Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 April	27 April >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trophy of Denmark

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

Not clear what sport it is, no context, no sources, hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another table hockey entry from TH guru. No media coverage. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major tournament for a sport, just needs formatting cleanup. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Championships_%28Table_Hockey%29 for my other arguement.GuzzyG (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obscure tournament in an obscure game (not sport) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Setting aside whether this is a sport or a game, there is no coverage that I am able to find that establishes that this is a notable tournament. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Masters

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

Not clear what sport it is, no context, no sources, hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another table hockey entry from TH guru. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find several references for this tournament (which has apparently been going on since 1982).--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 16:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found [1] which is not enough. I would like to see Stvfetterly's sources. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - [2] - article about table hockey that references the Swedish Masters,[3] - Gives some history of the Swedish Masters tournament,[4] - reported listing of winners for 2012 of the tournament,[5] - Interview with table hockey player who gives his opinion about the Swedish Masters,[6] - Refers to a table hockey player who had competed at the Swedish Masters, [7] - Indicates that the Swedish Masters is one of the six biggest world tournaments for table hockey. There seems to be at least some indication of notability of this tournament.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 12:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also have some independent sources, like national newspapers? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the biggest tournaments in this sport, just needs formatting work. Also this is good for the improvement of coverage for minor sports. Which Wikipedia does not have enough of.GuzzyG (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just noting that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge a summary of the article with ITHF table hockey. The notability of the article is weak at best: I couldn't find news coverage, and the sources listed above aren't the most independent or significant. So it's a borderline case, and I'd lean towards deleting the article and including the information in summarized form (there's no need to list the results in such great detail) in ITHF table hockey. -Well-rested ^Talk 06:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only source that would be usable for establishing notability is the Edmonton Sun, and that is a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stiga U.S. Open

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

Not clear what sport it is, no context, no sources, hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another table hockey entry from TH guru. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found sources are fansites, Facebook, YouTube or blogs. Fails EVENT and GNG. I'm wondering whether this is a Stiga promotion... BusterD (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody outside the table hockey community has given it any notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is this piece of local coverage but falls short of coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Baxter

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AfD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no new argument since last AfD, actually less rationale than the last time. Subject is not primarily a political candidate, and overall notability is demonstrated on other fronts. Note this is part of a rapidly-nominated series of AfDs by the nominator. Dl2000 (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this had been nominated before. I won't object to Speedy Keep. West Eddy (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada. The primary discussion point revolved around claims of notability via WP:GNG/WP:BASIC rather than WP:POLITICIAN, and the sticking point per policy is the question of whether there are sources each of which must, by policy, provide in-depth coverage. Consensus of those addressing the point was "no", and that consensus is in line with precedent. With non-trivial verifiable information, there's no policy-based reason presented to exclude that content from another appropriate place on Wikipedia, and Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada was the only target suggested. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liz White (politician)

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable under WP:BIO. Contains third party sources. 117Avenue (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin this keep vote is almost to 3 others keep votes in 3 minutes by this editor [8], [9]. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how exactly? As explained below a number of sources are not third party. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's claimed that this article contains third party sources. It does indeed but none of them cover her at all. Refs 1, 2 and 4 are from her organisation and therefore non neutral. This one (ref 3) is about the best but only contains a brief quote from her in a news story about something else, hardly in depth coverage. Ref 11, ref 5 and the dead link ref 7 are simply official election results sheets, establishing her as an unsuccessful candidate. Ref 8 about the issue of minor parties being included in debates, contains a brief quote from her as party leader welcoming it, the dead link ref 9 appears to be the same, a non notable local news story. Ref 10 goes to the home page of a community website, and the ref title "Parties you don’t know that are running too" doesn't sound promising. Ref 6 is the only offline one and appears to be about the news story of legislation on animal cruelty, not White. Valenciano (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect for now Politician who is only of slight importance because she leads a party. Any information of significance about her can easily be incorporated into the party's article. She does potentially just qualify for her own article I think, but there just doesn't seem to be any coverage of her and the article as it stands is of no value. Article should be recreated once coverage in independent RS exists--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 117Avenue (talk · contribs) --Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Leader of a noteworthy minor political party and passes the WP:GNG - Youreallycan 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Although this article certainly cites more sources than most of the other minor political party leaders who are also currently up for AFD do, the references here are still virtually all either invalid primary sources or passing mentions of her in articles about other topics, failing the substantial coverage test. Accordingly, keep if the article can be improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect - what Bearcat said. Either fix it - which means more independent sources covering the subject - or redirect to her party and include a summary of her there.Marikafragen (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada. The "Political history" section at least is sourced, noteworthy background that would improve another article, so outright deletion is a non-starter. Thing is, I don't see the "meets GNG" argument. (It seems there's general agreement that WP:POLITICIAN definitely isn't met, so GNG is the way forward here.) I was about to explain why none of the references currently in the article really help to establish notability, but Valenciano's already said everything I was going to. I tried looking for more online, but not much came up - this was about the high point I'm afraid. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada article. Agree with Bearcat that subject doesn't merit a separate article. DocTree (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that literally every mayor of a village with only 10 adult citizens counts as a politician, I would argue that any Article whose title actually requires "(politician)" in parentheses is not notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of "(politician)" in parentheses is irrelevant to determining the presence or absence of notability — it's solely a question of whether or not there are other people with the same name who have articles on Wikipedia. We have plenty of articles about notable people whose articles have a parenthetical occupation listed in the title because there are other notable people who happen to have the same name. It has nothing to do with a person's basic notability or lack thereof. We even have at least one former Vice President of the United States whose title is disambiguated, and I certainly don't think you mean to argue that a US VP isn't notable just because his article can't be at his plain name. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Dance (politician) earlier today. The subject, Liz White, represents such a marginal party that she's never even gotten 1 % of the vote. The emerging consensus is to delete minor politicial candidates, even small party leaders. I would not oppose a merge as suggested by Bearcat (no relation). Bearian (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toronto Star et al. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh Wikipedia

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

Non-notable website, per WP:NOTABLE, composed of first-hand sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is an exception to WP:N (which is a guideline, not policy) as a WMF project. →Σ τ c. 06:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added two sources and more are available. There is a lot of coverage in Kazakh media, especially because of the digitalization of Kazakh Encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Turns out some big players like Nokia, Samruk-Kazyna/Timur Kulibayev and even the prime minister are getting involved in promoting the Kazakh Wikipedia (check out Количество статей в Казахской Википедии перевалило за 100 тысяч and Wikibilim). Such high-level support specifically for the Kazakh Wikipedia certainly gives it notability. Otebig (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Wikipedia

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable website, per WP:NOTABLE, composed of first-hand sources. The Additional reading section could establish notability, but the sources are in Greek and aren't actual footnotes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - alternate languages of Wikipedia don't have inherent notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is an exception to WP:N (which is a guideline, not policy) as a WMF project. →Σ τ c. 05:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified WikiProject Greece, see this. →Σ τ c. 05:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets WP:GNG due to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In.gr has articles about el.wikipedia's milestones (20,000 articles & general information about the project, 30,000+ articles & information), and urges from the Ministry of Educaton and scholars towards Greek students and scientists to use and contribute to Wikipedia [10] [11]. Big Greek newspapers such as Eleftherotypia, Ta Nea, To Vima and Kathimerini all have articles about el.wikipedia and its goals: [12] [13] [14] [15]. The article in question may currently be in a poor state reference-wise, but there are good online references out there. Needs improving, not deleting. – Kosm1 fent 07:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Greek Wikipedia has been covered individually in multiple sources. -geraki ^T_L 05:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem to exist, in greek and english. Notable enough on its own. --Jayron32 02:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles about other wikipedias. I don't see any reason to target this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website, per WP:NOTABLE, composed of first-hand sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is an exception to WP:N (which is a guideline, not policy) as a WMF project. →Σ τ c. 06:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Besides the point raised by Euclid above, the Bengali Wikipedia has been the subject of multiple dedicated articles in top-circulated Bengali and English newspapers in multiple countries (India and Bangladesh). Here is an example from the top Bengali newspaper in Bangladesh. Here is a front page coverage as top headline from The Telegraph, a widely circulated English language newspaper from India. I can bring up many other examples of media coverage if needed. But I think these two example suffice to demonstrate the notability of the Bengali Wikipedia. --Ragib (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Bengali wikipedia is the strongest of the South Asian wikipedias in terms of content, and Ragib has provided numerous sources indicating its notability.Pectore^talk 18:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Σ -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 22:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NAC, result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Members of major political bodies are almost always inherently notable. Shadowjams (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Harvey

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Was a short-term MP and now is leader of a political party that has never fielded a candidate in an election. West Eddy (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable under WP:POLITICIAN as a sitting MP. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I misunderstanding WP:POLITICIAN? I thought that wasn't enough to establish notability. West Eddy (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as soon as someone becomes an MP or MLA they get an article. All the winners in Alberta's provincial election had articles within 24 hours, you've nominated a federal representative with over two years service. 117Avenue (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that in policy? WP:POLITICIAN 3 says the opposite. West Eddy (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word in part 3 is "local", which does not apply to Harvey. Part 1 (as a member of a national parliament) applies here. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN and my comments above. A one-term MP is notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep - Consider my nomination withdrawn, with my apologies. West Eddy (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You really need to do your homework before nominating for AfD. It could be considered to be nominated in bad faith. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think there is some confusion her wrt the two meanings of the term "sources". What we use to cite information in articles is one meaning. What we use to demonstrate "notability" is the other. It's the second meaning that is important when deciding whether or not a subject is notable in an AFD which is why I like to call them supersources. A supersource is an instance of someone "taking note of" a subject and it's only necessary for multiple supersources to exist. They don't necessarily have to be in the article and in some cases they may not even be useful for citing anything in the article. Yes it would be helpful if they were integrated into the article somehow (external links or "further reading") but it's not required Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Knutson

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Does not cite any sources. West Eddy (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was never elected, but he seems to have been well known as an activist and advocate for Alberta/Western Canada separation. This is just a handful of the articles I found in a news archive search. (I will use them to help improve the article over the next few days; I can't do it immediately.) Dawn Bard (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Sun [16]
The Leader-Post (Regina) [17][18]
Edmonton Journal [19][20]
Calgary Herald [21]
Montreal Gazette [22]
The Western Standard [23]
Ottawa Citizen [24]

If those can be incorporated to show notability, I will support keeping it. West Eddy (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. These sources have been added to the article:

"Elmer Knutson Risks his Credibility". The Vancouver Sun. January 22, 1981. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Convention Often Resembled Theatre of the Absurd". Ottawa Citizen. July 19, 1982. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Elmer's Tune?". The Leader-Post. June 16, 1984. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Knutson Laughing Off Rumors on Resignation". Edmonton Journal. June 12, 1985. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Knutson-Nickle Attack Sways Big B.C. Crowd". Edmonton Journal. January 9, 1981. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Wischnewski, Nino (January 8, 1981). "West-Fed Plans Using $4 Million". The Calgary Herald. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Separatism in the West: How Far Does it Really Go?". The Montreal Gazette. March 20, 1980. Retrieved April 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"The Alberta separatist movement that wasn't". Western Standard. 2009-05-09. Retrieved 2012-04-27. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With sources added, I don't object to keeping it. West Eddy (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable biography. Stormbay (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references should be integrated into the article as footnotes rather than simply being listed under the heading "references". However, I would have to agree that Knutson passes WP:GNG much more handily than some of the other political party leaders who are also currently up for debate; even without electoral success he's been a prominent activist who's garnered considerable media attention in his own right — unlike most of the others, I merely had to see Elmer Knutson's name to know exactly who was under discussion, without even having to look at the article to find out. And the fact that some good references have actually been added to the article, even if additional formatting cleanup is still needed, means that I don't need to go into my standard rant about how notability is a question of sources and not of simply asserting proclamations of "all X are notable" entitlement, nor cast my conditional "keep or redirect depending on the state of the article at close" vote. Clean keep. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can this AFD be closed as withdrawn by the nominator, given West Eddy's comment above? Dawn Bard (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't withdrawn my nomination. I said I would if the sources were incorporated into the article -- not if they were tacked on to the end. Simply adding references that may or may not relate to the content does not help the article. West Eddy (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTCLEANUP: AfD is not for clean-up. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2006 USC vs. UCLA football game

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

Delete -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems an article under development--I see no sign that the new editor was given an explanation that it was necessary to add some text as well as an infobox--the only notices left were the rather uninformative form notices. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Highlights one of the flaws of WP doesn't it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are not going to have featured revisions or any sort of peer review than I am of the opinion that the onus should be on the article creator to produce something of use. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since deletion is not cleanup, this is just a stub in need of material, if it can be determined that source material exists to fill out the article. I can find plenty of detailed recaps and reviews of this specific game, including [25], [26], [27] and [28]. The last one is telling since its a detailed story about the game and its impact written 4 years after it was played, showing clear lasting relevence. WP:BEFORE is always nice. --Jayron32 04:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That "four years after" recap says that the Bruins upset over the Trojans made them think they might gain more prominence in LA college football, but that didn't happen. If it had actually been the start of some major change, I'd support keeping this. It seems like an otherwise non-notable upset, a blip on the radar. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references given here are routine coverage that every single college football receives. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy obviously a work in progress that is not ready for mainspace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absent something truly historic in nature, I am inclined to discourage single game articles. The usable content can be merged into the 2006 UCLA team and 2006 USC team articles, both of which have a space established for a discussion of this game. I think the season articles are the best way to deal with this material, rather than creating more and more single game articles. Cbl62 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by Cbl62 immediately above. I could not have said it better or more succinctly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - to 2006 UCLA team and 2006 USC team articles, as suggested by Cbl62.Marikafragen (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Cbl62. Space already in the team and Victory Bell (USC–UCLA) articles making this article redundant and unnecessary. DocTree (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single games aren't notable unless they're either championships or the very first game when a sport is invented (or something else along that line), which in this case the title doesn't specify. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G6 Closing to make way for page move. Nomination withdrawn Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sandbox draft moved to article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Friend Of Sinners

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Artist may be notable, but song has no independent notability. WP:NOTINHERITED also applies. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion as I am working on the page in a sandbox. While the current stub is regrettable, this can be easily solved by changing the page to a redirect until I move the content over. Toa Nidhiki05 (iPod) (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing in the sandbox version indicates a pass of WP:N. -- 202.124.74.168 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/withdraw - Having reviewed the sandbox version, I agree that it passes. If the current version is replaced with a redirect to the artist's page until Toa Nidhiki05 (iPod) is ready to put the sandbox version into article space, I will withdraw my nomination. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Delete and upload version from Sandbox. It would be better to have no article for the moment, as this will make it easier for the Sandbox version to be uploaded, without the redirect being in the way. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:V Unverifiable content, possible hoax. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Spacer

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

No reference provided, none found. Probable hoax; anyway, fails WP:V. PROD removed by IP. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I've never heard this term used before and I can't find any usage of it. Ducknish (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 43 google hits for the phrase: most are content taken from Wikipedia, and the rest are about people or fictional characters called Annette Spacer. As it's a web term, it's unlikely there will be significant sources offline if there is nothing online. There is no way that this is notable. If your name is Annette Spacer, I'm afraid your moment of fame is almost over. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails WP:V; WP:OR and WP:N. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pemberton Distillery

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pemberton Distillery is a highly unique distillery. I am attempting to create the page from a neutral stand point. I believe that many people would be interested to read about our distillery from a scientific stand point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tschramm (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Coverage in reliable sources: [29] [30] [31] [32] — however, the article creator should be very careful if he/she is at all associated with the company. Perhaps ask for help at WP:COIN. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having searched wikipedia extensively, there are many entries for Distilleries and many much less notable than Pemberton Distillery. I believe a precedence has been established, that as long as the entry is aimed at public information/scientific knowledge than an entry for a distillery is acceptable. comment added by Tschramm (talk tschramm (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are present in the article, so keep. But that is a question of the presence of sources, and not just a question of "other distilleries have articles, so this one can too" — if sources weren't present, this article couldn't be kept no matter what else does or doesn't exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found two non-local sources and added both to article.Marikafragen (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dia de los Muertos (2015 film)

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

Way too early for this article, with no suggestion that the film has approached final rendering stage. Per WP:NFF, this should be deleted, or, at minimum, redirect to a subhead under Pixar. McDoob AU 93 20:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator; also will support redirect to Pixar article. --McDoob AU 93 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. I think the best reply to this article is the first reply to the Tweet which is its only source: "Awesome! Remind us again in a few years!" JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, even if not used in the stub article, there are more sources available,[33] but yes... this one is far too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I say that the maximum distance in the future a film should be in theatres to have a good article is about 3 years, which means that this film is too far off in the future. Re-create in 2013. Georgia guy (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and set redirect to Pixar#Product pipeline to prevent premature article recreation. Pixar is the one spot where this as-yet-untitled project now has all the sourced mention it curently may need.[34] Only just announced two days ago.[35] Waaaaaay TOO SOON for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is a tweet, WP:RS. and doesn't exist, WP:BALL. No objection to redirect to Pixar article. DocTree (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as Speedy I request that the subject should be G7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. WebTV3 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A G7 request could only be accepted from user Phongn (talk), the article author. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFF is clear. Should really have been speedily redirected. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Octonauts (film)

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

No citations whatsoever, this film is most likely a hoax. While "Octonauts" is indeed a children's animated series, it is not done by any branch of Disney, therefore Disney would have no connection or incentive to produce an animated film based on it. McDoob AU 93 20:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --McDoob AU 93 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a hoax, which seems to be documented by the nominator. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Octonauts are now on Disney Junior in the U.S.[36][37], but I can find no sources about any film, so delete.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being premature and (currently) unsourcable speculation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being premature and (currently) unsourcable speculation, as already stated.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely hoax, but even if not, fails WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments like "beauty is notable in itself" are unfortunately ungrounded in our policy and practice. Sandstein 04:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Colgate

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

Transient news event. No long term significance. No indication of notability beyond one-time report. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They added that bit to NOTNEWSPAPER less than a year ago. Not sure if there was any real discussion. The suggested guidelines keep changing so often, hard for anyone to keep track. Anyway, I believe her getting coverage not just in Britain but in America and elsewhere, is significant. I find it unlikely we won't be hearing about her modeling or whatnot in the future. I don't know if any world records are kept for the most symmetrical/perfect/beautiful face is, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't an entry for her somewhere for that. Dream Focus 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless she has notability now she doesn't belong on wikipedia. I didn't think we where in the habbit of reprinting press-releases about competitions that are pseudo advertisements. We'll be having articles about women with massive eyelashes based of TV adverts next. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 04:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it unlikely we won't be hearing about her modeling in the future". That's totally a CRYSTAL BALL statement p b p 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC),[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E seems to pretty plainly reject this admittedly not-at-all plain subject. I don't think there's much of an argument to be made that she's notable for more than this sole event. Recreate if she does indeed go on to have a noteworthy modeling career or similar. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we create articles for every person who is in the international news? I agree that the article should be recreated once she is a model for an international ad campaign. I don't think being in the news qualifies one for an encyclopedic entry. She is pretty though. 199.38.162.15 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete single-event fame for a nonnotable event. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a completely scientifically mathematically perfect face and body is a rare and significant thing. Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is mentioned about "body" anywhere in this, and our own sources don't actually say that she has a "mathematically perfect face." Her ratio is 44%, whereas perfect is defined by unnamed "scientists" as 46%. So, just so we're all clear:

There is no indication anywhere that this individual has the only/most "perfect" face in the world.
Her face is not mathematically perfect. It is merely almost perfect.

Those two considerations accounted for -- and they are directly lifted from the article's sourcing -- what we have here is someone who won a corporate-sponsored beauty contest. If you think she is notable because she has the most perfect face in the world, please read the sourcing again. If you think she is notable for having a mathematically perfect face, please read the sourcing again. If you think she is notable for winning a corporate-sponsored beauty pageant in the UK, please read WP:BLP1E. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right. I opined without having actually read the article. This is, however, a legitimate topic for serious scholarship and if a "46%" could be mathematically proven and there is only one such person, please agree that'd get an article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were universal scientific consensus around quantifiable measures for defining the perfect human face/appearance/whatever, and if only one (or a small handful) of persons had that appearance, yes, that'd clearly be notable :). Sorry to be a bit flip previously, I just wanted to make sure that everyone evaluating this realizes that what we've just described is not actually the case here! Thanks, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They actually show the measurements for a perfectly face were first determined by the Ancient Greeks, and then measure her to that standard. Please watch the news video. Dream Focus 23:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, the video that literally says "almost perfectly symmetrical", and then says the perfect ratio is 1/3 whereas her face is 32.8% (ie almost perfect)? Erm. My point exactly? Hey, also, thanks for as usual assuming that I hadn't actually looked at the sources! I'll thank you for in the future looking more carefully at them. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled: Florence Colgate, 'Britain's Most Beautiful Face' Has Scientifically Perfect Looks. No one is going to say, "oh no, she isn't 1/3 but instead only 32.8%! That totally ruins it for me." Such a small amount no one notices. Dream Focus 15:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I assumed you read more than the title of the article. Perhaps you should. You should also watch the video you assumed I hadn't watched, and pay attention to the bit where it says "almost perfect." Our sources do not support saying that she is "mathematically" or "scientifically" "perfect". That's flat out incorrect. They support -- and, indeed, in the specific source you cited in your previous message, flat out say -- "almost perfect." Perfect is a binary condition. Something is or is not perfect. Almost perfect is not perfect. Words mean things. If she's "such a small amount" away from perfect that "no one notices," then she is not, in fact, perfect, and is merely the gorgeous winner of one corporate beauty contest. That's not, in and of itself, grounds for notability. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ginsengbomb. Sure, its highly possible she could now go on to a notable modeling career, but at the moment she is notable only for a single event. An article about her can be recreated if and when she does garner more attention, but at the moment its too soon. Rorshacma (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject received some limited, transient coverage only for a single event, a non-notable marketing ploy by cosmetic company, and has received no coverage since. The references to "science" and "mathematics" are merely marketing BS, of course, and are not to be taken seriously. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thus far, the person has only received coverage for winning an award based upon their appearance. The individual is currently only notable for one event, per the criteria at WP:BLP1E. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't delete this article myself, beauty is notable in itself as long as it is independently confirmed. Excalibur (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you point to a Wikipedia BLP criteria that agrees with you? GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the usual notability guidelines for people would apply, if that person got such widespread coverage for being beautiful. Consider the articles we have on people just for being old, being tall, etc. But the trick here is that the coverage is there - which may not be the case with Ms. Colgate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL p b p 23:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stiga North American Championships

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

Not clear what sport it is, no context, no sources, hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another table hockey entry from TH guru. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major tournament for a sport, just needs formatting cleanup. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Championships_%28Table_Hockey%29 for my other arguement.GuzzyG (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not all sporting events are notable. This fails GNG and EVENT in every respect. A reasonable search finds no RS. BusterD (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No media coverage that I can dig up. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WP IS NOT THE SPORTS PAGES. No context, no prose, no good. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith, pointy nomination; speedy closed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in Super Fight League

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

This organization has absolutely zero notability or impact. It is a brand new minor league upstart organization confined to India that does not employ even a single top 25 ranked fighter. Perhaps if this organization even survives and expands into something notable it would warrant an article, but as of now it is of no significance whatsoever. Pull lead (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~: Article is sourced, demonstrates reasonable (if not grand) notability. Super Fight League exists and is decently source. This article represents a condensing of previous individual event articles into a "YEAR in Promotion" style article that is also being done (EX: 2012 in UFC events) on other MMA articles. Several experienced editors have gone over this article and improved it from it's original train wreck into something that is at least passably acceptable for Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Nominator seems to be a editor who is more interested in removing the omnibus articles in favor of restoring individual articles and therefore is making a disruptive nomination to make a point. Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The omnibus system is the result of several discussion, AFD closings, etc. This includes the AFDs at UFC 149 [38] and [39] plus the comments at the close of UFC 142. This isn't the first AFD on the omnibus system that has already been agreed to, and doesn't prevent any other article from existing. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Justin Costecalde

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

WP:Autobiography with no indication of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by page creator. Scopecreep (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't even have any content, let alone an assertion of notability. No coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore notability guidelines have clearly not been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there originally was more content [40], but after I pointed out on the article's talk page that this was almost identical to Emilien De Falco, most of that content disappeared. Scopecreep (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer 1999

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

Declined Prod. Prod reason was "Sports Statistics synthesis article. Prose at top not supported by reference." Prod was removed without improvement or any justification. Per WP:NOTSTATS this is inappropriate for WP. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per G5 blocked user. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: Creator of article was not blocked until much after the article was created, therefore CSD:G5 is inappropriate. Hasteur (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, you wouldn't expect a user to be blocked then create an article, would you? The user is socking, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of محمد الخوبري. I'll let another admin make the G5 call. Giant Snowman 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No SPI has been started on the puppetmaster, only suspicions based on behavior. I'd rather have an ironclad consensus from AfD to parade around the other IFFHS World's Top Goal Scorer articles than a procedural dismissal. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors exclusively editong IFFHS articles, one only appearing after another has been blocked? A classic case of WP:DUCK. We could still launch a SPI though. Giant Snowman 16:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a SPI proceeding to have a seal of approval, but I'd also like for the AfD to finish for the precedent for future AfDs. Hasteur (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/محمد الخوبري. Giant Snowman 19:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:COPYVIO. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 86.126.102.30 (talk · contribs) deprodded one list like this one that I nominated and then Raulmohammed (talk · contribs) deprodded another and has created more articles on the subject. For example, IFFHS all-time leading goalscorer has been recreated as IFFHS (World Goalgetter). Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Argyle 4 Life. Cloudz 679 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Organization for a Participatory Society

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

blatantly fails WP:ORG. full of primary sources. and nothing in gnews [41]. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources appear sufficient to me. --JaGa^talk 05:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how? most of the sources are not reliable as they are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, five out of eight sources are secondary. Still nothing can be found in Google News however, so I'm unsure.--JohKar (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are five secondary sources referenced, and my search finds two Google News results[42].--Secondfletcher (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confer _ 18:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Whalen

AfDs for this article:

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

This was closed as no consensus in 2011. I think by now our standards for this sort of bio are clearer, and we tend to interpret notability in thisparticular line of work rather narrowly now. The sources are almost entirely her writings, and I doubt there is a true indication she's considered notable by reliable sources. (the "career" paragraph is of course just pretend-personal promotional writing, but it could be removed if she is actually notable ) DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the cusp of notability. The cited Boston Globe article is behind a paywall but is clearly a reliable article substantially about Whalen. I can't read the cited WSJ article, but it's less obviously about her. Are Inc. (magazine) or about.com considered reliable sources, because both have cited coverage? I'm not sure if this podcast on Forbes.com is a reliable source[43]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Inc.com should be considered a reliable source since it's affiliated with an established magazine. But keep in mind that the subject is an SEO consultant; since it's her job to enable things to be promoted on the Internet, we shouldn't have to scrounge to find information about her if she really is notable. We ought to be able to find it wherever we look. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Colapeninsula's arguments pushes this to the "keep" side. However, West Eddy does have a point about it being too promotional but that can be fixed with normal editing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Morgan

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

Article subject does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 11:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability found and even if it is notable, it is too promotional. West Eddy (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existing references are either non-independent (Rollo gallery), in obscure online publications (Art Interview), or brief mentions (e.g. the ABC.es article which covers a group exhibition). But there's a bit more coverage available: substantial local newspaper article, and another from the other side of the world. Other online publications: Zeitgeist magazine and La Critique. She's also the subject of a exhibition catalog essays by Deborah Kermode and Canterbury Uni academic Darren Ambrose[44][45]. Also a lot of briefer mentions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Available sources do not add up to extensive independent coverage. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula; multiple reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has won notable awards.Red Hurley (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 Jujutacular (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of demon blood

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

No sources, no indication of notability, and I cannot find the word "Demonohematophobia" anywhere on the Internet outside of this page. I'm half tempted to submit this for speedy delete as a blatant hoax, but I figured this is the more appropriate route. JoelWhy (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - suspect this may be an attempt at building publicity / Wiki-collateral for "Cry Of Fear: (Part 2) DEMON BLOOD" which appears to be a humorous video in a series. Hence, probably Adv/Spam as well as Neologism. No notability for the actual topic, no sources nor any attempt at any. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Utter bobbins - whilst I appreciate the effort to AGF with this nomination, this does indeed fall into the G3 category. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jpcap

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

Java library for IP manipulation, it looks like. Under current development. Working off of the general rule that this is not going to be notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a TechRepublic article[46]; an IEEE conference paper, Shen Zihao, "Network Data Packet Capture and Protocol Analysis on Jpcap-Based"[47]; and a Google Scholar search throws up quite a few papers that mention it. Might be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like advertising to me, even includes a link to a manual. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references at all and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazzabelle

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Usual Internet self-promo and nothing more, no coverage in RS. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this DJ/producer; only passing mentions as well as blogs and social networking sites including YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, soundcloud, last.fm, etc. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 23:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 944 appears to be a reliable source but it only has a photo, a short quote and two sentences about her, not a "feature" on her as previously claimed in the page and not significant coverage. Airplay shown is a single play on a single station and falls well short of national rotation. I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petersburg Animation Studio

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

Original article was 90% spam... Spam and CSD tag removed, which leaves a notability question. There are no sources that I can find (granted, my Russian-fu is very weak). There is a Russian Wikipedia article, ru:Петербург (студия анимации), but the Russian article is also totally unsourced. If the Russians can't produce sources on this company, then I doubt we can... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In this case, the official website is the reference. This animation studio has produced some who-is-who of Russian animation. It is notable enough for the great animations Go-Go-Riki, which received several awards.--GoP _T ^C _N 20:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per the inherent vageries in trying to create and source an article on a non-English company with available sourcing to its non-English company name. I am not concerned with the article at the Russian Wikipedia being unsourced,[48][49] as they do not operate by our guidelines, nor we by their's. However, in looking to OUR guidelines and considering that under its Russian name it does appear to be sourcable,[50][51] this now looks to be an adressable concern toward the unfortunate, unintentional, and recognized systemic bias. Even the google translations of the multiple Russian sources show that it has received coverage and is a recognized entity in its field... in Russia. And so even if not sourced in their article, sourable notability to Russia if fine with en.Wikiedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melnitsa Animation Studio

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

Totally unreferenced corporate article. Has some 'external links' listed, but they all go to self published sources so they don't establish notability. There are no sources that I can find (granted, my Russian-fu is very weak). There is a Russian Wikipedia article, ru:Мельница (кинокомпания), but the Russian article is also totally unsourced. If the Russians can't produce sources on this company, then I doubt we can... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the biggest Russian animation studios, and the only one which has consistently been producing animated features in the last decade (which have gained mainstream popularity in Russia, unusually for homegrown productions). Surely a cursory look at their IMDB page would have established this? They're a bit like Russia's version of Dreamworks Animation. Esn (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are most known for their "Three Bogatyrs" series of animated features (ru:Три богатыря (мультипликационный цикл)) which began in 2004 with Alyosha Popovich (which became the highest-grossing animated feature in Russia up to that point) and will continue with the fifth installment this December. The reason I brought up the comparison to DreamWorks is because their films tend to be fairy-tale parodies with recurring characters (like the Shrek series). I AM having some trouble finding a newspaper article that gives an overview of their history, though. This is frustrating. Esn (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 3rd-party article about the studio from last December (not the most thorough one, but the only one I could find on short notice). They also have a profile on KinoPoisk.ru here, and if you click on the films you'll see their box office returns and other information. There are detailed box office breakdowns for their films from 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011. Esn (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stephen F. Austin State University people

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

It's my opinion that this article is probably better served as a category, rather than a list. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it needs to have an article on it's own like most universities alumni lists. GreatLifeInService (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - ~~The article's title has been changed to List of notable Stephen F. Austin State University attendees.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the naming conventions in Category:Lists of American people by school affiliation I have restored this list to its original name. - Dravecky (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction; consistency is important on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this list only includes alumni, however, and not faculty as well, it would seem that the standard would be "list of FOO University alumni." postdlf (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. No one is forced to use either lists or categories; if you don't like one of the two, ignore it. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an organizational and descriptive list that cam provide far mote context to the reader than a bare name listing in a category, per WP:NOTDUP. - Dravecky (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Bands : Murder Us No More

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

Not notable. Appears to be a club night/live music performance, with an audience of 100 people. No indication that anybody else noticed it; the google hits are all copies of this page. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any coverage for this performance; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 19:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Finley

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

Prod declined. Coverage said to exist on talk page. However, the coverage is only WP:BLP1E in reference to him beating out 5000 other boys for the Beaver role, or tangential name-dropping of him within the scope of the film; even then, I see only four or five articles total. I see literally nothing on him outside that one role. Furthermore, his only other recurring role is a voice actor in a cartoon that lasted only 13 episodes, having me believe he fails WP:ENT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a sampling of the Beaver-related coverage about the individual - [52][53][54][55] (most are behind a paywall, but it's clear the pieces go beyond "tangential name-dropping." I'll weigh in more later; when I noticed the prod I felt that having an AfD discussion would be more appropriate given the starring movie role; a significant role in the third installment of the North and South (TV miniseries) (1994), the voice role/regular cast member on The Lionhearts, an animated series that lasted one season; and being a 4-time Young Artist Award nominee, all of which combined might be viewed as enough to satisfy WP:ENT #1. Gongshow ^Talk 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is still exclusively about his role in Leave It to Beaver. I found nothing even name-dropping him for any other role, nor any reliable secondary sources verifying the Young Artist Award nomination. If all the coverage is for just one role, then he's WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for accuracy's sake, there are name drops for his roles in Hope Floats, 8 Seconds, Perfect Game, and One True Love (the latter two were starring/main roles in a Disney direct-to-video movie and a CBS TV movie, respectively). Gongshow ^Talk 04:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which are still only name-drops, thus failing the non-trivial thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably true, I haven't looked through them all. Like I said, I was responding specifically to the "I found nothing even name-dropping him for any other role" comment, and pointing out that many such instances do exist. Small point, I realize; I'm merely trying to help make sure everything is accurately put out there. Gongshow ^Talk 05:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I looked at all the sources and external links and really tried to lean toward "keep", but he just doesn't make it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you revisist the article after it has been expanded and sourced. Its nominated "state" does not reflect his complete career nor the accolades he had received. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. We do not care that his awards were those specifically set to recognize child actors, nor that his career ended in 2000 when his (wise) parents decided to let him grow up as a "normal" kid. See WP:NTEMP. He had significant roles in enough notable projects so as to meet WP:ENT, and received decent enough recognition for his work to meet WP:ANYBIO. It does not matter that he is no longer acting, nor that (so-far-found) sources concentrate on his starring role as Theodore 'Beaver' Cleaver in the 1997 film Leave It to Beaver. For a then-youngster, we have enough sources speaking about him directly and in enough detail to write a neutral article, his body of work is verifiable, is diverse enough to not be a BLP1E, and can be seen to meet the guidelines for inclusion for what work when he did do it when he did it. Guideline does not expect nor demand that someone who was active in film and television when a child must somehow remain so when an adult in order to be determined as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS rationale. The coverage of his Beaver role might be enough by itself, but we also have evidence of recognition for other work as well; cumulative result is notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After further consideration, I'm inclined to agree with MQS as well. The subject's overall filmography meets WP:ENT. I also took a deeper look at offline sources and added a handful of them to the article. Gongshow ^Talk 18:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A.E. Iraklio

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Local Athens club which has never appeared in a national cup. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG.", which is still valid. Tag was removed by an anon editor without a reason. – Kosm1 fent 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 16:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Constraints on Media Freedom

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

Essay-like article with a sprinkling of WP:SYNTH. Singularity42 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear readers and critics, this article defines economic constraints on media freedom (see first sentence) and names the most common threats to media freedom, found in the scientific literature (field of research: media politics; media economics). All the statements are based on the scientific literature. Why would this not be suitable for an encyclopedia? --NinaLanger (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Constraints on Media Freedom is an important topic, which is worth to have its own article. The content is based on facts from scientific literature and not on personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsmkw (talk • contribs) 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dont get it. what's the matter with this article? i find it very interesting. just a few days ago i was discussing media freedom and the role of the economy with some friends. and today i found this wiki entry on google and nearly all our open questions and discussion points were answered. and i think, this is exactlly what wiki articles are there for... so i think this article is worth staying on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Color1011 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH. ukexpat (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for hosting unencyclopaedic essays containing truckloads of original research. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. SYNTH/OR/other Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy "can we please be nicer to new editors?" Drmies (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy, then? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Happy to be nice but I don't think we should hold off AFD just because an article was created by a new user, if that's what you're suggesting. Also sceptical about offering them the option to develop in userspace - in my view, FWIW, an article on this kind of vague discursive topic is kind of stuck from the start, and anyone trying to write and post it here doesn't get what an encyclopedia entry is meant to be about. Doing that would both offer false hope and more or less maintain WP being used as an essay host. N-HH talk/edits 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you're happy to be nice, then please be nice! I don't necessarily disagree, but did anyone explain, even in only two sentences, why an essay is not OK? Their instructor (if this is an assignment) apparently couldn't be bothered to do it; we should be a little better than that. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - In my original PROD, I linked to WP:NOTESSAY. I gave more detailed explanations when the issue was raised on my talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per essay, synth, OR and what Wikipedia is not. N-HH talk/edits 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT. No bias for possible recreation if done in compliance but article is not savable now. Not an issue of being nice to new users, as students who are forced to write because of classwork are fundamentally different than others as their first consideration is not improving Wikipedia. Instructors need to be help students learn that in contributing for class, their primary goal is to improve Wikipedia by writing for its guidelines. This isn't the student's fault but the instructors. --LauraHale (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale: Of course, it is our primary purpose to improve Wikipedia: We decided to publish these entries on Wikipedia in accordance with our professor. It is true that this entry is part of the task in our seminar but it was not the only task. Before publishing, we have read the Wikipedia policy but we simply did not know that this article would be seen as synthesis or even original research. We did not conduct a study, we just read the academic literature. Our aim was to improve Wikipedia by publishing an entry which is based on reliable sources. I want to apologize to all wikipedians which feel that this article does not fulfill the criteria for this encyclopedia. --NinaLanger (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NinaLanger. Actually, I think that an article of some sort about some subject like this might be useful on Wikipedia, but this article is not that one. ;-) Notability is not a problem - the article is well-sourced (good job on that, btw). But, please read WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OPINION. And, if possible, have your professor read them too. ;-) Marikafragen (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian perspectives on media freedom

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason given for proposed deletion: "Essay-like article with a sprinkling of WP:SYNTH." Singularity42 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are not for essays. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, filled from start to finish with opinions and personal reflections (e.g. "Undoubtedly, the new media has provided citizens more platforms...", "In China ... the usage of the internet is vibrant and pervasive", "The most influential part ... is that the informed citizenry could contribute to the democratization", etc etc). Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:NOTESSAY applies here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Zhumengmeng (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)This article aims to define a new dimension of the media freedom,presents a study and two organazations doing this research. With a deletion of subjective opinions can this article be published?[reply]

Without realising it, you have just given a reason for deletion. You are saying, in effect, that you are using Wikipedia to publish original research, but Wikipedia's policy is that we don't publish original research. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. In response to Zhumengmeng above, the problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, newspaper, or scientific journal. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is an essay with WP:SYNTH. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, SYTH, and all that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else so far - essay, synthesis and original research. However well footnoted and sourced, you're never going to get away from those three problems with this sort of vague topic. WP is an encyclopedia, not a think-tank or school/university. N-HH talk/edits 15:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT. No bias for possible recreation if done in compliance but article is not savable now. --LauraHale (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above statements. I, unfortunately, don't see a way to salvage this in to an encyclopedic article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I know the person who did this, and I would just like to apallogize for this whole thing. It was born out of a fundamental misincomprehension of Wikipedia's project purpose and mission and I don't think that they will do it again. I think there will probably be more articles around that were created at approximately the roughly the same time on similar topics (essays) though. I will try to see if I can find them all based on an LINQ so that I can nominate them for deletion and again I sorry that this was happened to Wikipedia. DrPhen (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aaron Schoenke. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patient J

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable independent short by non-notable director. Does not meet WP:MOVIE. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to meet the requirements of WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.JoelWhy (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I did enjoy the short film, I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Substantial reviews of this Batman fan film can be found in the following: Film Threat[56]; ComicBookBin[57]; Cinema-crazed.com[58]. I'm not certain about the WP:RS status of these sources, but they do seem to be cited frequently in other Wikipedia articles. Note that Category:Batman fan films currently has more than a dozen entries, but there doesn't seem to be a main article covering the subject to which one might suggest redirecting and merging content about a film that has some sourcing but not enough for its own article.-Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and partial Merge to Aaron Schoenke a created section at City of Scars#Background covering the filmmaker's background and earlier work. While Film Threat is fine as a source for Patient J, Cinema Crazed and Comic Book Bin have yet to be evaluated as RS in context to what is being sourced. To disagree with the nominator, filmmaker Aaron Schoenke (~~a redlink simply awaiting an article~~ now an article) may indeed be determinable under WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE as just notable enough for these pages,[59][60] and he has (so far) a ~~trilogy~~ sextet of these Batman fan films out... Patient J (2005), Batman Legends (2006), and City of Scars (2010), in all of which actor Paul Molnar (another redlink awaiting an article) plays the Joker. While we do not have a great many sources speaking about the 2005 film, the series and filmmaker are not unsourcable,[61][62][63] and can be written of contextually somewhere within these pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a merger is a suitable solution here, although I'd lean toward suggesting Aaron Schoenke himself as the most likely notable topic, into which material about all of his films (and about him) from the available reviews and interviews could be merged. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article created. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but I left a note on the author's talk suggesting he participate here and consider a Merge with City of Scars or rewriting that article as an article on the trilogy. DocTree (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect I agree that a merge seems to be the way to go here. This individual has created a small bit of buzz with his ultra-low-budget vids. Perhaps each individual creations doesn't warrant its own page, but it makes sense to redirect and include the info in one of the other, better-referenced pages.JoelWhy (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've created a more suitable redirect target per User:Arxiloxos's note above: See new article at Aaron Schoenke. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An Article by this title was deleted once before, and the re-created Article is very much a stub. This seems like a hopeless case if nothing else. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So? That was July 2006, when the filmaker and involved actors had far less under their belts. The world has not stopped turning and many things have occured in their careers over the last six years to allow the building of a suitable redirect target. Do you perhaps feel a redirect is somehow unreasonable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps a redirect would work, then, but still not a solid "keep" as such. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Zipfel

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

I realise that WP:GHITS is only a rough metric, but for a sports personality - with an article on Wikipedia, which will inflate the count - to only get "About 1,970 results" is pretty bad. Hell, googling myself and friends shows about an order of magnitude more of a web presence for every single person I tried.

But let's look at quality. The news reports are mostly on different people of the same name; the few ones that are on him look to be trivial mentions. Google Books shows one off-topic result, and one reference book that includes him in a list. Once. Scholar has no results; we wouldn't really expect them, though.

Sourcing in the article does not show more notability - the only good source I see is the ESPN interview, which primarily on his job, and which begin by describing him as a highly unnotable person, because the job is one noone pays attention to. Of course, the article skips past that and instead quotes the usual bit of puffery you get in the introduction to an interview. The only other source with any substantial content is his hometown paper also interviewing him about his job. (Tagline at bottom: "Catching Up With" is a weekly online feature that runs Sundays on lehighvalleylive.com. The subjects are former local high school or collegiate athletes who no longer live in the region...) Fails WP:GNG, as he just hasn't gotten substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Oh, and it's also one of the Expewikiwriter paid group account articles. 86.** IP (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking significant coverage as per nom. Note that I also searched factiva and there are 0 articles even mentioning him - normally I can find more and better sources using that. SmartSE (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough to me. He's been an assistant coach or scout with several NBA teams, and a college and minor league head coach; altogether, I think that's good enough. More material is available if you search for "Pat Zipfel". This might be good, though I can't access it. I also found a couple additional articles that discuss him at ProQuest:

Amick, Sam. "Scout's honor: In the NBA, the lookouts who could make the difference between victory and defeat sacrifice greatly for the sport they love". McClatchy - Tribune Business News [Washington] 16 Apr 2006: 1
"Zipfel is set for a homecoming". Intelligencer Journal [Lancaster, Pa] 06 Feb 1996: C-4.

The author of the wiki page is irrelevant, as far as notability goes. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume from your comments you haven't actually seen the text of them? Because that makes it rather hypothetical; it's basically saying he's notable because these sources might meet the requirements of the WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. Also, the author is somewhat relevant due to WP:NOTADVERT - articles written by paid individuals to promote their clients are decidedly advertising, and, while maybe some might be salvageable, the presumption should probably be to lean delete in such cases (particularly as this paid group account is known to abuse sources, meaning we'll have to stubbify if it is kept). I'll leave a message on your talk page, in case my assumption is wrong. 86.** IP (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can access all the ProQuest sources - and indeed, it seems that I forgot to mention one ("Zipfel has big hopes for Bucks men's basketball". Fite, Joe. Philadelphia Inquirer [Philadelphia, Pa] 09 Dec 1998: B.4). The Sam Amick article is about scouts in general, but discusses Zipfel at some length. The other two are primarily about Zipfel. All come from mainstream newspapers, which would normally be acceptable under the notability guidelines. I could email them to you, if you want. With regards to your other comments, I still think we should try to judge each page for what it is. I don't see anything particularly controversial here. Zipfel's biggest claims to fame are all easily verifiable. Zagalejo^^^ 23:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually.... comparing those sources to what's in the article now, it does seem the timeline from that Lehigh Valley article is a little off. I'm going to remove a few dates right now, then maybe fiddle with things later. Frankly, I don't care if you do stub the article now, as long as we can establish that the subject is a notable topic. Zagalejo^^^ 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed the dates; what we have now matches this, which looks like his resume or something. Zagalejo^^^ 00:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good argument for Keep, I must admit, by finding good sources. My comment about the sources above were based on false assumptions, so I'm very glad I checked them with you. 86.** IP (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Salt Press

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

No evidence that this organization is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory, etc. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for Speedy delete as A7. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Shrike (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)(non admin closure)[reply]

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions

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

Most of the article relies on primary source(the organisation website).And it reads now like campaign leaflet of this organisation.Though organisation is sometime mentioned in secondary sources its very scarce usually one or two sentences.I propose to merge what is salvageable to House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Shrike (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they do appear in some RS, but not too often, and not much substance (a lot of repetition). on the proposal to merge: they do appear their along with other NGOs. maybe add a sentence or two further up that page in the human rights organizations criticisms? Soosim (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think the WP:BEFORE process has been followed. Google books[64], Google scholar[65], Google news[66]. There are a very large number of sources out there. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-

Haaretz describe them as " a prominent Israeli non-governmental organization". here they devote an entire article to the organisations report to the UN about house demolitions in EJ. Jpost also wrote an article on the organisations report to the UN.[67]
The Journal of Palestine Studies (University of California Press, Vol. 36, no. 3, p. 36) contains "an account of the creation of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD) as marking a transition from mere protest to engaged resistance, and reflections on the requirements of a true peace." [68]
Two articles in ynet devoted to covering the organisations volunteer work rebuilding demolished Palestinian homes [69], [70].
Ynet devote an article to the organisations appeal to the UN and International Human rights organisations over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza [71]
Article in the Guardian devoted to the organisation.[72]

This isn't an exhaustive list, there are countless RS reports on this organisation. Most of them are breif mentions, but there are also occasionally more detailed coverage which easily meets notability requirements. The article certainly needs work, but that is a separate issue to saying that an article is not merited on notability grounds. Dlv999 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. WP:BEFORE is part of AfD for a good reason. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - have added citations to The Guardian, certainly another RS. ICAHD is a major, serious organization properly covered in international newspapers and other sources. There is no case to answer here - this article has no chance of being deleted. ICAHD, like all political players in the Middle East, will have strong backers and strong opponents. We must not confuse vigorous opposition with cause for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable as per above. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArtsFest (Florida)

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

Non-notable festival, fails the GNG. Only coverage seem to be this kind. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only hit with Google news is the WP article. WP is not the place to promote obscure events. -- Donald Albury 09:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to DJ Icey as per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 23:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zone Records

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

I do not believe that this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. It was last edited in 2010. It also contains no references. Wheres T ristan 14:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DJ Icey, as it is a valid search term. No sources to be found, so I don't think there's any question that it's non-notable. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for your input! Wheres T ristan 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed because article speedy deleted as A7 (non-admin closure). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Microwave

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

Fails the GNG, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:A7, doesn't indicate anything important or significant about the company. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone wants to A7 it, that's fine. I just didn't because of the second and third sentences in the lead. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just my take on that "it's a big company which is part of a big group" and? Doesn't demonstrate why this is significant. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh yeah, I understand. Even though I realize it's not policy based, I just tend to hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to tagging CSDs. Again, I have no opposition to someone else tagging it. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tagged. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed because speedy deleted as G3 (non-admin closure). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Haider

AfDs for this article:

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

I know the person the article is about and most of the information is false. The hyperlinks provided link to a celebrity who is not the person the article is about. Chuchkoo (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article was already speedy deleted. Why is it up for a second nomination? Regards, 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Tomlinson

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

Non-notable practitioner at a psychological fringe theory, and a page that looks it was written somewhere between a press release and a book promotion tour. Results from google news and books turn up either books he has authored or brief mentions only [73], [74], [75], the most extensive mention in a book is just that - a mention [76]. Though the actual page has a large number of citations, they are to his own books (6/14 citations), a link to a UK find a therapist page, a link to the agency he is director of [77], articles he has written, and various other trivial or non-independent mentions that do not pass WP:PROF or the general notability standard. There is no independent coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability (not to mention the obvious POV issues in the article.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Shaw

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. WP:PORNBIO may be met due the awards, but without some significant coverage, I don't think this is sufficient to include this actor. This nomination is also motivated by comments on the talk page who is claims they are also called Anthony Shaw and that this page is causing them problems. SmartSE (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the previous AfD was about a different Anthony Shaw. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy As a BLPSE, this should be speedied for causing distress, and is basically unsourced. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BLPSE? Not quite sure what you mean - it doesn't make sense looking at WP:BLPSE. SmartSE (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Zero biographical information. The name is presumably a pseudonym, and we don't even have a reliable source that all these credits refer to the same performer. There are at least half a dozen other performers using this common name listed in IMDB, and no good comes from potentially associated them with this nom de smut. Since all the awards relate to groups/scenes, this wouldn't survive a full AFD anyway, just wipe it out per the talk page request. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he does not pass GNG, the recently tightened PORNBIO nor other SNGs. Not because a homonymy causes "stress" to someone, it would be a horrible and silly precedent. Cavarrone (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Unit

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

The sources provided are marginal, and quite a few are press releases, which do not confer notability (most press release websites will publish anything and not even remove it when it's reported a fraud). I doubt this company's notability, but realize that it's marginal. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable "technology services organization." I agree with the nom that, while it looks like there are a lot of sources, they are mainly primary, and don't add up to significant coverage in independent sources. See WP:B2B. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of good sources listed and couldn't find better ones. Stormbay (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Pi literary society

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

Does not strike me as a notable club, and the article is unverified. The internets provide more claims, such as it being the oldest Greek club in the US, but nothing reliable. It's been here for a while so I think it should go through community discussion. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GScholar[78] and GBooks[79] produce substantial numbers of hits. There are some interesting GNews results as well.[80] Paywalls obstruct full review. Much of the coverage is in the context of coverage of the unusual persistence of the college literary societies (rather than fraternities) at Illinois College. See e.g.[81][82][83] Although many of the hits seem to be incidental, the cumulative effect is to show at least weak notability. I am dropping the "weak" from my !vote because Wikipedia is better when it has a place for verified, historically significant material like this. An American literary society founded in 1843 and that can claim William Jennings Bryan [84] and John Wesley Powell [85] as members should not be deleted lightly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakhal Sarkar

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

Non notable place with no references. An external link in the article with no mention of the place. SMS ^Talk 08:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 08:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While English refs are thin, this is a populated place in Pakistan. From a preview of Pieces of green, the sociology of change in Pakistan, 1964-1974 - "'Pakhli Sarkar' after the Pakhli plain of Mansehra. ... Sultan Pakhal gave his name to the Pakhli plain stretching beyond Mansehra." This coins site mentions it - [86]. However, I'm getting the impression this is a historical subdivision, and the name might be outdated. Let's keep until we can figure some of this out. The Interior (Talk) 18:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Interior. The google book mention provides verification and makes me lean on a keep. Mar4d (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Mahila Sabha School of Informatics

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not cite any reliable reference. And doesn't seem notable enough to an article tausif 05:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The talk page of the article here is instructive, cf. [87]; this nomination seems to have been intended to harass another editor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Council for the Registration of Schools Teaching Dyslexic Pupils

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

This page does not reach standard for notability or importance.

AfD formatted correctly for User:Totolatin (talk/contribs) by Yunshui 雲‍水 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator). The four sources present in the article (if User:Totolin hasn't blanked them again recently) are, in my opinion, sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Much as I'd like to assume good faith, I also have to question the nominator's motive for this nomination, given his SPA-like edit history. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonably notable organisation. Good sources. Seems to fulfil WP:GNG Fmph (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well sourced article which complies with the Wikipedia core policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose (talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 April 2012‎
Snow Keep this appears to be a revenge AfD for Yunshui's comments and contributions at this acrimonious AfD, see this diff in particular, which was, coincidentally, just before this AfD was filed. Article and sources look fine, can we snow this to save further time-wasting? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - passes WP:NOTE and per Captain. Yash t 101 09:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Treating as an uncontested PROD. Article can be recreated or undeleted by request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% Noticias, El Canal

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

I found no significant coverage for this channel. I found this release that calls it one of Nicaragua's leading news channels, but I can't verify that. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dil Dosti Dance. Poorly sourced WP:BLP so deleting history without prejudice. If someone wants to recreate this article with sources that demonstrate notability then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Kapoor

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

Person doesn't has enough notability (not until now) Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 17:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Dil Dosti Dance.Just one significant role, a BLP1E, TOOSOON case. Cavarrone (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Jurkowski

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Oleola (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'd say this is borderline. The relevant guideline states "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football." but that "Note: A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." He played for Hutnik Nowa Huta, which was in the Ekstraklasa (the professional league) in the past but not when Jurkowski was on the team. Now he's signed with a team which is in the professional league but has not played any matches yet. So it can go either way, or we can wait a little while and he'll likely meet the criteria.VolunteerMarek 18:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. At the moment, this fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but a reasonable look at my WP:CRYSTALBALL shows that he's on a team that is sufficient, so as soon as he makes a playing appearance for that team he will meet WP:NFOOTBALL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. Therefore, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. No prejudice to recreation if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK 1. However, this is an unsourced BLP so I'm going to move it to the incubator. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Sam Wallace. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wallace

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

Completed an unfinished AfD. No vote at this point from me.-gadfium 09:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 09:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What was the original nominator's rationale? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The anon didn't give a rationale, and since the same IP has since made obvious vandalism to the article I think we can speedy close this as being made not in good faith.-gadfium 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep because, as User:gadfium said above, the fact that the anonymous nominator didn't give a rationale for deletion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per Jorgath. Cavarrone (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Plain and simple, I was wrong about my assessment. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Earliest English Dictionaries

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

This might be a hoax. Either way, it appears to be more along the lines of something explaining that a dictionary that was regarded as the first isn't. I'm pretty sure that this is not what Wikipedia is for. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ It's obviously not a hoax: Wikipedia has articles on many of these lexicographers. There is a bit on the early history of English dictionaries at Dictionary#English_Dictionaries, but it doesn't cover everything listed here. This could probably be expanded into something more worthwhile on the history of English dictionaries, but right now it has no references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some refs. This page is useful as a list/summary of early English lexicography, and there are other dictionaries not yet covered. It does need more referencing, and could be renamed (maybe to "Early English Dictionaries" or perhaps "History of English Lexicography"). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a great deal that could be added to this article. The lead needs to be re-written, and the title chaged as above, but clearly a useful article.TheLongTone (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable, see The Earliest Printed Dictionaries in The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature for some similar content. Warden (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per Colapeninsula. Favor "History of English Lexicography" of the two options. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I can't say I like the alternative suggested but don't have abetter suggestion! Greglocock (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Guess I can't always be right. =) Withdrawing. Colapeninsula, I'll leave the move to you if you wish to do so. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Gajurel

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

No evidence of notability and no 3rd party sources that discuss the subject. Article also has WP:BLP problems, seems to have been edited by the subject, and AFAICS has no clean version in its history. Tassedethe (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few sources which mention this fellow (a few at the Kathmandu Post not in GNA, for example), but nothing that I was able to find providing more than passing coverage. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 06:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sos 2428

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

Contested prod. A search on Google Scholar reveals that this is nothing but a run-of-the-mill specimen of pterosaur fossil, referenced in only two works, both of which are on Wordpress. Delete, but I'm open to redirecting. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've styled the page a bit, fixed the reflist template and added a single source, which I'll concede isn't extremely impressive, but seems pretty sharp. I also included mentions of offline sources the secondary cites in his own work. This is way outside my field, but this looks documented. Whether sufficiently, I'll leave for others to discuss. BusterD (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are encouraged to look more closely into Mr. Peters, he is a well known fringe individual -- his research is based on manipulation of blurry photos and extrapolation of anatomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.151.47 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 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, Sandstein 05:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. A merge to the climate change adaption page is a possibility, but it appears the subject is already mentioned there and I am particularly concerns about the WP:SOAPBOX nature of the author's comment "Our group is trying to create a voluntary market in vulnerability reduction credits". v/r - T P 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerability reduction credit

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

Non-notable idea. Appears to be the idea of a single organization, and, although published in Climate Change journal, has not been cited by any others. One idea among many, and no indications that this particular idea has caught on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to verify the trademark, but didn't find an entry that matches up with their title. My university doesn't subscribe to that journal either, so I couldn't read the original source. However, regardless to this, I think the idea was more of a time sensitive event if anything and will have no lasting notability. Unless someone could verify, bring new sources in, and shed light on the relevance of this particular credit system, I'd suggest the article be deleted. Lord Arador (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable concept by a non-notable person in a non-notable journal. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Climate Policy is a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.630 and ranked highly among journals in its field. See http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/TCPO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.211.252 (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair enough point. Still doesn't make this concept notable. A one-off article for which Google scholar lists 0 citations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has completely rewritten the article, with many more references putting the VRC into the broader context of climate change mitigation, but without significantly improving the notability of the VRC itself. As such, the article might be a candidate for merging into the climate change mitigation article, noting the VRC as one of many approaches that have been suggested, but not tried. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our group is trying to create a voluntary market in vulnerability reduction credits, and to this effect are engaging with all the academics and others cited in the revised article. If you think it would be useful to broaden, maybe we should rename the article "market based climate adaptation"? It doesn't belong in climate mitigation, as it is a climate adaptation activity. Climatekarl (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I beg your pardon -- I'm no expert on the field of climate change so I picked the wrong merge target. There is already a climate change adaptation article as well, and it already mentions the VRC (thanks to Climatekarl (talk · contribs)). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No problem - as one who has been in the climate field for nearly two decades, I believe that the general climate adaptation section is too broad and "big" an entry for a detailed section on climate adaptation market based mechanisms. I created the "climate adaptation finance" section to cover a broader set of issues, including VRCs but it would be unbalanced to have so much on market based mechanisms in there, even though I believe it is very important and the debate is hotting up over how to do it. I'm no Wikipedia expert, but do you see what I'm getting at? Climate adaptation finance is like "cars", and market based adaptation mechanisms is like "transmissions" - important, no doubt (and there is a transmissions entry!), and worth its own section, but a bit too detailed for a general discussion of cars. Is that a reasonable analogy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climatekarl (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge into climate change mitigation as suggested, or if necessary, some narrower article. But not this: it is not really a separate concept, just a slightly varying aspect with a different set of words. And Climatekarl's comment above says rather specifically that a considerable purpose of the article is promotion of his group's ideas. If it should be broken out into a separate article--when it becomes in widespread use by more than one group-- it should be done by someone without COI. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Comment"" Please note if it is to be merged, as noted above, it should be merged into the climate change adaptation page, not the mitigation page. This is actually called "Adaptation to global warming" Climatekarl (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 19:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - Article has been significantly changed during the course of the AfD. Would like to see if opinions change based on the new version of the article. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 20:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into or use this to replace the Adaption finance section of Adaptation to global warming article. With a bit more Wikification and editing, it's a valuable contribution. It makes sense with the main article providing context and background. DocTree (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly a personal essay. (Last time I checked, we weren't supposed to publish personal essays on Wiki.) Why else does it actually have Sections entitled "Introduction" and "Conclusion"? Not to mention the empty Lead before the "Introduction" Section, that is. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely too promotional as the article creator admits above: "Our group is trying to create a voluntary market in vulnerability reduction credits". It is also not notable. Wikipedia is not here to help groups create the markets they want. WTucker (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Above, plus cannot help but noting the article statement "Karl Schultz proposed in a discussion paper..." and that the defending editor is Climatekarl. A redirect would be fine. --→gab 24dot grab← 05:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - the source for the term "vulnerability reduction credit" is a poster - need to do better than that. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

EFiction

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

Self-published electronic magazine with no assertion of notability per WP:GNG. There are currently no hard & fast guidelines for notability of magazines, just an essay at WP:NMAGAZINE, but I can find no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just passing coverage in a few blogs of unknown reliability. Currently ranked at number 55 in Amazon's "Arts & Entertainment Magazines" section, but this can of course change overnight, ~~so that alone~~ and that alone doesn't seem sufficient to bring it over the notability threshold. Scopecreep (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here follows the discussion that took place on the article's talk page. It would have been proper for this discussion to have actually been a discussion, but Scopecreep has not responded directly to anything nor made a case in response. As for the fact that ratings change daily, that is not a pertinent observaction, since all relative ratings of anything do fluctuate. If this is the crux of his argument, it is refuted by a specific line of Wikipedia's notability criteria, Notability is not temporary: "WP:NOTTEMPORARY Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

(good-faith paste of the whole of Talk:EFiction reverted, and reply moved to talk page. No need to duplicate it here, just link.) Scopecreep (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scopecreep's only argument is not even that the subject is not notable, but that it could POSIIBLY become non-notable, and thus fails to address the issue of notability because notability does not have to be ongoing, and because even if that were the criteria, he can only offer the possibility that such notability could, hypotethically, lapse. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apologies if my nomination was unclear: I'm arguing that its sole apparent claim to notability so far is ranking 55 on one sub-section of Amazon's magazines, and that even that is subject to disappearance overnight. I'm not asserting that if it were permanently high up in Amazon's ranking then that alone would make it notable: I'm only saying that that's the strongest claim made for its notability, which is not sufficient on its own. Since it hasn't yet been the subject of significant coverage, WP:NOTTEMPORARY doesn't really apply here: it's not a question of it being temporarily non-notable, because there's no evidence yet that it ever was notable. If you'd like to move the article to a WP:User subpage until such time as it does become notable enough for inclusion, I'd be happy to agree. Scopecreep (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've corrected the rationale above to make clear why I think it's not yet notable. Scopecreep (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scopecreep, that seems like a purely subjective decision to ignore that piece of evidence. I think I can rely on other editors not to dismiss the rankings out of hand. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to join this discussion. A magazine is notable if it has readers and the Amazon ranking proves that eFiction has readers. mglenden —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC). — mglenden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Mglenden (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to join in the discussion you should read WP:N and WP:GNG to see what notability means on Wikipedia. Lots of things have readers but aren't sufficiently important to get Wikipedia pages. The magazine must be important in some way, which is generally demonstrated by showing other people discussing it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's plenty of demonstration that people are discussing it. I don't know if you've taken the time to follow the links, but in the e-publishing world it's being discussed significantly. Unsurprisingly, the e-publishing community is electronic forum for the most part. I not only suggest that the easily verified tertiary source of Amazon's ranking establishes this credibility by itself, but that it is an artificial and inappropriate demand, that the significance of electronic publications be verified by print-published discussions.

I have indeed read the Wikipedia criteria, and while I agree that notability is only very narrowly established -- through the fewest possible sources -- I strongly affirm that the notability is, nonetheless, established. I first heard of eFiction through an offer on my Kindle, signed up for a free trial of its contents and was startled by the quality relative to other, traditionally operated fiction magazines, of which I am an experienced reader. I then immediately went to Wikipedia to learn more about eFiction and was disappointed to find no article. I then did a more investigative Web search and found that eFiction appeared to be a pioneer in a new combination between collaborative and commercial content. Believing this was extremely noteworthy, I went to at least start an article stub -- knowing I might have to argue for its continuance while others contributed, since I've seen my stubs deleted out of seeming reflex by editors demanding they be large and lavishly footnoted before collaboration is invited -- and then discovered that an article had been started just days before by other editors.

I am pleased to learn that editor Scopecreep was also involved in searching for other sources to bolster the article before tagging it for deletion, though the article had been completely blanked previously by someone else instead of labeling it as a stub and inviting improvements or discussion. I am glad that the deletion tag was replaced with a deletion proposal complete with discussion page.

I propose that it is best that the content-improvement tags remain while the story is improved. Coverage itself evolves and, while it is possible that eFiction may drop off the ratings of Amazon's magazines list without having caught the interest of a major print news outlet, I think ignoring a solid tertiary source and multiple trade forums is not warranted. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entry seems to fall under the category of 'Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity' in the notability guidelinesWP:SPIP. I looked for independent and reliable coverage of this electronic magazine online and I could not find any. The only mentions I found of this electronic magazine, besides its own accounts, were forum posts & blog posts by people with a vested interest in the magazine (ie, contributors, published writers, or independent bloggers who stand to gain exposure through their association with the electronic magazine). The two interviews cited on the article's page are from blogs which are not themselves noteworthy or reliable, and the one source from an established site (the duotrope interview) seems to be a simple form submission and not a critical, unbiased, or personal review.

This goes into the second point of the self-promotion criteria under notability guidelines: an impartial and neutral article cannot be guaranteed by biased sources. The only sources I have been able to find, and the only sources on the article page, may be independent, but have not demonstrated reliability or an absence of bias.

Unique to this entry is the discussion of its Amazon ranking: 55 in a subsection of a subsection of Amazon rankings. The claim has been made that it outsells Newsweek on the Kindle: this is false. Newsweek is #11 in rankings of all magazines and efiction is not even in the top 100. It may outsell Newsweek in the subsection of Arts and Entertainment, but this is because Newsweek is primarily a news magazine and not an entertainment magazine. This discrepancy highlights the unreliability of subcategory ranking on Amazon and casts a shadow upon this entry's main notability defense. Leavethelighton (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)— Leavethelighton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm still not convinced notability has been established. None of the sources on the article are unambiguously reliable sources by Wikipedia's criteria. Notability must be established by multiple in-depth references in reliable sources. There's no hard-and-fast definition of reliable sources, and they can be online, in print, or on tv/radio, but there are various guidelines: Are they self-published (bad) or produced by a commercial non-vanity publisher (good)? Does the publisher edit and fact-check contributions before publication? Are contributions written by professional journalists/academics/people trained in writing factual content? Is the source publication itself notable i.e. does it have a Wikipedia article, or could a WP article be written? Has the source got a significant publishing history or did it start last week? I've seen a lot of interest about e-publishing and self-published e-books in the mainstream press lately, so I don't believe the arguments that "the mainstream press doesn't cover e-books so of course there are no reliable sources", but even if that were true, we can't trust random people's blogs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To support the notability of the eFiction Magazine, today I added the recent interview of its editor, Doug Lance, by the The Kindle Chronicles (http://www.thekindlechronicles.com) to its Wikipedia entry. This excerpt from the Wikipedia notability webpage which defines "The barometer of notability...." supports eFiction's notability viability. "...people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." MarieGlendenning 14:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglenden (talk • contribs)

Weak delete. It comes down to the reliability clause in WP:GNG, and the sources in the article are either self-published or are interviews. That calls into question the editorial scrutiny of the interviews. If there were articles written about the magazine from a strictly third-party perspective, such as reviews of the site, that could tip the scale in my mind toward keeping the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I reviewed the interview at The Kindle Chronicles. The Kindle Chronicles page has a personalized link to the eFiction website and is an affiliate of the magazine. The Kindle Chronicle interview falls under WP:QS more specifically, a conflict of interest because of its financial interest in eFiction. ALL the cited sources have questionable reliability (per WP:QS or WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:SOURCES). Without any reliable third-party sources, the subject cannot claim notability (both under WP:GNG as well as WP:SPIP which requires independent coverage "without incentive, promotion, or other influence"). If reliable third-party coverage can be found, the article may be able to establish notability, but as it stands now, I cannot see a reason to keep it. Leavethelighton (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari Ground

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

A single line stub on a non notable topic with no references at all (also no reliable source online). SMS ^Talk 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 16:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing that shows that this is anything but a non-notable local park. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it is no more an article with one line and without references. It is also a name of area around park includes some populated place. Many events take place in it.-- $Assassin'S Creed$ ^{T - E - C - G -} 08:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY, there've been improvements after nomination. Also per WP:FIVE #1 "gazetteer". --lTopGunl (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per sources added by User:Assassin's Creed. BusterD (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even after addition of sources it fails WP:GNG. One source is of a forum, second one where anyone can add an entry for a place, third a police site defining area of jurisdiction, which fails General Notability Guideline. --SMS ^Talk 12:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking through my keep assertion. I'll have to concede I didn't click through each source. Looking at my contribs, I spent less than three minutes considering my assertion, and that's unlike me. I'm clearly distracted today, and so I'm taking a break. I still think that as a specialty encyclopedia, hence a gazetteer (as mentioned above), we should have articles on notable places, but I can't find sufficient sources (other than the many photographs and videos shot on the park) to say this passes GNG. I suspect offline sources exist in Urdu, but I can't presume they do, based on a reasonable search. It's clearly a verifiable place, but not proved notable. Sorry User:Smsarmad for my hasty assertion. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jalna (film)

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

This was deleted before, but was recreated. Wanting further community input, I have nominated it here. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this may help. E Wing (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a real movie, but the article itself is of the lowest possible value. Unless the creator decides to make it at least one paragraph with a few references, it should be removed. LogicalCreator (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Jalna (novel). The movie was based on the novel, is mentioned in that article, and the novel's article already has a much better description of the subject matter. LadyofShalott 04:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per improvements. I suggest to the article creator that the article as originally nominated was not suitable for mainspace, even if notable - that is why I said redirect. In the future, making use of your sandbox until article has at least a couple good sentences and references will go a long way towards preventing discussions like this. LadyofShalott 13:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's got well known actors and was reviewed by The New York Times. Needing cleanup is not a valid reason to delete the article. I'll expand it in short order. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the NYTimes reviews, Leonard Malta reviewed the film as seen here.JoelWhy (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per LadyofShalott. I'd second the notion that some time in the sandbox would do wonders for this sort of article. But now it's been cleaned up and referenced, which is half of the reason for AFD in the first place. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW closure. B music ian 03:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetAmerica

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

An attempted airline that never flew a single flight. At least they sold some tickets, better than some, but those tickets never flew. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting article, notable, and well-written. LogicalCreator (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no rule that companies must be successful to be notable. Multiple reliable sources, significant as a part of Wikipedia's comprehensive coverage of civil aviation, no valid reason to delete.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's possible for something to be notable without ever becoming a thing, provided sources exist (e.g. Great Mall of Las Vegas). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EPICFAIL. Ahem, forget that little pun. I mean that spectacular failures are no less notable in and of themselves than spectacular successes. It is harder to find coverage on them though, with few, very notable exceptions (Lehman Brothers anyone???) and it can even be notable for the very failure and nothing else. 217.251.152.109 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep per Hammer and Arxiloxos. Also, notability is not temporary. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying notability is temporary, saying this was never notable in the first place. Absent some kind of scandal, airlines become notable when they fly. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines become notable when they meet the general notability guideline, whether they ever flew or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FlyHawaii Airlines

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

I would think that managing to fly a plane with passengers on it is a reasonable notability requirement for an airline. The "airline" never did. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no rule that companies must be successful to be notable. This subject is a notable flop. Multiple reliable sources, significant as a part of Wikipedia's comprehensive coverage of civil aviation in Hawaii, no valid reason to delete.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You bring up a good point here, that a company doesn't have to be successful to be notable. Of course, there are some companies whose failure makes them all the more notable, for example Enron. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes this failure notable? Some investors pulling out? That's never notable, it happens in the business world constantly. The company failed without the fraud, hyped-up claims and scandals that makes other failures notable (eestor and Enron for example) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't temporary, like Hawaiian717 said. You really seem to be pushing your point a little too much. —Comp dude¹²³ 15:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it's possible for something to be notable without ever becoming a thing, provided sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:N multiple reliable independent sources covered the company. Also note WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary; once something has been the topic of significant coverage, it does not require ongoing coverage. FlyHawaii can be viewed in the larger context of a series of failed attempts to break the near-duopoloy in Hawaii for inter-island service held by Hawaiian Airlines and Aloha Airlines: Mid Pacific Air, Discovery Airways, Mahalo Air, FlyHawaii, and Mokulele Airlines (with the Embraer 170 jets). FlyHawaii simply failed a little sooner, and it's early failure can be attributed to the imminent arrival of go!, which is a whole other notable topic in its own right because of it's role in the failure of Aloha and legal battles with both Hawaiian and Aloha. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG, and notability is not temporary. As a non-rationale sidenote, it makes me laugh. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying notability is temporary, I'm saying this was never notable in the first place. Airlines aren't notable until they fly. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It's entirely possible for something to meet WP:GNG without ever taking wing, be it an airline or an aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete via consensus below which indicates a failure to meet both WP:EVENT and by similar reasoning WP:SPORTSEVENT as well as WP:ROUTINE. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KSW XVII

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

This is a non-notable MMA event promoted by a second tier organization. The article consists of WP:ROUTINE sports results and the event fails WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons.

KSW XVIII

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both as per my {{prod2}}, there is no attempt to demonstrate any lasting significance, both are newsworth events, yes, just not encyclopaedic ones, they fail WP:EVENT. Mt king ^(edits) 02:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Up-and-coming MMA promotions are very notable with the current state of MMA and the UFC today and also, excellent article. LogicalCreator (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The promotion's notability is not the issue. These events fail all the notability criteria previously mentioned (WP:EVENT,WP:SPORTSEVENT) and the article is nothing but the results, so it fails WP:ROUTINE. Mdtemp (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Omnibus However, as there is an ongoing WP discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability on MMA notability issues, it would absolutely not be prudent to delete this or any categorically related article until that discussion is resolved. Beansy (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to participation of notable fighters and historic significance for Polish MMA. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication anywhere that this event had "historic significance for Polish MMA." Astudent0 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol what?! The light heavyweight championship was one of the fights and in one the main fights a man considered the greatest strong man of all time competed. An event associated with a legend of sports and an event in which a championship was decided is not "routine". Ha! --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems to fall far short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though it actually passes WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple international reliable sources and the participation of notable fighters? --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out many times before, every NFL game has multiple reliable sources, but that's not sufficient to make them all notable. Multiple sources does not guarantee notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the fighters are notable, they could have their own articles. That doesn't make this event notable, because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. bobrayner (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The event has stand alone notability due to coverage in multiple reliable sources. The fact that notable fighters participated in it adds to its notability. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per our guidelines multiple reliable sources does indeed guarantee notability. The NFL has many events every year. KSW has had XVII events total. They are not comparable. NFL and KSW are apples and oranges. KSW events are more sporadic and therefore less routine than NFL events. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another clearly false statement since all NFL games have multiple reliable sources and yet most are not considered notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then by your own admission, if anything we should also cover all NFL games. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. In addition, coverage is from the organization and sherdog only (although additional sources, as previously mentioned, still wouldn't make these events notable). Astudent0 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it passes WP:EVENT due to the non-routine coverage of the event in Polish and English language sources alike. It is blatantly dishonest to claim it is only covered by the organization and Sherdog. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is blatantly true that those are the only two sources. You have also failed to give any sources to show "non-routine coverage" or that these events are historically significant (as required by WP:EVENT). Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thing called Google and a thing called the Polish language. If you both to do actual research beyond just looking at the article, you will see that the event is covered in non-routine manner in other sources, including not just in English. You have failed to present any reason for deletion per WP:BEFORE. It is insulting and plain lazy to ask me or anyone else to do what you should be able to do on your own. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - The only independent coverage appears to be either WP:ROUTINE. The WP:BURDEN is on the keepers to demonstrate that non-routine, independent coverage exists, and that has not been met. If it is, would be glad to reconsider. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the polish articles from non-MMA specific sites. The strongman is internationally known due to his many accomplishments. So, this event, which also featured a title fight, is covered extensively in European sources in the context of how it has affected the legacy of arguably the greatest strongman in modern times. The results of the event are alluded to in coverage of future events, i.e. showing their continued relevance to the notable fighters' history. Another way that the coverage is non-routine is due to the most important fight's results being changed after the event aired: [88]. There are numerous articles about how it was changed to a no contest and this controversy persisted in post-event coverage of the fight for some time afterwards, meaning that its coverage went beyond routine next day post-fight results to include article length discussions of the controversial changes several days after the event aired and in many different articles in Polish and English alike. So, we have an event with a title fight, in which notable fighters participated, from Poland's largest MMA promotion, and due to a controversial decision change, coverage of the event that continued across multiple websites for days after the event discussing the controversial change, why it happened, its significance, etc. beyond just listing results. Something with a championship fight from a major international promotion with notable fighters, and coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources in at least two languages absolutely meets our inclusion criteria. Thank you for reconsidering! --24.112.202.78 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Shewfelt

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding evidence of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. However, it should be noted that this article still may be deleted as a copyvio Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uplift Community High School

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

Non-notable high school. Couldn't find any third party sources to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools, high schools need normally only exist (as degree-granting institutions) which come under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Its entry at Chicago Public Schools, and an overview by the Chicago Tribune. Dru of Id (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the general consensus that public high school are presumptively notable, actual coverage exists. Start with the series of broadcasts that WBEZ did about the establishment of this school in 2005.[89][90][91]. And here's a very recent story from The Chicago Reporter. [92]. Note, however, that the current text of the article (especially the "History" section) may contain some substantial copying from the school's website, which needs to be cleaned up.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It has WP:RS, As a high school it has presumptive notability. The Determinator p t c 03:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consensus is that verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but adding {{copyvio}}: Article is a direct lift from http://www.uplifths.org/about_us/history.jsp plus http://www.uplifths.org/about_us/mission.jsp for the usual missionspam/visionspam. Legitimate high schools are presumed notable (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES); and this is a Chicago Public Schools high school, so its position as a real high school is unquestioned. --Closeapple (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable high school and no reason to suspect that, with sufficient research, that the necessary sources cannot be found to meet WP:OR. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on my research, this individual does not meet WP:GNG yet. DGG's arguments hold significant sway. WP:AUTOBIO is also quite important to note. This article *may* need to be created way off in the future should they actually meet notability requirements then (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay McCormick

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)

Fixing red-linked nomination - the nominator was an IP, who didn't create a discussion page. I have no opinion either way on deletion, and have utterly no objection to an early closure on speedy keep grounds. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She not exactly an A-list celebrity, but seems notable enough for the page to remain.JoelWhy (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The IP that placed the AfD tag left a comment along the lines of WP:N and WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO on the article talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ah, didn't check there. Full quote from IP nominator is "I'm nominating this page for deletion. The creator of this page is the person, herself, a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is also a violation of notability guidelines - (not "independent of the subject") and no significant coverage or awards." Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links seem to show she's notable, with multiple articles and interviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can tell she created her own page, based on the user name that created the page. Looks like her entire bio is brief appearances, guest work, and the magazine article was based on a rumor she slept w/ a football player. She's early in her career, with no regular work. Definitely not notable yet. 16:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.117.94 (talk)
'KEEP - THIS CHICK JUST HOSTED CBS BROADCAST FOR THE NFL DRAFT AND SHE FREAKING ROCKED IT! SHE'S GOING TO BE A HUGE SUPERSTAR IN A VERY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME! Also saw 8 different articles about her today. Wiki is a freaking joke if they don't acknowledge her. 6:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.117.94 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.151.130 (talk)

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

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

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

Keep—Most of the references are sketchy, but one is clearly a RS, and a couple others claim to have editorial teams, so, passes GNG, if barely... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—If Fox News acknowledges the girl as an analyst she is somewhat credible. Plus, I follow her on twitter and just saw she's doing the CBS National coverage for the NFL Draft. CBS Sports Tweeted it. I would say that makes her credible as well. Maybe not an A-list, but either are half of the people on here. My guess is the publicist got on and added more articles to the page. She's popular enough to keep the page. Plus, she was on Grimm the tv show. 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.117.94 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.44.34 (talk)
Delete-Yea, I nominated this page. It's all self-promotion from her - she has no full-time position. It seems all the keeps here, still confess it's weak. She has no full-time position, all her online stuff is just appearances, and the FOX News author she just knows personally. CBS doesn't even DO draft coverage. One guy from CBS Sports Network sent a tweet he was working w/ her. If we allow pages like this, we open up Wikipedia to all sorts of F-level public figures. What about the fact that she created and maintains the page too - a clear violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO? The girl is just out of college and wants to show off - which isn't what Wikipedia is for. 04:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.52.140 (talk)
""Keep"" http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft Yes, they do cover the draft. Check out the countdown on this website to their draft show. Bruce Feldman is their lead analyst. Used to work for ESPN. The fact that we are discussing her THIS much, proves she deserves one. If no one cared, then there wouldn't be this many posts. This is the type of stuff that turns a chick into a Kim Kardashian. Next, she'll have her own reality show...so keep talking about her and keep caring because she's my friend, an amazing person and actually knows the ins and outs of the game! You go girl! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.44.34 (talk • contribs)
Keep- The "genius" 2 posts up clearly needs the Wiki page on McCormick, because his info is COMPLETELY OFF! The Wiki page is used for when articles reference her as an analyst probably created by her publicist who just used her name to keep all of her clients straight. McCormick was under contract in a full time exclusive position with CSN last season. They exempted her to cover NFL for Esquire while under contract. CBS DOES do draft coverage. The poster above proved that. McCormick is the host of their show. She is NOT just out of college. She completed her coursework at Auburn early and began working with ESPN at age 20. She chose to come back and finally walk when Bo Jackson gave out the diplomas in 2009. According to Wiki, she has been in the industry for almost 5 years, but accomplished a lot. If the page is deleted, someone else will create a new one after she ends up hosting more stuff. 04:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.52.140 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.68.73.172 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether she meets the WP:GNG depends upon the degree the articles about her are mere public relations. (personally I find the ESPN hotties series somewhat disgusting, but that's not a reason for deletion) The correct Esquire link is [93],& I reading through it, I class that as PR, despite the apparent respectableness of the publication. But that does not compel us to have an article if the intent and purpose is promotional entirely, as I think this is. The nature of the keep arguments above seem to prove it. I rarely say that as a deletion argument except for what I consider the more outrageous cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Dare

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

A non-notable child actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. Sources given only confirm minor credits and page reads like an advertisement. In the end, this is a case of WP:NYA. Michitaro (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, subject seems non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing early after the relist. Let's shut down this circus of socks.T. Canens (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod Kämer

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

Following this sockpuppetry case concerning an editor abusing multiple accounts in order to purposely violate WP:BLP policy (and subsequently use this as a vanity article to promote that), unless can be shown otherwise, this self-evident autobiography does not satisfy the inclusion criteria. WilliamH (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2012 Similarly, other edits and articles by these accounts should be checked and possibly put up for AFD per this COIN report. WilliamH (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy the inclusion criteria. Marokwitz (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Artist [94] Jacque frop (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't satisfy the inclusion criteria for artists at WP:ARTIST. WilliamH (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poetry book published [95], Journalist [96] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquin edwards (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking a look at the notability requirements of creative professionals, there's simply no evidence here that Kamer meets any of them:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - no evidence of this in the article, which talks about things he's done but not about anyone writing about those things
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - again, no evidence of this in the article. Gonzo journalism, shock celeb videos, poetry, and protests related to Israel and Iran have all been done before.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - no evidence of this. Again, the article spends a lot of time talking about his coverage of other people, but nothing indicates anyone other than Kamer has written significantly about Kamer.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - this criterion is the only possible thing to hang notability on, iff a) the exhibition "Iran" is significant (it currently doesn't have a WP article, and appears of dubious significance, and b) Kamer's work was a "substantial" part of the exhibition. If the latter is the case, Kamer managed to participate in so clandestine a manner that his name only appears once in the Iran-related sources in the article, and then only as a bare name mention of people participating. That's not substantial. There's similarly no evidence his work has received any critical attention at all, or that his works (such as they are) are included in any galleries or museums. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fluff. There's also a WP:DENY issue, as per here. A bit pointy. No great reason we have to expend resources on his having an article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, the opinion that I came to the conclusion that the article was an autobiography simply by glancing at it is entirely incorrect. The material which User:Gobonobo filed at the sockpuppet investigation page shows that in light of the video, Gal deren d (talk · contribs) and 176.251.5.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were operated by Kämer. Secondly, Asaf Manyy (talk · contribs)'s behaviour shows similarities with all of the other accounts, e.g. the obvious overlap of all of the articles they edit, and the fact that Gal deren d's first edit is identical to Asaf Manyy's first edit. I therefore blocked Asaf Manyy as an obvious sockpuppet account of Kämer, and subsequently noticed that Asaf Manyy created the Nimrod Kämer article. WilliamH (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely technical standpoint, Jacque frop (talk · contribs) and Joaquin edwards (talk · contribs) are Likely related to one another (borderline confirmed). Tiptoety ^talk 20:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more to the point, they almost certainly belong to Kämer himself. Another admin has blocked them. WilliamH (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons Fluffernutter has given. On a procedural note, I'm not seeing any reason not to call for an obvious SNOW close sooner rather than later. (Except, perhaps, that we're horrible nasty authoritarians.) —Tom Morris (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iran exhibition is notable under all accounts [97] also appeared on Israeli TV International Emmy award winning show here [98] full episode [99] and here in morning talk show as Captain Sudoku [100]. Alas, he was recently written about in The Kernel [101] and The Daily Dot [102]. Also has more than 10k twitter followers [103] and is of interest to numerous tv people.
Comnent: Kämer on Politcal Scrapbook UK in House of Lords [104] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyal Datz (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obviously, Eyal Datz (talk · contribs) is another sockpuppet of Kamer, just like Jacque frop (talk · contribs) and Joaquin edwards (talk · contribs). דוד (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as obvious sock. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nimrod_Kamer, deletion vote on Hebrew Wikipedia, over 6 years ago. The article was also deleted from the German Wikipedia. Kamer has used many sockpuppets in the past. דוד (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comnent Iran exhibition, Ninrod, London Review of Books [105] totally verifiable and interesting individual. Eyal Datz (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find 3 trivial mentions in the Jeruselem Post about (I presume) the same person commiting acts of petty vandalism in 2004 and that's really about it. Non-notable per fluff. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Known throughout Middle East and Israel. Was charged for graffiti against Ariel Sharon Israeli PM in 2005 and was written about in Egyptian pres. Google 'Girls Cairo National Stadium' John Popolopolis (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any uninvolved admins passing, I have good reason to believe that account is a sock. WilliamH (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious enough - blocked. —DoRD (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 04:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Trinidad and Tobago relations

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

this fails WP:GNG. not much more to this relationship than a Japanese embassy in Trinidad, and Trinidad sells LNG to Japan. there is a very small number of 32 Japanese living there. the relationship is not subject to significant third party coverage. those wanting to keep must provide actual sources not the embassy website. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This article could be neatly summarized with a sentence or two in the Trinidad and Tobago and Japan articles.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 13:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - The topic appears to meet WP:GNG, with coverage from reliable governmental and news sources:

Cummings, Stephen (August 12, 2006). "Japanese government delegation visits Trinidad". Caribbean Net News. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"H.E. Tatsuaki Iwata, Ambassador of Japan bids farewell to Minister of Foreign Affairs and Communications". Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. February 15, 2012. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Newly appointed Ambassador of Japan discusses agricultural project for students with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Communications". Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. March 2, 2012. Retrieved April 20, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the last 2 sources are not really third party I.e. Government websites, plus it's routine coverage of usual talking with ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to show notability. That;s enough of a reason for keeping. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has a potential for growth.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, Japanese diplomats might be able to find Trinidad on a map, and the reverse is likely true as well. Yes, a low-ranking Japanese minister once went on a junket to a pretty Caribbean island. Yes, Japan has an ambassador there, and yes, Trinidadian state media reported when the old one left and the new one came in. But no, none of this in any way validates an article on what is patently a fictitious topic. Nowadays, most countries on earth have at least some minimal interaction, this pair being no exception. But minimal interaction does not translate into a notable bilateral relationship. For that, sources actually discussing relations between Japan and Trinidad would be necessary, and of course these don't exist, since the "topic" doesn't exist outside the minds of the handful of Wikipedia editors playing this silly game of "watch me do this". Let's quash this particular experiment. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. There are now enough material and citations to show some notability. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Sources demonstrate a relationship and Trinidad and Tobago apparently serves as Japan's embassy for much of the Caribbean, which is an example of their relationship.--TM 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be editorially created. Sandstein 04:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loop amplification

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

Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO; the only use of it in the context of a psychological theory is in just one of the references given, and that reference is a self-published essay on an open access site with no indication of formal peer-review; no mention of this usage in any WP:Reliable sources online. Proposed deletion contested without comment by page creator. Scopecreep (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Audio induction loop, the most common meaning of the term "loop amplification", with a hatnote:

--Lambiam 23:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phenomenon being described here is just positive feedback, and the sources are obviously not sufficient for notability. lws (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Renaming discussion can continue on the article's talk page. Rlendog (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norway's biggest landowners

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Norway's biggest landowners

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

The compilation of this list appears to be original synthesis by the article's original creator, Oasorgard (talk · contribs). The article was originally created on the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia by Oasorgard on March 2, 2012 and translated into English a couple of weeks thereafter by another user (Oasorgard has only made one minor edit to our article). In the original article there is information that the list has been compiled from information found at the Brønnøysund Register Centre, a website called Proff, as well as the homepages of the various property owners. As the list is currently referenced this is very hard to verify. In any case, the creation of this article does seem to violate some fundamental policy of Wikipedia as named above. meco (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic of the article is clearly encyclopedic, but I agree that there are some verification difficulties. The information needs to be verified from sources independent of the company itself, but in many cases this should be a simple matter. I am also uncertain why Svalbard is arbitrarily left out. The article definitive needs a major formatting clean-up, but that is irrelevant for the AfD. Personally I would tend to think that the article would be more encyclopaedic if there was a cut-off of a round number by size (100 km² seems natural to me) rather than a specific number of entries. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've formatted the article to make it better and added some proper refs. All owners related to Svalbard, Nord-Trøndelag and all commons are referenced, so I don't believe it meets the OR criteria any more. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The list look ok after you have formatted it, and a cut-off of a round number by size as 100 km² seems natural. Maby the Norwegian version should be formatted like this too. --Oasorgard (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been claimed that the list allegedly is original research. I do not agree. However, this suggestion might improve the article: ~~Remove the numbering and~~ (already done) rename the article List of major landowners in Norway. — Breadbasket 18:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a good suggestion to rename the article List of major landowners in Norway. Note to meco: The compilation and creation of this list (the Norwegian version) have been done by me. I have compiled information found at the Brønnøysund Register Centre, Proff, as well as the homepages of the various property owners. But maby I should have made more references to where I exactly have found the information about the area and the ultimate owners. --Oasorgard (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have preferred "list of the largest landowners of Norway". "Largest" is more formal than "biggest", while it is better English to write "of Norway" than "Norway's" (this is distinctly different from Norwegian syntax). As for OR concerns: using reliable sources such as Brønnøysund and Proff to do research is quite fine, but there needs to be a specific source for every entry, including "ultimate owner" and the size. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That is a good suggestion too to rename the article List of the largest landowners of Norway. Mvh Oasorgard (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Arsenikk states, this is encyclopedic material and after his improvements I don't find this article violating WP:OR. Just a note on the suggestions to move this article: this should be done after the AfD has been closed Mentoz86 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well-put-together article. Notable, definitely, and well-written. LogicalCreator (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move per above. I personally favor "largest" over "major" from the above suggestions. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Istanbul

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

WP:NOTLINKFARM. Fails the Purposes of lists and does not add content or meaning to our encyclopedia, rather directs readers off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is Not a Link Farm to External Websites --Hu12 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, all the external links should be removed per WP:NOTLINKFARM/WP:EL, but there are many other Lists of hospitals which suggests people may find these articles useful. (I don't mean that to be a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument ... just noting it.) Peacock (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For AfD's on other lists of hospitals, see here:

In most cases, but not all, the article was kept. --Lambiam 22:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see a single article link in this list, only plain text names and external links. I have a hard time believing that there are no notable hospitals in such a large and historic city, but maybe the most acceptable thing to do for now would be to make this a to-do list for an editor interested in researching and expanding our coverage in this area. As for the non-notable ones, I don't see a use to covering them except in the aggregate, as the intro to this list does ("Istanbul is home to more than 60 state and more than 100 private hospitals"), but maybe someone will have a good argument. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is obviously important in case anybody gets hurt in Istanbul. I'm also going to create a redirect page that points here: List of hospitals in Constantinople, just in case an injured person in the area is confused or traveling through time. AllProMojo (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above user has been blocked and this comment is nonconstructive, though it did give me a chuckle. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, we're all traveling through time - at one second per second. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge based on past AfD precedents, as shown by Lambian, to List of hospitals in Turkey and editing it down to the notable ones. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as link farm; add any notable hospitals to the Turkey list mentioned above. Sandstein 04:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No reliable source listed. A completely rewritten list of notable hospitals or those with English speaking staffs based on reliable sources such as lists provided by and available from the US and UK embassies may be useful and suitable for the English Wikipedia but this unsourced list needs to go. DocTree (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I second the reasons cited by DocTree. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page has essentially no content but external links. Ducknish (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Quartal and quintal harmony. Sandstein 04:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of quartal pieces

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

Deprodded with nothing but moving some stuff around. The article has had only six examples for all its life, and as it stands, four are unsourced. The second source says nothing about "quartal" anywhere on the page. If only so few examples can be found, then it's not a list. I could also find no sources verifying the others as examples of quartal pieces. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason for deletion?

Deprod: [106].

Maybe you should look in the second source again: [107]. I suggest Ctrl-F. Hyacinth (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the word "quartal" once. That does not verify it as a "quartal piece", nor does it seem like a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the definition of a "quartal piece"? Is it any piece that includes at least one instance of quartal harmony? If so, then we may safely include almost every piece of music with any vestige of harmony of any sort (after all, sus4 chords are a commonplace throughout tonal music). Or is it a piece that is constructed exclusively of quartal chords? In that case, I think we must delete all of the examples currently in this very meagre list. It seems to me that this list has got no reason for existence if there is no clear criterion for what goes in and what is excluded. There is no Wikipedia article on "quartal music" (only the one describing individual chords), and even reliable sources are more likely to refer to pieces that use quartal harmony to some degree than to pieces which are entirely or even principally based in quartal harmony. In order for this list to be kept, the most urgent need is to decide what a "quartal piece" is.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the difficulty of any list. People often complain that they are too long, but this one is too short. Don't know what the term means? If a piece should go on the list? Notability? One can always fall back on citing sources. Hyacinth (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still synthesis if none of the sources uses the term "quartal". Do your sorces use that word or no? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an easy way to see if a source uses the term "quartal". I would argue I don't own the sources. Hyacinth (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true although, if I understand TenPoundHammer correctly, the emphasis is more on the word "piece" than on "quartal". That is to say, any musical work may use the odd D-major triad or the odd quartal chord, but neither one of these conditions makes it a piece in G or A major, or a "quartal piece".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:List of musical pieces which use extended techniques#Definition. Hyacinth (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia one must expect to fall back on citing sources. The critical difference between this list and the extended-techniques article is that inclusion on the latter requires only documentation of a single instance. As I have already said, if that is the criterion for inlusion here, we had better get ready to list the entire output of composers such as Vivaldi, Mozart, and Albert Ketèlby, who scarcely can have avoided using a sus4 at least once in any of their compositions. (Vivaldi's Concerto "La notte" includes a movement with hair-raisingly extensive use of such chords, but does this make it a "quartal piece"?) The other problem, as already noted by TenPoundHammer, is that none of the sources cited so far actually declare any work to be a "quartal piece". I doubt that any source so bold (or so foolish) is likely ever to be found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what he said. I know what quartal means, but I see nothing referring to "quartal pieces" anywhere in a Google search. Quartals are as common as, say, fifths, so listing any piece with a quartal in it would include listing nearly all of music. Spamming the article with sources does nothing unless you say what your criteria are. "Quartal piece" gets 56 results on Google, so I don't think you ever will. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I replicate your Google search, I get 103 hits instead of 56, but that scarcely matters. What is more important is that a large share of them find those words embedded in phrases like, "Is there such a thing as a quartal piece", "this is not a quartal piece", or (my favourite, from a book on 15th-century music), "an example of a 'non-quartal piece'". It does transpire that a composer named Don Haddad has written something called Contrapunctus and Quartal Piece, which also accounts for about thirty of those 103 hits. A statistical analysis concludes that this may be the only verifiable Quartal Piece ever written, and thus should be the only composition included in the list under discussion. But is using the phrase in a title sufficient evidence that it is actually a quartal piece? After all, Ezra Sims wrote a work called String Quartet no. 2 (1962) which is actually a quintet for flute, clarinet, violin, viola, and cello, and was composed in 1974. The title is a joke, referring to an uncharacteristic error made by Nicolas Slonimsky when writing the article on Sims in the supplement to Baker's Biographical Dictionary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "List of musical pieces which use extended techniques exists, so should this"? No. Hyacinth (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your arguments above, and the context of its appearances, the term "non-quartal piece" must mean something more than "a piece which doesn't use quartal chords consistently". Hyacinth (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have no idea what "non-quartal" could possibly refer to in a context of 15th-century secular music. Presumably the word "quartal" is defined somewhere in that book, perhaps with a very different meaning to the one we are supposing here (i.e., chords built by stacking fourths).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: List of pieces which use the whole tone scale. Hyacinth (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a flagrant example, Hyacinth. Are you saying that that list ought also to be deleted?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if the article was renamed "List of pieces which use quartal harmony"? Hyacinth (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be somewhat more manageable, though it still leave open the question, discussed above, of what "using quartal harmony" actually involves. At least one sus4 chord? Two sus4 chords? Obviously this is not sufficient, especially if they resolve to triads. The Vivaldi concerto movement I mentioned earlier consists of a chain of sus4 chords, each turning into another as the anticipated resolution fails to materialise. The larger context, of course, makes it plain that they should resolve, so does this invalidate the idea that it is "quartal"? And where are we to find sources that will verify such distinctions?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem with each of those similarly titled lists. Hyacinth (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is also the subject of a discussed move request: see Talk:List of quartal pieces#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, I've come to a conclusion: Delete.~~ The criteria for inclusion on the list are undefined, to the extent that either nearly all or nearly no pieces may be construed as valid. No sources have been forthcoming that identify any piece clearly as "a quartal piece". I am not happy, however, that only three editors have so far been involved in this discussion, though this suggests a very low general level of interest in the topic, which may be yet another argument in favor of eliminating this list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - those of us who are not musicologists with expertise in topics like '15th-century secular music' blush to say anything here as it will certainly be inadequate. I marvel that Wikipedia can marshal serious discussion of a topic such as this. But since you ask, I'd say that a list without a set of verifiable criteria must go, so if the criteria indeed can't be made to work, there's no doubt of the correct outcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Quartal and quintal harmony. --Lambiam 13:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one's a tricky one. Although the information in general is encyclopedic, this list cannot be given a firm set of criteria that make sense, so the list is not encyclopedic. Still, I agree with User:Lambiam that we should merge this to Quartal and quintal harmony because these six examples are in fact good examples for the quartal part of that article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Jorgath's reasoning; the information is appropriate but does not necessarily warrant a standalone article. As there is an appropriate merge target, the appropriate information should be merged there. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my mind: Merge, per the discussion immediately above, and given the fact that both Hyacinth and myself have considerably expanded the list and added a number of references. (Also, if anyone is interested, I have discovered that the peculiar "non-quartal" expression with reference to 15th-century music stems from a 1940 article by Charles Warren Fox, and has to do with a particular situation in 3-part writing, where no pairing of voices is permitted to have an "essential fourth", no matter what ameliorating interval may be supplied by the third voice. Fox regarded this—rightly, in the view of many other musicologists—as a stylistic watershed between medieval and renaissance compositional techniques. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "quartal" music, which is not even a term that Fox used to describe the earlier, medieval attitude to harmony.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Arthur F. Holmes. Any relevant content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 04:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Truth Is God's Truth

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

Contested Prod; no references; no indication of notability for this book. Title is a relatively common quote, so search produces unrelated results, though when combined with author, yields mention in Christian blogs, but no significant coverage in RS. Dialectric (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:GNG. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arthur F. Holmes#Works. Fails WP:GNG, but author appears on first glance (I haven't done significant search on him) to be notable. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Arthur F. Holmes. The author is notable, the work is competent but not outstanding. Suggest a short paragraph, summarising the book's main points. Jpacobb (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to KFOR-TV. Rlendog (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Morgan (meteorologist)

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

Non notable; fails WP:BIO. Google search failed to yield coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sourced statements in the "career" section. Chutznik (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have nominated Gary England and Rick Mitchell right along with this one except for Gary has won Emmy awards and Rick Mitchell is only a redirect. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only notable for one event and not much else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I acknowledge Hammer's point about WP:BLP1E, but Morgan has been around for a long time and has made enough of a reputation that I think the article ought to be kept. Here's a 2011 photojournalism piece at MSNBC that starts off, "KFOR weatherman Mike Morgan is a rock star when it comes to tracking tornadoes."[108] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Redirect. If more sources could be found which I'm sure they could to show notably I would say keep if not then redirect it to KFOR-TV which is were he works.--Dcheagle 04:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KFOR-TV without prejudice to reversion if sufficient notability is demonstrated. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I would not be opposed to the article being redirected to KFOR-TV, but I'm still of the opinion that the subject lacks notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the station. Individual newsmen are very common, and it's not surprising he'd be mentioned at least once, but that doesn't mean there's notability. Shadowjams (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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