that is mentioned in the article.

GhiathArodaki (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedurally closed. When a deletion discussion is closed with a solid "keep", please wait some time (ideally, months) before renominating. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narine Dovlatyan

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

Last discussion was closed unfairly. And in the discussion was ignored rules of Wikipedia. In particular, criteria of notability, for which this singer is not suitable.--46.241.251.119 (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criterias for musicians and ensembles says.

“

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

”

But Armenian National Music Awards is not a major ceremony, and she is is not suitable under this criteria. Under the other criterias article is also not suitable.--46.241.251.119 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was nominated by an anonymous editor and incorrectly posted to the log. I have created the AfD page and tagged the appropriate article for them. I do not currently have an opinion. Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was literally just closed with a consensus to keep. The close wasn't unfair. A major music award isn't limited to Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. It is classic systematic bias to assert that because the award isn't major in one country doesn't mean it isn't "major" in a different country. The national music awards for a nation should be presumed to be an assertion of notability. Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only means that you have a biased attitude to the article, because this article is not suitable under these criteria. You simply rejecting all my arguments, and it is unclear why.--46.241.236.29 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect references that are not directly related to the text, links to some blogs, 10-th place in the competition, nor any albums... And significant for Wikipedia?--46.241.243.234 (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The solution for incorrect references is not deletion. Replace the references with correct ones. The question is whether these sources exist. In the case of this person, who won a major music award, she meets notability guidelines and the existence of sources should be presumed. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On the question of the importance of the award, apparently this is a "major music award." From an English-language Armenian news source: "The Armenian National Music Awards is organized by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia in cooperation with «Sharm Holding» Production Company." I am of the opinion that an official government-sponsored award ceremony is major, and as such the winner of an award at this ceremony meets the notability requirements. I have also updated the expired reference to the awards winners. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the second nomination: "A search for her name in the Armenian language "Նարինե Դովլաթյանը" suggests that there are sources available, such as these [2], [3], [4] , [5], [6]. I do not speak Armenian and it is difficult for me to assess these sources but on the basis that it seems sources are available, and to avoid systematic bias, I'll !vote weak keep." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five links on the same site?--46.241.236.108 (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my comment in the just ended AfD, this IP doesn't like the last close but is substituting their opinion over reasoned arguments.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But she won in not major nomination.--46.241.228.204 (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She has been covered in the Armenian press, correct? And she won the Best New Artist Award, correct? What would satisfy your own apparent standard for notability? Reasonable minds can disagree on her notability. How does she compare to Sofi Mkheyan?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She has been covered in press? No, she has been covered in some blogs, and not reliable sites. Yes, she won in that secondary nomination, but is only that fact did her notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.241.246.177 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW DELETE, and borderline CSD anyway. No point in going 7 days when the outcome is this certain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Gadyukin

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

A blatant hoax, and seems to be one of the longest-living hoaxes we have. None of the sources exist. The seacrh in Russian (Юрий Гадюкин) does not give anything at all. The name (Gadyukin) is a made-up family name used by ~~Yury Iosifovich Koval~~ Viktor Dragunsky in one of the children's stories (Death of the spy Gadyukin). The alleged name of the first movie, Where the tractors roam, sounds so funny in Russian that it just could not have been shot in the 1950s. Needless to say, the movie was indeed never shot, and the search in Russian gives zero results. The Bucharest Film Festival, where Gadyukin allegedly got a prize, is a hoax as well and is currently on AfD. (Note that both articles were created by single-purpose accounts). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucharest Film Festival for more reasoning. Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no subject-matter expertise, but I notice that this article is the creator's only contribution. In the case of a suspected hoax, this is never a good sign. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if User:Ymblanter is correct. Certainly the ISBNs are fake as far as Gadyukin is concerned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The ISBNs seem fine (the books exist), but the only hits for Yuri Gadyukin in Google Books are in Wikipedia-based books. Andreas JN 466 21:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ___domain "yurigadyukin.com" is from "Ian boyterdesign@blueyonder.co.uk" which does not seem remotely rational for a "real" person. Collect (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excellent work, though. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As hoax. One hallmark of a hoax like this is the claimed death under suspicious circumstances. Not to mentioned a dedicated website that is not believable, and scattered stuff from the same time as the article creation time in the fall of 2009 that make the joke more plain, e.g., [7] ("Sadly not only has this tape not worn well over the years, but, thanks to my Dad, the last twenty minutes or so were lost to the 1989 World Snooker Final.")--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a probable hoax. Name of the film is most unlikely, as is the claim to have been "drafted as a child soldier" at age 12. Smells like fiction from start to finish. Surname is not a common Russian surname. Etc. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit curious how the first purported title in the bibliography, Eastern European Cinema and the Totalitarian State, WAS LISTED IN WORLD CAT. I believe this is a hoax listing as well. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's weird, just found a second title in WorldCat by this author, ostensibly published by I.B. Tauris in 2002 and residing in one copy only in the British Library. As a book freak, I can't emphasize how unlikely it is that an academic publisher would be placing ONLY ONE COPY in a WorldCat registering library. Very strange. Possible, I suppose, but very, very unlikely. Carrite (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down Dr. Stojanova's email address and have asked her to clarify whether or not she actually wrote the two I.B. Tauris books. Carrite (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol: look at this youtube vid [8]. All may have been a setup for an indie film plot.[9]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find! Carrite (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was created by Paulsorberg (talk · contribs) - who communicated with GeorgeJLewis (talk · contribs)!!!! here [10]. about the fictional Bucharest Film Festival which we also have at AFD. Good work to everyone on digging out the other items. Looks like the internet could easily create a Blair Witch Project on steroids with the way you could lay in a backstory. MarnetteD | Talk 07:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PhaseWare

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

Fails WP:CORP. Findsources produces no reliable sources (news, books) indicating any notablility of this company. There are plenty of press releases, paid CRM reviews and marketing materials out there but nothing that meets WP:RS Toddst1 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Another information technology corporation ... that develops, sells and supports customer service software products and services advertising on Wikipedia. This meaningless text is not an assertion of minimal importance, and neither is the claim that the primary goal in the foundation of the company was to expand customer support management software into the small and medium-sized business market and to implement workflow automation functionality into these markets. Google News links are all pr.web / prweb.com. Note also two prior speedy deletions for spam / failure to assert significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Multiple News searches failed to provide anything substantial, only promotional links and press releases aside from another review. One of the press releases here says they were a finalist in an award show but I haven't found any third-party links. Additionally, it seems they haven't received any attention since the end of 2011, nothing for 2012 or 2013. The only links to support their clients would be primary. As a Dallas-Fort Worth resident, I've never heard of this company though I'm not familiar with every single Texas-based company of course. I have no prejudice towards a future article when notability is established. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence (i.e., significant coverage in independent reliable sources) that this company meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Gong show 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The notability of those who compete in the Olympics is well established. I don't think this comes anywhere near marginal, so it does not justify honoring the subjects request. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Taylor (swimmer)

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

Per multiple good faith edits by an IP editor claiming to be the subject of this article, and based on the fact that this person is relatively unknown, certainly not a public figure, even though he technically meets the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia, I propose deletion for now, or at a very minimum, delete the history of the article that includes the personal information the editor was attempting to remove. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issues have apparently been resolved to the subject's satisfaction. As an Olympic competitor, Taylor meets the criteria of WP:ATHLETE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:BIODELETE, just because they are notable enough for inclusion doesn't mean the article must be kept. This swimmer clearly meets the criteria of "relatively unknown, non-public figure", so when the individual himself (both as IP editor and as User:Ht1968) requests deletion, there should be something more substantial in a "keep" argument than this. I'm not convinced this has been resolved to complete satisfaction, given the relatively short time span of these edits (3 days). Also, it would be helpful if you could include in your response whether you would support redaction of the history per WP:REVDEL. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not support redaction of edit histories except in exceptional cases. Since this is apparently just someone who is not happy with having their details online and no more sensitive reason has been given I would not support this. I would emphasise that it is not our policy to delete articles just because the subject requests it. If one does not want to be a public figure then one should not take part in a public event and deliberately put oneself in the public eye. As it stands, there is no sensitive information about this individual in the article whatsoever. To delete it makes a nonsense of the encyclopaedia, particularly since he is listed in Canada at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Swimming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that if the subject of an article requests deletion and only marginally passes the notability guidelines than it should be permissible to honour the request and delete the article. While the subject here does pass WP:NOLYMPICS, that criterion is extremely broad and the subject doesn't seem to have any noteworthy achievements beyond coming 19th in an Olympic swimming event. In the circumstances deletion is reasonable. Hut 8.5 14:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The issue has not been resolved to my satisfaction. I support and request deletion. Thank you.Ht1968 (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See WP:NSPORT. As an athlete competing at the highest level in his sport havig competed in the Olympics. He is also a former Candian record holder in the 1500 freestyle as evidenced by [11] and [12]. In fact this article shows that he set a Canadian mark in 1990 that stood until 2011. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Whpq. Any concerns about content should be addressed by strict adherence to WP:BLP, not by deleting article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even with relatively minimal participation, it's clear there is no evidence he meets any notability guideline at this time. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enosh Mwesigwa

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

Non-notable pharmacologist. Citations only serve to show that he has written a couple of papers. Searches elsewhere do little more than to confirm that he is listed in the expected directory and social sites. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient cites on GS for WP:Prof. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The claims of being one of the first Ugandans to... and of being the CEO of... look more like something that would fit WP:GNG than WP:PROF, and in any case the lack of citations isn't the biggest issue — it's the lack of reliable sources that can be used to back up anything we can say about the subject. Highbeam and Google news turned up nothing. I did find enough professional business profile sites to convince me that the article is reasonably factual, but they don't count for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Really not sure why this was ever relisted Courcelles 00:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Allinson

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

An unsourced BLP about an author whose books appear to be non-notable per WP guidelines and some self-published by Xlibris. I have found no significant secondary sources about him to justify and source an article. Does not meet either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to establish notability. PK T(alk) 16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 05:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:AUTHOR is the right criterion for this one, but I don't think he passes it. This is sort of a book review (although it says very little about Allinson's book or its author) but that's all I could find with any nontrivial and reliable coverage of him or his works, and I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- appears to have just written two books, the rest of the bibliography being editions. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 4 March 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 11:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added two references from 3rd party books to the article, both basically using his "The Bantams" book. Probably not enough for WP:ANYBIO notability in themselves though. AllyD (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. While there are okay levels of holdings for his book [13] (195 according to Worldcat), that really isn't enough given that it appears to be his one significant book, and it's not really significant enough to the extent that it's been properly reviewed, or much cited. Ray^Talk 01:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ibrahim Basuony

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

Does this guy pass WP:PROF? Unsourced since 2008. Zaminamina (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Scholar confirms his existence, but with an h-index of 2, fails to meet WP:PROF#C1. I see no other basis for claiming notability in the article, or after a brief google search. Ray^Talk 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 05:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ray. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The citation record is very far from WP:PROF#C1 and there are no other indicators of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ray and David. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ACADEMIC. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:48, 1 March 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, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 11:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for clearer consensus? Where was there a single dissenting voice? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from apparent lack of notability.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Yan (singer)

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer to meet our notability requirements. Others are welcome to try. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. AfD over a year ago closed without any !votes either way, other than the nomination. Epeefleche (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in the article are not sufficient to demonstrate notability under the WP:MUSICBIO standard. I tried googling to see if I could supply some sources, but it is very difficult, given that they are from a non-English country. I'm sure that if she is notable, fans will find the sources and re-create the article properly. --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was able to find some coverage for a singer named Yan Yan... from Myanmar/Burma. But this one? No. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:V concerns means WPBIO. will never be met. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NPASR, but we're at no consensus and a month. Courcelles 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Consalvo

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

Non-notable person. No reliable sources. Not the subject of multiple third party references, no assertion of notability. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Nominator deleted content and did not bother to search for supporting references, which are easily found via Google: ie deleted American University alum fact American.edu Story with photo, Washington Post profile, LA Times Profile, WashingtonExec profile. There seems to be a pattern relating to her partner Frank Gruber, as well as Jon Pastor and tech entrepreneurs in general, as the nominator has used a similar approach with those articles and their companies Tech Cocktail and Rent Jungle among several others. See User_talk:CitizenNeutral#Aggressive_Deletions--Nixie9✉ 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To quote WP:Notability a person needs to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Don't see that here. I would also dispute the nuetrality of some of the sources Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a recognized expert in her field, per THIS notice of a speaking engagement at American University. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline: Weighing in because this has been open a long time, not sure we can avoid a no consensus close at this point. But she's primarily just a competent professional, with good self-marketing skills.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. AfD is not the proper process for a discussion on whether or not to redirect and there has been no valid argument for deletion expressed. The proper forum is the article talk page, with merge to/from templates placed on the appropriate articles. In addition, an RfC template can be placed to attract additional editors to comment. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bend, Not Break

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

This is somewhat of an odd nomination, but one I thought necessary given the situation. I personally view this book as notable, as it meets several of the qualifications for WP:NBOOK. It has received multiple reviews from reliable sources and after the controversy about the book became known, it got a ton of coverage about that as well. The previous incarnation of this article was a talk page and people attempted to speedy it on that basis, but I've done a complete re-write to where none of the original content remained. One of the editors on the Ping Fu article has requested that this be redirected as a WP:POVFORK, saying that it's redundant since it's a memoir of Fu. (See Talk:Bend, Not Break.) There have also been concerns over the neutrality of the current article and its potential to be used again as an attack page. Rather than wait a few days and continue a back and forth that I feel will ultimately be unproductive, as both of us have directly opposite viewpoints, I'm cutting this short and bringing it here for an official discussion. I think that this has merit as a standalone entry separate from its author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to redirect it then I'll accept that, but I think that this merits a fuller discussion than just the talk page.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article as it is now is well written, neutral and referenced and the book is notable on its own. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the nominator says, "it has received multiple reviews from reliable sources" and appears to meet WP:NBOOK. We use article protection and other remedies to avoid the "potential to be used again as an attack page", not deletion. Yworo (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was asked to chime in here because I previously nominated the other page creations as a promo. They were no where near being attack pages and I removed the tags there as such. This actually has significant coverage in multiple respected journals and sources so there is no reason at all it shouldn't have a standalone article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - ~~as much as I respect Tokyogirl79, I feel she is wrong here.~~ The book is inherently notable on its own; it will be perfectly possible for this to be kept under control with semi-protection. Being controversial is never a reason for deletion. I agree that the article needs to focus mostly on the book - but as an autobiography, it should reference the author as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if some of you can come chime in on the talk page, I'd be much obliged.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She actually said she thought it was notable...my understanding is that she did this to preempt a lot of wasted back and forth on the issue on the talkpage and just have out the deletion concerns. She was assisting a newer editor with this Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big kerfuffle on the talk page is over the term "critic". I don't want to drag this into here, but it's basically the other editor assuming that "critic" equals out to "reviewer". I'm somewhat concerned over the cherrypicking of what terms are or aren't acceptable, as I feel that splitting hairs in this manner is somewhat WP:POINTy. And I do see this as notable and as neutral as the accusations and subject matter can be, it's just that there's a big argument on the talk page about whether or not the current content is neutral and whether or not the current terms could be misinterpreted as an attack. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about Tokyogirl being mistaken were more to do with the WP:SURMOUNTABLE vandalism issues. I fully understand why it was brought to AfD: I hadn't, however, spotted the fact that there was essentially a "keep" vote even in the nomination. I've struck that part of my comment, and I suggest that the diffs containing the vandalism entry are revdelled due to their WP:ATTACK nature. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A couple of notes: First, I marked the pages Hell in a Bucket mentioned as "attack", because they were laying a foundation for an attack. All the statements in the the pages were unverifiable WP:OR with no English language citation, and carefully crafted to be contradictory with what Ping Fu wrote in Bend, Not Break. Second, I'm "the other editor", and I did not assume that "critic" equals out to "reviewer". Tokyogirl79, please assume good intentions on my part. Accusing me of cherrypicking or WP:point is not very civil. On the article in question: it has big problems with accuracy, POV, and verifiability. The synopsis is completely uncited, and includes at least 5 inexcusable errors. While the article does cite WP:RS reviews, it also cites sources where the writers direct their criticism to Ping Fu personally, rather than to the book. The article casually conflates the book Bend, Not Break with Ping Fu personally, in a way that appears will be very difficult to fix, and even more difficult to maintain. Finally, I object to the process by which this article has been created. WP:POVFORK says "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." This one is worse -- it is both consensus-dodging and protection-dodging. It was created by a user with a new WP:SPA, who was WP:gaming the system to get around the protection put on the Ping Fu page just yesterday. I assume good faith on the part of the nominator, that she did not know this background, but the article should have been redirected to start with. As of now, the best option is still to redirect it. But, short of doing that, it should be protected, and stubbed. VanHarrisArt (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a few times for what was an attack, or even a foundation for an attack? Right now you calling the account making the articles a SPA seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black considering your only edits are related to this issue [[14]] and strikes of a COI. Nothing says one way or another that even with a COI or SPA you can't edit but the fact is that this article is now superior in every way to those other pages and ultimately makes your rationale moot, there are several very experienced editors that now have the page on their watchlist that will ensure it doesn't become one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to the note about "what was the attack" in your user talk page. Regarding my account: Thanks for asking. It's a WP:sock#legit alternative account for privacy, to prevent harassment. To keep things above board, I contacted the Arbitration Committee about it on February 17. You have my permission to run a WP:CheckUser to verify my identity. Regarding WP:COI - I have no financial nor close personal ties with the subject of the article, and you can check my contributions to verify that they are NPOV.

As for the article being superior to other articles that were written with the sole intention of disparaging a subject: that's not hard. The article is a mess, as I've pointed out in its talk page. VanHarrisArt (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Pattison

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced BLP. Notability is not clear. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 10:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage found in non-primary reliable sources to indicate subject is notable; fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources turn up. I was unable to find anything other than a brief mention in The complete idiot's guide to MP3: music on the Internet by Rod Underhill and Nat Gertler, page 248. I found nothing relevant in Google News archives, nor in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NPASR Courcelles 00:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana Brown

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

Not notable, not yet at least. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Agree she fails notability but she passes GNG. And GNG is the only thing that you need to attain an article on here. GAtechnical (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GetPaid

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

tagged for notability since june 2009, after searching I cannot find any significant coverage which would meet WP:CORP _nonsense ferret 02:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-notability questionable. References do be developed.--Goldenaster (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; an e-commerce solution. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's notable, that certainly isn't reflected in the article whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The Python Magazine article is a reliable source, but I was unable to find other 3rd party RSes after several searches. Dialectric (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Low participation with an argument that it may be notable. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lewis Becker

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

Most of the sources don't appear to mention the subject of the article and those that do are just short blurbs and brief mentions. Doesn't appear to have any reason to be notable as the head of a boutique PR firm. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick Google search suggests that the subject might be notable, though for his Madison Avenue years before 1998 rather than anything since - one generally has to search for "Mike Becker" rather then on his full name as above. However, his preferred version of his name is not unique to him, and advertising industry sources by their nature have a strong tendency toward promotional language - I therefore suspect that while an article based on clearly reliable sources might be possible, sorting out enough of those sources from the casual and/or routine mentions and likely puffery might be difficult. PWilkinson (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The link from the article's deletion template to this discussion is red. Praemonitus (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's caused by the server cache. Purging the page should correct it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Puwal

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

Unsourced biography that's been around for five years. There are a handful of incidental references in reliable sources to him, e.g. [15] and perhaps more significantly [16], but I was unable to find two reliable, independent sources which provided in-depth coverage of this guitarist producer. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can not find reliable sources at the moment. Would be happy to reconsider if such sources become available.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources. My searching turned up the same brief mentions that Joe Decker found. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joël André Ornstein

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

I'm not quite sure what this guy's claim to notability is supposed to be. Being really rich, but not that rich? Writing a thesis? Sitting on some boards? It's not clear. Anyway, there's a distinct lack of independent sources; the only significant coverage of him is a piece in an alumni magazine's class notes section, which is not exactly an objective resource. Also, this is written by a single-purpose account, a bit of a red flag. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article. This is the first Wikipedia article that I have submitted so I will agree with Biruitorul that there was some relevant info missing. However, this was not intentional, this was due to lack of experience. I have gone through fixed links, added more external links and information to the article/bio. I do think that it would be more constructive for Biruitorul to give constructive criticism and suggestions rather than making comments of "claim to notability" and "being really rich". If there is anything that I can do to improve the article than I am happy for input. MajornCorp 207.181.243.85 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question at hand is what makes Ornstein notable, what are his claims to notability? You may wish to read through WP:N before answering that. If you want this article kept, you should try to demonstrate how he meets the criteria set out by WP:GNG (i.e., that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) and/or WP:BIO.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive but yes, currently the only claim about the subject I can see is that he's had a career making a lot of money. That's nice, but it isn't necessarily enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia - not with the rather dismal level of sourcing now present. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be greatly appreciated if you would help and give specific constructive advise rather than comments about how much money you think he has made, which I have never made reference to. My focus is on his professional achievements, background and education. I spent hours yesterday working on the article to improve it and will continue to do so over the weekend to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I am very open to any input that helps me to improve the article. Especially as this is my first one on Wikipedia and I know that as I am learning I will make some mistakes. Thank you. MajornCorp 207.181.243.85 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between having had a successful career involving "professional achievements, background and education" (he's done that) and being notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopedia (I don't think he's done that). Like I said, if you can demonstrate how he fits the criteria of WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO, then it's likely the article will be kept. I've contended it doesn't pass that bar because what we have are an article in an alumni magazine (which hardly counts as independent coverage) supplemented by some journal articles/theses which don't demonstrate notability one way or the other. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what is needed to either remove the deletion notation from the article or to delete it entirely. I have updated the article, adjusted links, etc. I have nothing more to add to the article. Thank you. MajornCorpMajornCorp (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hard judging notability of people in this business unless they're the sort who go actively looking for publicity, or find themselves at the receiving end of unwanted publicity. But as a proxy, I am willing to accept the multiple board membership as an indication that those in the business world think him notable. The ones on corporate boards might conceivably because of his financial clout, or in virtue of his firms' investments, but that wouldn't account for the Sloan. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robert Epstein . we have to conclude this sometimes, and in lieu of a no-consensus I'm going to be bold and redirect to the founder., until someone can find more sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies

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

This article was created back in 2009 and immediately tagged as being of questionable notability. The creator of the page is a WP:SPA with a clear personal connection to the subject of this article and the connected topic Robert Epstein. While Epstein himself may be noteworthy, his article reads like a puff piece. This article is better written, but doesn't cite a single source to demonstrate notability. The article has been tagged as such for over three years, and neither the article's creator nor anyone else has attempted to solve this problem in any significant fashion. I figured nominating the page here would at least generate some discussion that might lead to the page's getting improved if somehow it is found to merit not being deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the author can try to add new sources to avoid deletion.--Soroboro (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Qualcomm. Courcelles 00:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QChat

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

I started cleaning this up, but it looks like it should be merged with Qualcomm? CorporateM (Talk) 00:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce and Merge with Qualcomm - There are a few books and journals that cover the topic, for example this and this, but only with limited depth. The amount of content currently in the Qualcomm article seems about right to me. - Mr X 03:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer Park, Inc.

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

Advert with an inadequate amount of salvageable material to be worth keeping. CorporateM (Talk) 22:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page will continue to be edited and added to over the course of the next few weeks. It will link to relevant and useful articles for those interested in the entertainment marketing industry. It provides useful information to those looking to work in or with the highlighted company and has been mentioned as a useful resource/learning tool by clients and potential hires.

~~Keep~~ - Additional resources, to be added in the future, will link to common pages/articles about the marketing entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.202.2 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Note that both of the above keep votes were added in one edit by 12.198.202.2 (talk).] squibix (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the second "keep"; per diff page. Editors are only allowed one !vote in AfD discussions. However, please feel free to comment all you'd like. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holding my nose to say keep. Out of the morass of desperate PR there does appear to be a few legitimate references (ie, [17]) and awards ([18]). But the article needs vast improvement. squibix (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an integrated marketing and technology firm positioned at the intersection of branding, entertainment and technology services. Trailer Park's clients work across the full media spectrum, which includes studio and indie film releases, broadcast and television networks, channels and programs, home entertainment media (Interactive TV, DVD/Blu-ray releases and video games), digital publishing, sports projects, music and original content for the Web. Trailer Park specializes in crafting campaigns from concept to design, production and implementation of audio/visual, print, mobile, digital and social marketing campaigns for the entertainment and advertising industries. When the article reads like this, it's too soon to worry about notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The firm is notable. The prose is pretty awful, but easy enough to fix--I just replaced the paragraph Smerdis quotes with "Trailer Park is a marketing firm with digital and print production capabilities that specializes in the media and entertainment industries." The rest needs fixing too, but it's just as easy. Given the clients, I don't think there's much doubt about notability. Nowadays I will rarely fix a highly promotional article unless it's really important, but I don't like taking a particular awful paragraph and quoting it as if that alone was enough to damn the article. I think it will take me all of another 5 minutes to fix the rest. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. It took 11 minutes. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howe Steel

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

This band fails WP:BAND. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as per nom and no RS. Possible recreation in May depending on how their single does. GAtechnical (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found for this duo in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 01:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. NintendoFan, (Leave a message) 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zarwali Afghan

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

I really don't see anything notable about this article. NintendoFan (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Fraiman

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

No significant coverage. atnair (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- H may just about have done enough to be notable. He also has two (minor) prizes. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per above. NintendoFan (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americos Industries

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

Not enough sources to create a page following WP:V CorporateM (Talk) 22:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was only able to find one in-depth source from an industry related web site that seems promotional, rather than journalistic. - Mr X 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can not find reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SALT also. Secret ^account 06:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Thiss

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

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

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

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

I've declined a CSD A7, as the article's creator asserted it was one of the most popular online stores in Switzerland, but I cannot find any reliable sources that prove that this is the case. However, I think it's worth bringing it to AfD as there might be non-English sources that do establish notability after all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you see a TV Spot of the Shop - over 10 000 views. Should be popular enough . Regards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOlz-CeimM ) (Jimkio12 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Not only does that appear to be a self published source, it's not obvious that it's officially affiliated with the company that produced it, which means it's a copyright violation. Sorry, we can't use that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.- Article needs expansion not deletion. MilliTilli5 (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — MilliTilli5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Advertising. I'm Swiss and I've never heard of thiss, er, this. No sources in the article, nothing (in any language) to be found on Google News. - clearly fails WP:GNG. Sandstein 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant advertising CSD#G11. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a great fan of Alexa ratings, but wouldn't "one of Switzerland most popular online Shops" be higher than #14,378 in its home territory? [19] AllyD (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence found (on Google, Highbeam, Questia) to indicate that this meets WP:NWEB or WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. :: Alexa: switzerland is a small country. also its just working in der german speaking part of switzerland. so alexa shows me about 5000-10000 visits a month. not bad for such a small country. also you see 11 000 you tube views. its not the point if you use this commercial or not. but you can see many people watched it. so it seams it cant be that unpopular. for my opinion this is more then enough for a small article. (Jimkio12 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers. Thanks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPKeep-sources are there. The subject is notable RinoMio1 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — RinoMio1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment You say "sources are there"; where? This article about a website continues to be sourced only to the site itself. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per CSD#G11. Smirkingman (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD#G11. Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources, thus notability is not established. --Cyrus Andiron 19:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gosling Prize

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

1. lack of notability 2. quick search didn't find a source 3. quick search for Henry Gosling didn't either Widefox; talk 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no sources for this prize at all, other than Wikipedia mirrors. Nor could I find any sources for the purported awardee Mila Bilovsky. The other purported winner, Harry Hall, is a bluelink to a painter who lived in the 19th century. So this article might be a hoax. In any case, no evidence found for notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding coverage for this subject; appears to fail WP:GNG. Gong show 01:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to connect Oracle 9i with VB 6.0?

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

I previously put a PROD notice on this article with the rationale "Instructional article which is non-encyclopaedic: see WP:NOTHOWTO #1." It was removed by the article creator without comment, though see the earlier comment on Talk:How to connect Oracle 9i with VB 6.0?. The basic issue remains, however, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier PROD. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTHOWTO. Game over. Stalwart111 07:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a reference manual. They are a brand new editor though and I recommended they go try Wikibooks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not an encyclopedia article, but a how-to article. There's nothing wrong with it; this simply isn't the right place for it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.--Staberinde (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. a13ean (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Buerger

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

Totally non-notable. Fails WP:GNG in every conceivable way. OGBranniff (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. needs a little improvement. NintendoFan (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Top50 World player of his era. Notable for beating Alexander Alekhine (List of people who have beaten Alexander Alekhine in chess), when playing in the invite only Margate 1937 tournament(includes three world champions) (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=79481), of which all players(Reuben Fine, Paul Keres, Alexander Alekhine, Jan Foltys, Philip Stuart Milner-Barry, Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander, Vera Menchik, George Alan Thomas, Theodore Tylor) have an article. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sun Creator. "Totally non-notable" is an absurd claim at complete odds with reality. Chessmetrics ranks him #43 at his peak at a time when there were many fewer tournament chess players (and tournaments) than there are today. Linked from List of people who have beaten Alexander Alekhine in chess, and I don't see how it could possibly improve the encyclopedia to delete this article. Quale (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Blandford

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

Total non-entity. Fails WP:GNG. Should be speedied. Why did this guy even get an article in the first place? OGBranniff (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see how he is notable and can not find anything reliabe. GAtechnical (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the books by (each of) Gaige, Roycroft, and Sunnucks? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Total non-entity" is an inappropriately snide comment by the juvenile nominator, since Blandford achieved more than OGBranniff (the true non-entity) ever will. Chess composition is not really my thing, but Blandford is notable in that field as demonstrated by his inclusion in chess reference works such as Gaige and Sunnucks. He earned the title International Judge for Chess Composition, another indication of notability. de:Hugh Blandford has a little more than we have here, but unfortunately I don't have the Roycroft book so I can't do a better job of inline citation. The obits in BCM and The Times given under Further reading could provide two more print references for the article, but I don't have access to those either. Quale (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry but it is your responsibility to produce those sources. Until you can, your chimerical "sources" are no better than saying "My roomate's cousin's uncle's housitter's sister says she heard it's notable." Es tut mir leid, mein Herr. OGBranniff (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's wrong. It isn't his responsibility. According to policy, RSs supporting an article's notability must exist -- they don't necessarily have to be in the article as a precondition to stop DELETE. (And, is there some point behind breaking into German language in response? Is the reason to do that in any way related to this?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple secondary sources establish notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources that Bubba73 point out are sufficient coverage for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The AfD is misguided and baseless. User:OGBranniff seems to think anything inadequately sourced deserves the axe. That is not definition of notability or of process. User:OGBranniff needs to review WP:BEFORE. At Wikipedia:Guide to deletion it says: "It is recommended that you describe the steps you have taken to check that your nomination is appropriate, including any search for reliable sources you have done. This may prevent duplication of effort and inoculate your nomination from being labelled as spurious or thoughtless." That is what we have here from this user: ongoing spurious and thoughtless AfD nominations. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am no chess expert, but he looks notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Bellin

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

Totally fails WP:GNG. Women's champions are not inherently notable (not being men), and no coverage in reliable sources. Potential BLP violations too. OGBranniff (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of queries, if I might - Female champions are not notable because they are not men? I mean - a man, having won an equivalent men's title, would be notable? Are the men's competitions different? You'll have to excuse me, I'm not a chess person, but is it the same as WP:NFOOTY where most (if not all) women's comps are non-professional and so playing in one does not confer notability? Stalwart111 08:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the men's competitions are different. Females qualify for titles and championships under more lenient standards then men, which is ridiculous being that chess is not a physical sport. OGBranniff (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand - thanks for explaining it. Agree, yes, a bit strange. Is that distinction reflected in a policy of ours somewhere? I mean, male and female tennis players are both covered by WP:NTENNIS but the criteria is simply involvement in high-level tournaments, with no distinction made for finals qualifications, even though female competitors might reach a final having played fewer sets. Stalwart111 08:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Womens' championship is not quite as notable as the "Mens'" championship (I put "mens'" in quotes since it is actually open to both genders) but still being the number one woman in your country several times over is an achievement that should garner some attention. Regarding WP:GNG I think the criteria are satisfied. There is this entry at chess.com, and the obituary of former husband Tony Milses here, in the Telegraph contains more than a few paragraphs about her. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Chess.com" is definitely not a reliable source, and their "chessopedia" that you cite is a wiki. It's not peer-reviewed nor independently published. As far as the Tony Miles obit goes, "Notability is not inherited." So the subject of this article is less notable than "Britney Spears's Mom." Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The chess.com link was probably not the best, but the Miles obituary is a valid source. Several of the paragraphs are about Bellin (not merely "Miles was married to Jana"), and that is non-trivial coverage. Note that Jana Bellin's primary achievements were in the 1970s, so I suspect that most of the coverage is not available freely online. A look at Google Books [20] indicates that that is the case here. The sources are not available freely, but from the paragraphs sampled, the coverage in them appears non-trivial as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is true arguendo, it is not coverage in multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. An obituary once-removed does not an article make. Check! OGBranniff (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Women's champions are inherently notable. "Women's champions are not inherently notable (not being men)" = OGBranniff is a pig, also with a very poor grasp of notability (see Andrew Soltis (AfD discussion), James Macrae Aitken (AfD discussion) and Thomas Wilson Barnes (AfD discussion). He also has a poor grasp of reality or at least telling the truth, as women's champions are determined by tournament or match the same way as men's champions, in exactly the same way as tennis. Quale (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, but whereas tennis is a physical sport, where women are known to lack against men. (see golf.) Chess is a mental sport which should not have any sex-based "handicaps," unless you concede that women are inherently more stupid than men. OGBranniff (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Quale: calling someone a "pig" would probably be considered a personal attack, or at least not particularly civil. So let's try to leave stuff like that out of an AFD. Stalwart111 03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second the "pig" remark. Here User:OGBranniff accused me of masterbating because I disagreed with him on policy. There are other sexually-based obscenities and so on from this user, if you care to do any research, Stalwart111. There's total disrespect for editors and process here, and I fear all of these spurious and thoughtless AfDs are a joke and amusement for him. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not suggesting such things should go unpunished either. At all. I just mean that AFD is not WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U and commenting on other users doesn't do much for AFD process either, yeah? Best just to deal with this, with civility, close it out and then deal with broader issues in forums designed for such things. Stalwart111 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't punish at Wikipedia; we "stop disruption". (Why didn't you know or remember that?) Making a case that an unending string of thoughtless, spurious AfDs is disruption, isn't going to be nearly as clear or feasible to achieve, than calling a spade a spade here. ("Forums designed for such things." Do you mean AN/I?! If so, that is amusing. "Nothing good ever comes from that place." -- Malleus Fatuorum. Clearly you are a believer in WP processes; not me, I don't believe in ghosts or other fiction.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. Awesome. I've seen the "we don't punish" line before. But then I've also seen this. So... you know... "This is disruptive" is one thing. "This is disruptive and you are a pig" is just a bit pointless. Nothing good ever came of that either. Stalwart111 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree philosophically. Truthfulness is always good, never bad. ("This is disruptive" is passe -- eminently ignorable. So nothing ever changes. "Pointless"? The comment you didn't like is the antithesis of pointlessness. It was honest, and, right to the point. Shades of Malleus. One can only respect that. Malleus called WP a failed Internet civility experiment. You seem to support that aim.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we're that far apart, but I know what you mean. Stalwart111 05:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Quale and OGBranniff: I think you're actually arguing the same point, but with some misunderstanding thrown in for good measure. For lack of a formal WP:NCHESSPLAYER or something, surely the inclusion criteria should be something akin to WP:NTENNIS and other such sports/games criteria, backed up by WP:GNG. All other things aside, surely being the 8-times British champion and having attained the highest honour in women's chess (as far as I can tell - that of Woman Grandmaster) is sufficient to be considered notable. In any other sports/games category, I would imagine such a record would confer notability without question. Stalwart111 03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Woman Grandmaster, two-time Chech Women's champion, eight-time British Women's Champion, bronze and silver medals in the Olympiads, a definite keep. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis of my comments above. Stalwart111 03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (If there's a BLP violation [suggested by nom], then you flag it or correct it.) Another ill-conceived and exaggerated AfD nomination from User:OGBranniff. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep agree with Stalwart. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be a wave of nuisance nominations going around. Jana B has just about achieved everything there is to achieve in chess other than becoming a world champion. Easiest 'keep' ever. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the best known female in chess for several decades prior to the arrival of the Polgar sister. I've read many of articles that mention this lady in chess magazines over the years. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wilson Barnes

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

~~Totally non notable; laughably so. Completely fails WP:GNG and is totally unsourced.~~ OGBranniff (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three references have been added. Notability established by those writers. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. In light of those three clearly reliable references. OGBranniff (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment - now obviously has the making of an interesting article, he looks quite a character. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C Koya Kutty Musliyar

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

One source isn't in English so I can't read it. The other is a news brief consisting of a few sentences mentioning his presidency of an organization whose affiliate bodies have been the subject of numerous WP:ADVERT violations here on Wikipedia, all by a group of similar accounts. Beyond that, it does seem to fail WP:GNG as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. I tagged this for notability some time ago; I would have PROD'd it if it were an English language topic. I'd ask the closer to wait as long as possible in case a someone with the language skills can find sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anakkara C Koyakutti is new president of Samastha Kerala Jam'iyyathul Ulama. Sufficient local status as president of major Kerala muslim organisation. But I moved title to prune per WP:HONORIFICS. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Alavi Thangal

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

One source is to scribd, the other is to the blog of one of the article's contributors. Fails WP:Notability (people) in addition to looking like a violation of WP:ADVERT. It is worth noting that abut a dozen accounts have been doing this for multiple individuals and organizations tied to south India. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per the below comments. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request nom to withdraw AfD - easily found in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question – What in the world makes you say this is an advert? Looks legit to me. –TC N7 JM 13:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6minutes

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

Delete, does not appear to have won any awards or to pass WP:CORP, fails WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems like a violation of WP:ADVERT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Not notable. –TC N7 JM 06:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete like above MarioNovi (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twaqa Ahmed Moulawi

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

The only sources for this article are official websites of organizations with which the subject is affiliated. I would say that fails WP:Notability (people). Additionally, these organizations have also been nominated for AfD due to WP:ADVERT issues by a number of accounts which all work on these same articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. unsourced BLPs we do delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no signs of satisfying any notability criteria. Actually, without primary sources, possibly fails WP:V, since even the Gnews search came up blank. Ray^Talk 01:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr kerri parnell

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

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Maybe a redirect to the publications created by them if they are indeed notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously, one of the sources is Wikipedia itself. And talk about a capitalization fail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not only is one of the sources Wikipedia, but it's a Wikipedia article that's also being discussed at AfD with consensus leaning delete. Notability fails as well. –TC N7 JM 06:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I've started both of these discussions and two editors agreeing does not a consensus make 8), sometimes these start out that way and then new information comes to light over the course of the debate Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I said leaning, not actual "delete," for a reason. –TC N7 JM 12:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I think I mixed that up...well, this is embarrassing :\. –TC N7 JM 13:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It happens! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage of the subject is available (yet) in reliable sources. --99of9 (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to E. K. Aboobacker Musliar. Courcelles 01:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsul Ulama

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

The only sources are either to the official website of the organization for which the subject served as president, and the official website of a user who has recently been involved in a number of articles deleted for WP:ADVERT issues. This appears to be the same case, as the article obviously fails WP:GNG and is only sourced by what appears to be an attempt to advertise an organization. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to dab - another duplicate article. Merged to E. K. Aboobacker Musliar. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to E. K. Aboobacker Musliar. No WP ambiguity to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Secret ^account 03:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anzan Izeh F.C.

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

Part of a large series of unreferenced micro-stubs about football teams in Iran which have not received significant coverage or played at a national level in order to meet notability guidelines. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ara-e Gharb Kermanshah F.C.. This nomination covers a total of nine articles, for which I believe identical deletion criteria apply. C 679 05:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eight related articles listed below per nomination:

C 679 05:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A football club merely existing isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. C 679 05:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 05:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – Since all of these clubs play in Iran's 3rd division, which is only the fourth highest division in the country and thus not the national level, none of them pass WP:FOOTYN. –TC N7 JM 06:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above; no indication of notability (WP:FOOTYN) </ end pile on> —Theopolisme (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Der yck C. 12:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tajuddeen Cheraman Perumal

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

The only source provided is the official website of an organization which has been involved in perhaps two dozen violations of WP:ADVERT through various accounts. This is on top of the fact that this single sources fails to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline - why is the subject of the article notable? In fact, it's difficult to discern what in this article consists of historical claims and what merely consists of apocryphal legends. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate merge to Cheraman Perumal In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for better referencing. Cheraman Perumal appears to be a title. This is the name of one person who held the title. Unless some one can establish that this is a hoax or similar, we should keep it. Even legnedary evetns are potentially notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in very poor shape, but makes a pretty serious claim to notability that is substantiated on a variety of other sites. Though not ideal, this [21] gives some idea of his perception in Islamic historiography. The subject's notability, either as a legend or as a historical figure, is pretty much ascertained through a Google Books search [22]. dci | TALK 02:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic University

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

This is being nominated for deletion along with a group of articles related to the institution and its affiliate bodies. This article, like the others, is only sourced by its own official website or websites of its affiliates. It appears to violate WP:ADVERT and no real notability has been established. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Man, I thought I finally got the hang of this. I better go check the other articles I nominated this morning. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and suggest the nominator withdraw any similar nominations, as universities are always notable--see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. While there are currently no other sources, a quick search on Google Books turns up at least one, probably two RS that mention the school. Since the only thing that needs to be established for a university to be notable is existence, this is sufficient. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 11:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fazal Pookoya Thangal

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

Of the given sources, three of them are the websites of organizations or individuals responsible for creating a great deal of articles on non-notable subjects which are related to one another. The fourth source is a reliable one but only used to support the statement "the British investigated him." Fails notability guidelines for people. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per the comment below. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request AfD closed by nom - evidently highly notable, lots of historical coverage. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chalilakath Kunahmed Haji. (merge/redirect) Courcelles 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chalilakath Kunhahammed Haji

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

This article is an unsourced mess. It fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) in more ways than one, and almost reads like a fan page - the subject's official website is the only given source. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Addition: Chalilakath Kunahmed Haji seems to be the same person; they both have the same birth and death date and the similarly unpronouncable name. Also, like this article, the one to which I just linked is also lacking in any reliable sources and appears to be advertising. Can we just list both articles here, or should I go through the process of nominating that one for AfD separately? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I would have though we could agree to address them both here provided an AfD notice is put on the latter article. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy blank and redirect to Chalilakath Kunahmed Haji, duplicate content. 3 sources in original article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhalan Gracie

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

He lost both his MMA fights and fails WP:NMMA since neither was for a top tier organization. The rest of the article is about how he's related to other Gracies and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the guidelines for notability of people. Simply being a part of the Gracie family isn't enough to establish notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMMA clearly with no fights for a top tier organization, and being related to other Gracies doesn't make him inherently notable. CaSJer (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Obviously fails WP:NMMA, but has won a fairly significant BJJ tournament at the black belt level in 2010. May or may not be enough to pass WP:WPMA/N. Certainly needs more sourcing to pass WP:GNG. But I would argue there is some inherent notability in being a member of the Gracie family. Luchuslu (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Gracie does not make you notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED) and I don't think a Florida state BJJ championship can be considered a major event. Many of the divisions didn't even have 3 competitors to fill out the medal listings. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NOTINHERITED, "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group." Just think its a worthwhile question to ask. Luchuslu (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to ask, but I still believe that simply being a Gracie isn't enough to make you notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. - Mr X 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Hyo-Jin

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a volleyball player. Seems to fails WP:ATH notability guidelines for athlete. The claims under the section International career might make her notable, but they are unsourced, and I am unable to find any sources. - Mr X 03:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator in light of source presented by Valenciano. - Mr X 05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing does need to be improved but AFD is not the place for fixing issues like that. Regarding notability, I've added a source which shows that she competed at the 2012 olympics, thus she meets notability criteria at WP:NOLYMPICS. Valenciano (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a clear keep Yulia Savicheva. Regarding the albums and songs that were also nominated, there has been considerably less discussion on them (and I suspect many of the participants here missed them). There is no easy manner to make a partial close, and I will not relist a discussion that ended with a clear consensus to keep on the main article. So I will declare the others in the list inconclusive, meaning that they may be relisted at editorial discretion. (Generally it is a good practice to not nominate multiple articles on the same AFD unless you are almost sure that they will end with the same outcome.) Be advised that the coverage of Eurovision songs is pretty much complete in that all of them have separate articles, and that AFD discussions on them have not ended with deletion, the argument for inclusion being that even if they did not win the international contest, they have national prominence in that they won the right to participate in the final. The situation is probably less clear on the non-Eurovision albums. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I noticed just now that the three other articles were not tagged with the AFD template. If you make a multiple AFD nomination, it is important that all articles are tagged as such, otherwise people reading or watchlisting that article may be left unaware that there is an active deletion discussion on it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Savicheva

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

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

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

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

Mass nominating this singer (and the roost of articles which is related to her) which is solely notable for her performance in the Eurovision contest, but she was just classified to the 11th position, she wasn't the winner. I can't find any coverage other than the fact that she represented Russia in Eurovision Contest, the articles in other languages are rough translation of the same content which seems to be written by a fan. Notability can't be stablished from a single act and it has been tagged with notability since 2008. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main article per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MUSICBIO, specifically criteria 9:"Has won or placed in a major music competition." Participants in the Eurovision song contest are generally considered to be notable. She has also attracted coverage in major Russian newspapers, for example Vedomosti, here. The other articles should be merged into the main article for now, until independent notability can be demonstrated. Valenciano (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Valenciano, basically. Eurovision is divided into (usually) some form of national competition, followed by semi-finals and then a final. Being in the final suggests she won at least her home country's competition (or was simply appointed, as is the case for some countries, but that still generates coverage) then did well during the semis. To then place 11th in the final probably gets her over the line, in my view. Both the semis and finals are televised (outside of Europe, but obviously also within Europe) and many of the national competitions are televised too. The only question beyond that is whether her being a Eurovision contestant is a matter of WP:BLP1E and whether that trumps WP:MUSICBIO and the like. Given it doesn't trump other single-event, occupation-specific, criteria (like, say, WP:NOLYMPICS) suggests it shouldn't here. So on balance I find myself in the keep camp. But probably only just, based on WP:OUTCOMES. However, by all means merge the other ones into the "main" article. Stalwart111 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article, obviously notable as a Eurovision participant. No opinion on the others.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A user pointed out the specific criteria in musicbio, however musicbio states that if the subject meets the requirement it "may be notable", it does not guarantee notability, Has won or placed in a major competition does not instantly assert notability, there are several contestants from X-Factor, American Idol which have placed, but doesn't have their own article. She was placed 11th position in this single edition it does consist in one event, she wasn't qualified for her performance in the semi-finals, she appeared in the show due to the automatic qualification from the previous edition, the Vedomosti link provides only mentions regarding her apparition in Eurovision and the most recent dating 2007 are about new contestants. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the list of media writing about her (maintained at her website).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those links provided by Ymblanter do check out, and there do appear to be enough Russian language sources on her to meet the general notability guideline of which musicbio is merely a subcategory. Valenciano (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Eurovision projects have created numerous articles like this one. Participating in Eurovision does not confer instant notability, and detailing every song and singer that ever participated in Eurovision in a separate article is unnecessary.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that Eurovision participants from a particular year could simply have a catchall article covering them all, but that's at odds with what we currently have. Generally a Eurovision participant will attract enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and will therefore have an article. I do believe that in this case she has achieved enough coverage in Russian language media over a period of several years to meet WP:GNG. Also in this case, no less than 19 other wikipedias have chosen to have a separate article on her. It would be in my experience, totally unprecedented for us *not* to have an article on a subject so widely covered on other languages, I guess that's why I mentioned WP:OUTCOMES. Valenciano (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 19 Wikipedias have chosen to have a separate article on her, but they are either stubs or tagged with problems concerning its notability or with merging discussions and also one should not mention existence in WP:OTHERLANGS, Natalia Podolskaya fails even more, as she is only known for representing Russia in a single edition. I think that Eurovision has spawned a lot of these instant celebrities articles within wikipedia, but only the most relevant should be covered, the rest should be covered into a single article with past editions and its participants.
Keep per WP:ATD & WP:NNC - Article just isn't citing notability sufficiantly. Needs more work to cite this person's notability. Eurovision was a very early exposure in her career, as far as I can tell. She seems to be a highly successful commercial musician in the Russian language recording industry. Her albums are available through online marketers such as Amazon:Julia Savicheva and Itunes, Yahoo! Music shows three albums, an MTV video and 25 Youtubes (http://music.yahoo.com/julia-savicheva/) I found through a cursory perusal of the web. She is only several years into her career, but has definite international exposure which has long exceeded this sole Eurovision citation. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anonymous voter, I disagree with the NNC reason for a keep argument, also availability in digital outlets doesn't represent a criteria for maintenance within WP, neither youtube, the link you provided lacks in-depth coverage (no information on her, and no information regarding her albums), the same applies to other links (even the one that mention her performance on Eurovision). Even though we have limited material about her, it would be not a reason for deletion, but so far the only thing I see on the net about her is her performance on Eurovision which constitutes 1EVENT. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Agreed, based on what you're saying, Eduemoni. Digital albums are not physical CD albums. However, Amazon and other sources list actual physical CD albums for sale, the latest of which was issued last year (2012). She is apparently on tour and on television in Eastern Europe, judging by the many Youtube videos of her television appearences and concert performances, all of which are much more recent than the Eurovision citation. I totally agree with you based on what you're saying which is very reasonable. However, you are not taking all factors into account which is why I cite WP:NNC which states if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Additionally WP:INDEPTH does not apply here. It applies to events, not people (if you were citing WP:1E instead, it closely supports the position that you're promoting). In any case she definitely isn't well known in the USA, if at all. This is what NNC refers to. She is a celebrity in Eastern Europe, and is a well enough known musician who tours, appears on television and records (physical CD albums - not just digital). Her "best of" album from 2008 is a physical CD album, and produced by Astra Records located in the state of Texas in the USA. I don't know but if you're not taking this into account when you continue to refer only to Eurovision. If so, I gladly defer to your position to delete. I am not a fan of hers, and I had never heard of her till yesterday. I have no inclination keep or delete the page. I only see evidence that this is a notable celebrity, albeit an Eastern European one. Please change my mind. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know that INDEPTH is suited to events, but I mentioned that because all these sources even russian sources lack depth of coverage (which is needed per GNG), her only notable act is her performance at Eurovision, this why I'm talking about it so much, her albums only charted in Russian charts which has dubious methods of tracking songs and albums, anyway, this specific criteria is being discussed and can't be decided in the article's favor or contrary to it. All the coverage on Yulia seems to be reprint, mentioning briefly about her (press) new release and talking about her appearance on Eurovision. Her coverage (even in Russian outlets) consists of trivial coverage, with simply tour reports, performance dates, album release or tracklisting. The artist also didn't have any record certified gold. She has released five albums, all of which were released by minor record companies, the most expressive being Origami which was done in a joint-venture between her record label along with Symbolic Music and Astra Records, she didn't introduce any music genre or style, or defined it. She hasn't received any awards (Eurovision is a contest). She arguably placed in a contest and performed music for a work of media that is notable which is the current article's excuse (IMO), but in fact is pointed out to 1EVENT. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 00:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - strange nomination, seem to have had alot of career in music besides Eurovision. article needs structure and better sourcing though. I see no reason for deletion. representing your country in Eurovision as a singer should equal representing your country in the Olympic games as an athlete.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- also keep Believe Me (Yulia Savicheva song) article. No stance of the rest nominated.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get the reason why you mention this is a strange nomination, having an active career has nothing to do with notability, have you seen my comments above? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I have. You are truly fishing for reasons to get this article deleted. Sorry im not buying into it.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic awareness theory

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

This appears to be original research. The references in the article seem to be either primary research papers or not directly related to the subject, and I couldn't find any likely looking papers online. I don't think this theory has received enough notice in secondary sources to pass the general notability guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. From the article's lead: "The status of this theory is uncertain, as it has not yet been published in an established journal." Cnilep (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, we need to wait until it gets highly cited.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this theory is not notable currently.--Staberinde (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. a13ean (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Reunion (Play)

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

Contested prod. Little-known play. In the keep rationale, the creator is not asserting the notability of the play itself, but rather that of the real-life people it is based on, which per Wikipedia standards is meaningless. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find good sources for this. The article's current references are unreliable. - Mr X 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable drama, currently third party sources are non existant. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aforementioned rationales; article seems to use some original synthesis in deriving plot synopsis info from bios of its characters' real-life models. dci | TALK 03:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given the consensus that this is a hoax, the most sensible solution seems to be to delete. If someone wishes to start an article about a legitimate, real, non-hoax film festival in Bucharest, they are free to do so. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest Film Festival

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

We recently received an email to OTRS stating that this article was a work of fiction. With the permission of the original emailer, who wrote a very detailed rationale, I am publishing the following excerpts of said email for the consideration of the community.

The Bucharest Film Festival never existed. It is a fictitious invention intended to lend credence to the creation of the fictitious Soviet flimmaker Yuri Gadyukin who also has a Wikipedia entry. While I did not feel obliged to edit a fictional character that someone had spent a lot of time creating; I do feel it inappropriate to invent a Festival and award ceremony that trades off the success of other films to establish verisimilitude. Furthermore, this fictitious article has already led to the spreading of misinformation. I feel very strongly that this is a bad thing.

The films cited as winning awards did not receive them. It is not defunct, it is fictitious. I spend a lot of time in Romania and there is no mention of the "Bucharest Film Festival" in the Romanian National archives. You can easily double check this as you will find few mentions of either the Festival or the "Golden Wolf" outside the Wikipedia entries pertaining to films that are alleged to have one it, and websites pertaining to Yuri Gadyukin. You will notice that all these websites have clearly been produced by the same source. Any websites that do refer to the Festival, I found one on Polanski's Knife in the Water, have, I imagine, received this information from the Wikipedia page. If you check any written work on the films of Roman Polanski, you will find no mention of either the Bucharest Film Festival or the Golden Wolf that Wikipedia claims it was awarded. An example of the further spreading of misinformation that I previously mentioned.

Additionally, if you check the "References" on either the Bucharest Film Festival page or the Gadyukin page you will see that all are authentic sources, but that none contain any reference to either a Bucharest Film Festival, a Golden Wolf, or one Yuri Gadyukin.

Ultimately, I'd ask the closer of this debate to courtesy-blank the discussion given some of the content in the original statement relates negatively back on a living person, and so should only be obviously visible for the period it is required (the AfD discussion period).

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Indeed, links which can be check do not exist or do not give any info. For example, a book published in Romania in 1970 just can not have a ISBN.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As ISBN for a pre-1970 book is so obviously false it tilts the burden of proof so strongly against the author that, as there's really nothing else to back it up, we can just call it a hoax and be done with it. -- The Anome (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The specified ISBN (973-98439-1-3) seems to belong to a second edition of that book, published in 1998 (see [23] and [24]). However, does not prove the festival existed; I'm just saying the cited books seem to exist, but I do not know if they contain any mention to the festival. A search for Bucharest or Bucuresti using Google Book Search in the other cited books (in English language) does not yield any results. Probably the whole thing is just a hoax. Razvan Socol (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: ~~Keep and Rewrite~~ As the FESTIVALUL INTERNATIONAL DE FILM "BUCURESTI" is itself NOT a hoax as an organization, despite errors in current article's content, The BIEFF Bucharest International Experimetal Film Festival also NOT a hoax. However, neither of these two REAL modern festivals appear to have a traceable relationship to the allegedly historical "Bukareŝto Festivalo de Socialisto-Filmo". And there is also the issue of showing any sort of actual (posthumus) connection between the deceased Yuri Gadyukin and festivals created after his death.[25] We can either correct issues and re-focus based upon available sources, or delete without prejudice toward a proper recreation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri is an obvious hoax, btw, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Gadyukin. Its a film plot.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one has issues, but are you also asserting that the FESTIVALUL INTERNATIONAL DE FILM "BUCURESTI" and the BIEFF Bucharest International Experimetal Film Festival are also non-existant, or that articles on those entities are not possible? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I don't know anything about these other festivals, am not weighing in on them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See response below to JohnCD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since I taken in by the hoax (facepalm) I did some digging. The article was created by GeorgeJLewis (talk · contribs) and was also worked on by Paulsorberg (talk · contribs) - who created the Gadyukin article. Might be one person or two they even went so far as to discuss the award with each other here [26]. There is not much we can do about them since they stopped editing on '09 but lets delete the hoaxes as soon as we can. MarnetteD | Talk 07:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now check George Lewis here, to complete the picture--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorberg is probably also a character in the indie film. He is credited with imdb entries around the hoax, e.g., Where the Tractors Roam (imdb). I have posted a message board thread on imdb about it to alert them.[27]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No problem with creating articles about the real festivals MQS mentions, but we do not want this fictitious nonsense in the history, so it's a case of WP:Blow it up and start over. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A fine response. We can always delete articles found to be inaccurate, false, or hoaxy... without leaving an negative onus toward recreation of properly sourced articles about notable topics. If someone were to write a proper article about the modern film festivals in Bucharest, THEY should not be speedied as recreations of a deleted hoax article unless they actually are. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/notorious)

[1] (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/notorious)

[1]