< 13 April	15 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salamanca Risk Management Group[edit]

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

No sources in three years. Notability not established. Joja lozzo 23:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage found via Google search, Google Books, Google Scholar. Searched quality British newspapers Times/Telegraph/Indie/Guardian/FT, but nothing found. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a privately-held (not traded) company. There is no evidence from inside or outside the article that its similarity to other companies, as noted in the article, means that it is notable. Why wasn't this prodded? Bearian (talk) 22:58, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted (2001 film)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it apears this film exists,[1] it lacks coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NF, and we have no resonable place where to even consider a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little coverage, none of it substantial and WP:RS, that I can see. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 16 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Rising 2012 ~ K-1 World MAX Final 16 ~ in Madrid[edit]

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

Contested PROD : This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate that there will be any lasting significance, sourced only to a press release and promoters website, it is unlikely that the event will gain anything other than routine coverage that any sports event gets. Mt king ^(edits) 22:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is for a future qualifying event and has no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is for the K-1 Max Final 16 event - not qualifying - and has now also independent sources. Ozumi-k1fan (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The new sources still read like press releases from K-1, just in different papers. "The winners will qualify for the Final" sounds like this is a qualifying event to me. Astudent0 (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep K-1 events have been considered notable and this certain event imposes no exception. The quality of the article can be improved but arguing the event itself does not meet notability guidelines is not relevant. Behemoth (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that the event does not meet notability guidelines is exactly relevant, K-1 events in the past have been deleted as not notable, and there is zero indication that this will be one of the ones that is. Mt king ^(edits) 22:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a future qualifying event for the finals with a lack of significant coverage--the fighters and bouts haven't even been announced yet. The final 16 has generally not been considered notable. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World MAX 2008 World Championship Tournament Final 16. Numerous other K-1 events have also been deleted--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Bucharest. With proper sourcing I believe the final event is notable, but not this one. Mdtemp (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Final 16 of the heavyweights is considered notable. The 70KG Final 16 has not been considered notable because had two parts in the past not one like in present. I propose to be considered notable considering we will not have anymore the Dynamite!! events. And Badr Hari vs. Cro Cop is on card. Ozumi-k1fan (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the notability of the heavyweight "final 16" events has never been tested at an AfD. I just looked at 3 of them and they consist of nothing but the results. In addition, the only sources given at any of them was the K-1 website. I suspect they might get deleted if anyone actually did an AfD on them. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as nomination violates WP:TROLL and WP:DICK. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by banned user ([[2]]) and sockpuppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/63.3.19.129/Archive). Papaursa (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage. HN81K (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Mostly sourced with a single reprinted press release. BusterD (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lets get on with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough info! 22dragon22burn (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedence. If I correctly recall from past kickboxing event AfDs, a kickboxing event is generally not notable unless it is for the final round of a tournament and/or crowns a champion. The article states that this is an elimination round where "[t]he winners will qualify for the [f]inal" therefore this isn't the finals. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:41, 23 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 Userfied. Note that the article will need to show that the subject is notable (thus addressing concerns below) before it is moved back into the mainspace. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan M Farrugia[edit]

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

An author, whose first book will be released in a few weeks. References are about the book and some are just PR pieces. No independent, reliable references about him. Prod was contested with, "added sufficient media coverage". Bgwhite (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CREATIVE. Possible WP:AUTOBIO LibStar (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fan of author but do not know personally, so hopefully no conflict of interest. Have removed all references considered unsuitable. Will locate and add multiple independent reviews in order to fulfil WP:CREATIVE. Zippy2012 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only problem with the articles currently in the article is that they don't really show notability. The first link ([3]) isn't really about Farrugia himself, but about his book. It would help show notability for the book, but not so much for the author. The second link does talk about Farrugia, but I think it might be a press release and those can not show notability, as they're considered primary sources. ([4]) The third link was just to a page on the Apple website. That's actually not even usable as a link, so I've removed it. You can't link to merchant sites. To prove the claim, you should have a news article or something to that extent. The final link to Coeur de Lion is so insanely brief of an article with an even shorter mention of Farrugia that it can't show notability at all. It merely states that Farrugia has a book and isn't even really much of a comment. None of these links show notability for Farrugia. It would probably be best if you were to userfy the author's article as well. I remember trying to find sources for Farrugia's book and they were pretty scant to begin with- there weren't many for the author at all that weren't the briefest of mentions. The thing to remember is that 99.9% of authors are not notable outside of their works, which is what you need to show in order to justify an article for the author. This means that you need to have articles that are about the author that focus predominantly on them. Of course they'll mention the books, but the books shouldn't be the main focus of the article- the author should be discussed as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this author has any notability outside of his work. Have userified page. Might revisit later if appropriate. Zippy2012 (talk) 04:29, 16 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. A10: duplicate of Car Acronym. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trim level acronym[edit]

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

Unsourced affair what looks like original research. Due to the high number of red links, doubtful if it is a useful article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was created as a copy-and-paste clone of Car Acronym (also at AfD). --Lambiam 09:05, 15 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 05:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Medical Association[edit]

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

notability Dexpp (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure. They publish the Linacre Quarterly one of the top journals on medical ethics. And Google scholar gets enough hits anyway. And they have branches across the US. They are not a "nobody organization". There are lots of pages in Wikipedia with 20 times less notability. I do not see the point in this Afd. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (Note: User:History2007 is the author and principal contributor to this article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. History2007 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per the above, and remind the nominator about WP:BEFORE. St Anselm (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking about it. This is not as obvious as the above commentators seem to think. The article contains only two references, one of them from "Priests for Life", so more neutral sources are needed. A quick look at Google News Archive finds almost entirely Catholic sources; I would like to see some more general coverage and will look later. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more refs. This is an organization with many physicians and many student chapters in medical schools across the US. It is much more notable than all the high schools which have Wikipages... History2007 (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't see evidence that this 900-member association meets the standards of WP:ORG, specifically the requirement for independent reliable sources. I could not find any coverage at all in sources other than specifically Catholic sources, such as the Catholic News Service. To me that means that no Independent Reliable Sources have taken note of this organization. (Would you consider a Mormon organization to meet the criteria if the only coverage it got was in Ensign, the official magazine of the LDS church? Would you regard a Baptist group as having Independent Reliable Sources if they all came from the Baptist Press?) --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. But your search was for pop-media, no scholarly journals. There are sources now with Pediatrics (journal), BMJ and Bioethics (journal). Are those independent? They are. Are they reliable? Absolutely. And there are more, but I was just getting tired of doing all the searching... It is a scholarly type search that shows those, it is not one for CNN, etc. This is an organization organized by MDs, not celebrities. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work on this. However, it is still unconvincing. The fact that an individual gets things published in a peer-reviewed journal does not make that person notable; the same is true for an organization. I note, for instance, that the Pediatrics piece (a commentary, not a peer reviewed article) has been cited by others only 24 times,[5] way below the standard for WP:ACADEMIC notability. The vast majority of listings found at Google Scholar are from the organization's own journal, Linacre, and receive almost no citations.[6] However it occurs to me that, as an alternative to deletion, this page could be redirected to Linacre Quarterly. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not agree, given that the studies were funded by the organization, the lawsuits were launched by it, etc. Once you have big time lawyers that sue governments, you are notable. Is this notable? Is this? Is this? This organization is more notable and encyclopedic than many, many Wikipedia entries. But we can leave it there. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable by references in news sources given in article. Just because they are mainly Catholic sources doesn't mean they're not reliable. Eternal Word Television Network is a well-established network with lay ownership, and certainly no worse than Fox News. The organisation is also referenced in respected international publications like Catholic Herald and The Tablet, e.g. "Drink, drugs and divorce are damaging young"[7]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: my objection was not to the RELIABILITY of the sources, it was to the INDEPENDENCE of the sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no evidence at all that the Catholic Medical Association has any type of ownership interest or control over sources such as EWTN, or The Tablet (published outside the US), etc. There is no evidence of "hidden coordination" among these news sources and the medical association which is the subject of his Afd. Have you seen any evidence to that effect? If so, please share it with us. Else there can be no assumption that these news organizations are part of a hidden grand scheme of some type. There can be no assumption of guilt by association on this issue. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I am no fan, but there are plenty of reliable sources to show their notability. Independent sources are available. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously keep -- This is an assocaition for medics who are alos Catholic. I have no doubt it exists to promote Catholic views in relation to medical ethics and such matters. Whatever publications may eminate from it, an assocation that has existed for 80 years is likely to be notable. Note: I am not a Catholic. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 18 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 per Eastmain. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield, Tameside[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for thus suburb. SL93 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this reference. It was once a village in its own right. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. It's even got it's own rail station. Independent settlements don't become non-notable simply by growth of a neighboring one. --Oakshade (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said that, but OK. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 15 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. Note that a "keep" close does not preclude a merge/redirect as an editorial decision. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Street, Essex[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this suburb. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another pointless settlement microstub - not even enough content to consider merging into Brentwood. A redirect wouldn't hurt, though. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage of this settlement exists. [8] Was an independent settlement and was even separately tax assessed in the 1500s and later.[9]. --Oakshade (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry in A Vision of Britain through Time, so why not in Wikipedia? Several old books also have entries for it. I'd say that adds up to enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Maybe (even) less important a place now than in the past, but Notability is not temporary. Qwfp (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to A1023 road (possibly merging some text. At most this seems to be about a parade of shops. In the US, it would be a mall. Sucha articles are regualrly deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? In the US an historically independent community would be a mall? I've never seen independent communities past or present deleted, regularly or otherwise. --Oakshade (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep The reference shows that it was in fact a separate community -- presumably a hamlet consisting of s string of houses along a road. That's enough for permanent notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 21 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) 23:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India–Mali relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Mali is a relatively small West African nation with very little to do with Asia. Most of its foreign relations are with Africa and Europe. I see no notable relations, no significant coverage in third party sources not government websites. Those wanting to keep MUST show evidence of third party significant coverage. Bilateral articles are not inherently notable LibStar (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The President of Mali made a state visit to India earlier this year and got the full red carpet treatment, detailed discussions with the PM, &c. Sources such as The Economic Times say stuff like "India's relations with Mali have been steadily growing in the past decade." and so demonstrate that the nomination's claim that "Mali is a relatively small West African nation with very little to do with Asia" is quite false. And now that there has been a coup in Mali, India is concerned that those trade deals and its nationals are at risk, "India will monitor the developing sitation in Mali". Warden (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes all countries "monitor situations" like North Korea, I fail to see concrete actions more than watching media reports. LibStar (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden and more sources like Mali coup dashes Indian business man Sandeep Garg's mining hopes which demonstrates quickly growing economic relations.--TM 17:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:

"India extends $100 million line of credit to Mali". The Hindu. January 11, 2012. Retrieved 2012-04-15. ((cite web)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
"India Expresses Concern Over Military Coup In Mali". The South Asian Times. Retrieved April 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"India to roll out red carpet for Mali president". The Economic Times. January 9, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Mohanty, Meera (April 11, 2012). "Mali coup dashes Indian business man Sandeep Garg's mining hopes". The Economic Times. Retrieved April 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above, as all the given sources indicate the presence of solid content, establishing notability for the subject. Secret of success 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was with the nom -- until I saw the sources. Keep. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 17 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 redirect per WP:NOBODY ELSE COULD BE ARSED. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naso vlamingi[edit]

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

Misspelled; the article with the correct name exists: Naso vlamingii. Leyo 14:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Naso vlamingii per nom. A plausible misspelling like this doesn't need to be taken to AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. Nothing needs merging. -- 202.124.73.236 (talk) 10:37, 15 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. Author requested speedy deletion, no need to continue discussion. –BuickCentury Driver 19:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death is no Dream[edit]

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

Documentary drama. Claims to have been "highly acclaimed" but no links to such acclamation even in Hungarian. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator is attempting to have this article speedily deleted. For some reason, another editor has reverted that. I have restored the creator's page blanking, applied a db-author tag, and this should be expedited fairly soon, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 14 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. Clearly I was using the wrong search engine. B music ian 07:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Rae[edit]

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

This band may become notable in the future, but for now, it fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG because of the lack of coverage in reliable sources. B music ian 10:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage received thus far is more than adequate for notability. In addition to the coverage cited in the article there's also these: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. --Michig (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The band is already notable. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 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. I'm sorry Anonymous Informer but there's a clear consensus here that this book is not yet notable. We require more then something existing and being for sale to have an article on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quolowardia-The Novel[edit]

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

The article claims that this book is published by an imprint of Leadstart, but other than sites selling the book, I can find no evidence of this. I declined speedy as I feel deeper investigation and discussion is required. Peridon (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy deletion is for quick decisions - there is a claim to significance in the age of the authors, but other than in the referenced Flipkart, plus SimplyBooks.in and Stackkart.com etc (all merely sales outlets) I can find no evidence for Leadstart or FrogBooks being involved. Not listed at Amazon. No sign of any coverage that i can see in reliable sources. Peridon (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is very obviously a non-notable book. There's absolutely zero talk about it that hasn't come from the author or the flipkart sale page. Most of the results are from the AfD listing. Even though this isn't exactly a self-published book, it still fails WP:BK by at least 200 miles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding that Leadstart may well be a self-publishing outfit - see http://www.hotfrog.in/Products/Self-Publishing and http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110107052911AAEZuXShttp://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110107052911AAEZuXS Peridon (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable self-published book. SL93 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2012

Comment Dear friend, I have to tell you some important things about this novel. First of all, leadstart is no self publishing agency. You can easily understand that by seeing www.leadstartcorp.com. Second, Quolowardia has no connection to hot-frogs (as it has been mentioned) as Peridon has mentioned. Also, the page at yahoo answers he had given has been deleted, making his links of no trust. All of you can go to the internet and type Quolowardia in a search engine. By looking at the book's cover, it could clearly be understood that it is published by Leadstart. And talking of notable sites, please check www.ebay.com. And by the way, Flipkart is not a mere sales outlet. Any more doubts about it?

(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed WP:NOTE Yasht101 08:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BKCRIT. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that hotfrog is not connected to the book. It is a free directory site. It lists Leadstart in its self publishing section, with a quote from the company itself. I would think Leadstart would not have wanted to be put there if they weren't happy about it. I find it interesting that a question about being asked for money up front for publishing has suddenly been deleted. There is nothing defamatory about saying that a company may be involved in self-publishing or pay to publish cost sharing (which I consider near enough the same). The self-publishing 'industry' is providing a legitimate service in most cases. What it cannot supply is notability - and I find no notability for the book no matter which way it is published. I did look at the leadstart.com site, and found what I saw as confirmation of the self-publishing service, but since then, I have been unable to access the site. Can anyone else get into it? Yash, can you try, as you are based in India, I believe? Last time I was on there, I could find no trace of this book. It is very strange for a publisher not to list a book it is involved with - even self-publishing houses like Lulu provide webspace and listing. Peridon (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Flipkart is an online shopping store, and being listed on eBay means nothing. Almost anyone can sell almost anything on eBay. Being listed on Amazon is no claim to notability either. And this book doesn't appear to be - possibly Amazon don't have a distribution facility in India. I have just done a Google search for "Quolowardia" and apart from the authors' site, the only hits appear to be online sales outlets, Wikipedia, and places like Facebook. No hit at the publisher's site. Peridon (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much backing up what Peridon has said. First off, eBay is not a reliable site to show notability. Never has been, never will be. No merchant site will ever show notability. The site itself is notable, but that notability is not transferred to the items sold on it. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Secondly, nobody in the AfD ever said that HotFrog was connected to the publisher, just that it was pretty much one of the very, very few links that mention the book at all. In any case, regardless of whether the book is self-published or not, you need to have reliable sources per WP:RS to show that the book is notable. Please note that primary sources (anything released by the publisher, author, or anyone connected to either of them) do not count towards notability. The link to the author's personal blog and the link to the publisher's website do not show notability in any way, shape, or form. Existing is not notability. In the end there's just no reliable sources out there. The only links that talk about the book are by the publisher, the author, by a very few sites selling the book, or links to this deletion discussion. None of these links show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing situation here. Too many frogs. FrogBooks is an imprint of Leadstart, and the given publisher's name. HotFrog is a totally separate site which is a free directory, listing Leadstart in the 'self-publishers' section. With a quote from Leadstart. No mention of the book. FrogBooks didn't mention the book last time I could get in - as with leadstartcorp.com, frogbooks.net will not open for me. Being self-published is not of itself a bar to having an article - it's just that the coverage required (that does NOT mean places selling it) needs to be greater as the real publishing process (which takes linger than a few months in most cases) counts as a part of the note. Even if this were published by HarperCollins, as this stands there is no notability shown - or found. We do try to find reasons to keep. I've often added refs to articles that were up for deletion to save them. Peridon (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, the book will be available on Leadstart's website in 2 weeks or so, as i have heard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Informer (talk • contribs) 10:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Won't affect the notability unless a heap of other stuff appears. The book may be notable some day - but we don't hold articles for future success - please see WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir, I didn't notice that you seeked my help earlier as I was not watching this. Anyways, Yes, I live in India. And even I didn't got much about this book. No reliable source in short. This book isn't notable according to me. A book is available on flipkart, and that does not mean that it is notable. Yasht101 02:52, 21 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 in light of sources found.. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore–Armenia relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. you will see the article original contained copied text from the Armenian foreign ministry. Yes there have been a few visits but it's all the same, "we want to cooperate" . I see no notable relations, no significant coverage in third party sources not government websites. Those wanting to keep MUST show evidence of third party significant coverage. Bilateral articles are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Singapore, Armenia reaffirm bilateral relations". Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one source isn't sufficient. Where are the multiple sources? Simple meeting, don't all foreign ministers promise to do more? LibStar (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources are not necessary as there's no policy requiring them. But, because it's so easy to rebut these fatuous nominations, let's have another. This work, for example, tells us that the Armenian Church of St Gregory the Illuminator in Armenia Street is the oldest church in Singapore. It was founded by the significant Armenian community in Singapore which also founded the famous Raffles Hotel. That's quite a connection. Q.E.D.² Warden (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV means wide coverage. Suggest you tone down your attitude Warden, we've had a RFC already. Focus on being civil, thanks LibStar (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not mean wide coverage. What it means is, of course, significant coverage. It then explains that this means enough coverage to write without original research. The coverage in this case seems adequate for this. Now, looking at this again for the third time, I see that we have an article Armenians in Singapore. This leads us to an entire book on the subject: Respected citizens: The History Of Armenians In Singapore And Malaysia. That's Q.E.D.³. What I tell you three times is true and three strikes and you're out. Please withdraw. Warden (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith, I will withdraw this AfD but Warden, your aggressive, beligerent attitude is not welcome nor appreciated. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that Armenians help founded Raffles Hotel is well covered in the article, it adds little to actual relations between nation states. LibStar (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relations exist. Here is other sources; [15], [16], [17].Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources:

"Singapore, Armenia reaffirm bilateral relations". Channelnewsasia.com. February 28, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"President of Armenia highlights role of Armenian community in Armenia-Singapore relations". Armenian News Agency. March 28, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
"Armenians printed the first paper and founded the first church in Singapore". Public Radio of Armenia. March 28, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 15 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 deleted by User:Nikkimaria under criterion G11. Non-admin closure. "Pepper" @ 15:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asian federation of academic professionals[edit]

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

it probably does not meet Notability guidelines AndieM (Am I behaving?) 09:25, 14 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Plugaru[edit]

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

No independent coverage demonstrates the subject's notability: a self-published site and an advertisement for a puppet show will not suffice. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references I included in the article show that:

This writer has a dedicated page on one of the biggest literary Romanian websites, but also a few other blogs
This play writer wrote a play which was set and is played at puppet theaters from Romania and Moldova
This poet published a book with poems and coloring drawings for children.

You can also find plenty of articles about this writer on local newspapers, blogs, online magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiliconValley (talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) povesti-pentru-copii.com is hardly a reliable source. It's a personal website where one individual reprints children's short stories.

2) Having a play performed, or having a book published, is not by itself evidence of notability. At least one criterion from WP:AUTHOR needs to be fulfilled.

If you'd like to demonstrate the subject's notability, please show that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And please keep in mind that self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable as sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can say that about almost any person, that those sources don't prove notability. The way I see it - this is an attempt to discredit this author and undermine her contribution made to the Romanian culture in general and literature in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiliconValley (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia is based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If such sources are presented, notability is established; if not, and they have yet to be, it isn't. That is the core issue here, not your perceptions about a non-existent agenda on my part. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:25, 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) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to speak of in reliable independent sources. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 7 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 08:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just been looking through the Povești pentru copii (Stories for children) site, and would express a concern about some of the illustrations there in the Emilia Plugaru works section - there are what would appear to be copyright violations there of Garfield (himself) and Shrek (Donkey), and I have grave suspicions about a rabbit (looks Disney) and a pinkish cat (also looks Disneyish) and possibly others. This is not directly relevant to Wikipedia (they are not posted here), but the subject being discussed here is supposed to be an illustrator of her works. (The stories associated to these pictures are not translations of the texts of stories involving the 'real' subjects of the pictures.) Are these official copies of the stories, or is this a pirate site, which should of course be removed from being a link on Wikipedia? If it is a site that uses official copies, why aren't illustrations by Plugaru used? (There are similar copyvios (some Disney) illustrating the works of other authors there.) Peridon (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nuke links to the copyvio site. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 22 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. A merger remains possible, depending on consensus and with attribution, from the original third-party wiki source Sandstein 07:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The monster book of monsters[edit]

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

It's about a work of fiction within a work of fiction. Most of it is just direct quotes, and the parts that aren't are copy and pasted from *somewhere* (here is one example of where it could be from) Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 08:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 14. Snotbot t • c » 08:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I do know that it's been released as a toy of sorts, but being as toys rarely get notability, I'm going to say that I predict that I won't find anything to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The text referred to seems to originate at http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/The_Monster_Book_of_Monsters and is Creative Commons licensed. It should be acknowledged, but isn't. Having said that, there is possibly a slight case for this book as being a more active participant than the other fictional books of the Harry Potter series are - but none of them have articles unless actually published in the Muggle world (with suspicion of the involvement of a certain J.K.Rowling...). Peridon (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable fictional element. SL93 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (with proper attribution, of course) to either Harry Potter universe or Magical objects in Harry Potter per WP:ATD. It's a plausible redirect term, and I don't readily see it covered in either of those seemingly logical places, so a merge to list of fictional elements within the notable fictional franchise seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really non-notable fictional item with no importance both in the fictional universe and in the real-world. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be happy with a merge to Magical objects in Harry Potter - there doesn't seem to be a books section there, but most of the books are about magic rather than actually being magic. This book did have a certain importance in that it was one of the things used to discredit Hagrid during his spell (sorry) as a teacher. Peridon (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peridon. The earliest edit at Wikia is 2007, compared with 2012 here, and most of the WP text is identical to text in the History section of the Wikia article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:42, 18 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Arms[edit]

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

On notability grounds - basically a group of less than 2 dozen members at one location was the subject of a couple of human interest pieces by the local paper (big paper but still local). The group's existence does not make it notable. I had PRODed it but the tag was removed with a weak notability comment - debateable. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school is less than 2 years old and the class the author attended had 7 other students. I see nothing to show this school is notable (see WP:MANOTE). Papaursa (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:MANOTE and I don't think the local articles show sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 17:49, 16 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 05:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal wiki[edit]

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

No citations or references. Has turned into a list of software rather than a description of distinct features. Article was recently turned into a redirect, but I think it at least deserves a chance at an AfD first. Perey (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs citations and further expansion but is useful and informative, just as an outline is, and it is not the sort of thing that's easy to find on the web; it also has most all relevant data gathered into one non-commercial place. It is also not a simple link-farm. Offhand, I can think of a hundred solo-business people who would find the article very helpful. Sctechlaw (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., just had a look at page views for this article: 16,580 times in the last 90 days — Sctechlaw (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) (fix typo) Sctechlaw (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I just took about 20 minutes to Google the phrase and add some cites. User Perey could have done this instead of nomming this article for deletion and would have saved everyone else's time. Do it yourself next time. Sctechlaw (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And a good day to you too. ☺ Me, I couldn't tell which were suitable primary sources, and which were just using the words "personal" and "wiki" together without establishing it as a genuine term of art. I bow to your superior discernment in matters of WP:SOURCES. -- Perey (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa for short-temper'dness, but in the last week I've seen multiple AFD noms which could have been resolved with readily-available cites if the nominator simply took the time to seek them out, instead, others did the work, which is most vexing. The article still needs many more cites, and better cites too, but it is worth saving — especially considering the number of views it gets. It seems to me that if there is a long-standing article on WP with many page-views, even if it lacks cites, the better approach would be to first try to improve the article rather than condemning it to oblivion without such an effort. Sctechlaw (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, for what it's worth, I thought an AfD would be a way to discuss the saving or deletion of this article, in contrast with the redirection that had already condemned it to oblivion. If the citations you've added do withstand scrutiny (personally I have doubts about the two LifeHacker "personal Wikipedia" ones, which neither establish "personal wiki" as a term of art nor describe anything but a locally-hosted MediaWiki) and the article is kept, I'll consider it a success (while crediting you for doing the legwork). -- Perey (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally found this article useful, yes it needs cleaning up but it has the potential to be a great resource on the subject (top google result, as always). Personal wikis are a great tool and I'm sure this page helps inform and spread their use. --will.pimblett 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimms1 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: I agree, I really do; "personal wiki" seems like it should be a real category of software, and we should cover it. But the fact is that right now the article is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. No matter how useful it is, it's out of scope (WP:NOT, WP:OR), unless and until someone can prove (with citations) that "personal wiki" is a genuine term in the software industry or market. It's been de facto deleted once already, by being turned into a redirect. If an AfD can't attract enough opposition, then that redirect should become official. -- Perey (talk) 13:50, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Swick[edit]

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

Article is about an author, or a book that she wrote. I PROD'd the article back on April 4, and there are templates on the article indicating issues with notability and such; these were removed at one point, but the tags were restored. In any case, the subject of the article seems to lack any real notability as per our standards. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:AUTHOR. Book publisher's own site says they "help authors self-publish books".[18] AllyD (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published. The two 'references' are the book author's site and what appears to be her parent's site carrying a plug for the book. In my usual trawl of ten pages of ghits, I found nothing I'd consider a reliable independent source. (I eliminated Justin Bieber's tattoo from the search.) Peridon (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the subject lacks independent sources Senator2029 (talk) 19:24, 20 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 List of minor planets: 4001–5000#701. Sandstein 07:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4706 Dennisreuter[edit]

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

I've looked for sources. The only places this asteroid appears is in a couple of name compilations. There is zero coverage of it in secondary sources. Clearly far from notable. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000#701 per WP:NASTRO. The JPL SSD entry does not show any significant references and there are no suitable sources in Google scholar. The asteroid is named after Goddard chemist Dennis C. Reuter, who may well be notable. But that's not a suitable reason to keep this article per WP:NASTRO#Objects named after famous individuals or characters. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger problem – apparently ClueBot II created thousands of these non-notable asteroid stubs in March, 2008. Since that time, they have pretty much nothing but bot edits (including User:Rich Farmbrough). How can this be dealt with? Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This issue has been undergoing active discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects for many months. Personally I don't see it as a "big problem", but we'll get there eventually. The preference seems to be to go about it carefully so that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus is that asteroids numbered below 2000 should be protected from bot-decisions since on average they are much larger than asteroids discovered after them. -- Kheider (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24968 Chernyakhovsky. Would it be possible to set up some sort of mass redirect for these? I guess the hard part would be figuring out which ones are just the bot template with minor edits (such as this one) and which ones are a little more than that and should not be redirected (example: 1248 Jugurtha, which survived a recent AfD). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Absolute magnitude (H)=13.3 so the object is about 10km in diameter. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_21#Step_TWO it fails my (<20km in size; H>12; There are 5078 objects in the solar system with H<12) idea. -- Kheider (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO. It would certainly be sensible to consider redirects for all these minor asteroid stubs at once, rather than having an AFD for all of them! Polyamorph (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep astronomical objects are academic. Fotaun (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they must satisfy WP:NASTRO in order to qualify for their own article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:35, 16 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 (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Guinness[edit]

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

Not notable. Article claims she is "famous" for having dated Prince Charles, but I found only one article about her at Google News Archive. Unreferenced since January except for a dead link. MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. My Google News Archive search was faulty, she actually does have quite a bit of coverage which I will add to the article. Sorry for the false alarm. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 14 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. Clear consensus--promotional article DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Fowler[edit]

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

The article fails to demonstrate the subject's notability from reliable independent sources. Fowler is mentioned just once in only one of the references listed. There is insufficient evidence to justify an article; it does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). WWGB (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 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) 00:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. I can't find anything in searches that is not self-published or even minimally significant. This is a resumé. Wikipelli ^Talk 08:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me it reads as somewhat more of an advert than a CV. I wouldn't expect someone writing a CV to "share her passion and experience" - that's PR talk. Definitely not encyclopaedic as it stands, whatever the result of this discussion. She probably does a very good job in a very tricky area of investigation, and a fictionalised (for obvious reasons...) version of her exploits would probably sell well, but like police and private detectives, and the vast majority of real-life secret agents (the uncaught ones), this is not a profession where the unmasker gets the publicity and coverage. It's the perpetrators that are known widely. I'm not falling into the stereotype trap here - one accountant I knew was the life and soul of any party, and if there wasn't a party, she'd have a mini-party going in minutes. If better coverage appeared here, I'd be quite happy to advise over the de-PRing of the article to NPOV standards. Lacking the coverage of the subject rather than the case - or even connecting the subject to the case, I'm afraid it's not for us. Peridon (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peridon. Doesn't meet WP:GNG as well. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 16 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. Sandstein 07:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Anne Lind[edit]

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

This actress is not well-known and she doesn't take part in any notable movie except Mean Girls 2 Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. First Light (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ENT is not set to limit notability considerations to only those who work in film or television, though they usually get more press than do stage actors. I'll take a look at the multiple sources that address her far greater body of work in theater,[19] with an understanding that theatrical notability is itself not limited to only those who headline in Broadway Theater... before returning to offer an !vote. If I discover that her work has been well-received or reviewed in reliable sources, we'd have a meeting of both ENT and GNG. Back in a while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:11, 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) 01:08, 7 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) 00:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A quick google search reveals she's a fairly well known stage actress, too - maybe just emphasize this in the article instead of wiping it? --flying idiot 02:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've delinked 26 Miles - there was no article for the play there. (It's an album by Sean Watkins.) None of the 'world premières' of the plays have articles. The first performance of ANY play is its world première. It's the subsequent performances that give a play notability. However, I feel that there is possibly room for expansion, as little of her filmography is mentioned, and the references look sound enough to me overall. Peridon (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the emcouragement that the article be improved through regular editing to add more emphasis on her greater body of theater work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:25, 20 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. Sandstein 07:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hararit[edit]

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

Delete There is only one source with no quote, and no URL. I searched Google, Google News and Google Books and found only a personal blog found only a listing and a passing mention. It appears not to pass WP:NOTABLE. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on Kbobb's research and Wiki policy on Notability, the article can be deleted. --BwB (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this settlement exists, which is already enough to be notable, and it's especially notable for being a Transcendental Meditation settlement, of which there are very few in the world. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low. See Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Marokwitz (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Thank you to all for your participation. I would just comment for consideration that a)WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline and takes precedence over the essay WP:Notability (geography). b) Even the essay WP:Notability (geography) states that "It is important though, when notability is challenged, to reliably document that a place is legally recognized in some way. Examples include government recognition of the place as a municipality or region, or recognition by a government agency" I don't see any indication that this place has any government sanction and it appears to just be a housing development with no significant notablility -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:49, 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) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Hararit is a legally recognized village in the Misgav Regional Council. The regional council comprises 35 small towns, all of which have their own Wikipedia article. Marokwitz (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Misgav Regional Council (MRC) article has only 4 citations, mostly on the topic of controversy with the MRC. Large portions of the article are uncited, including its claimed list of townships/settlements within the MRC. So far, no reliable source has been presented by any editor here to verify that Hararit is recognized by any valid government agency or that it in any way meets the criteria of WP:Notability The Hararit article has one citation. If this town is notable, please provide further sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources to the article. Hararit also appears on the site of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, as all other settlements, but that website is in Hebrew and very hard to link to. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is established practice that we make an article for any village or other populated place that can be verified. There is no overall rule about which guideline applies when there are general and specific guidelines, but in thisparticular case we have uniformly applied them in this fashion. What we consistently do are the real guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 21 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Sullivan (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John O'Sullivan (footballer)

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

Footballer who has not played at a professional level, fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom really. Standard case of a young player article being created before the lad has done anything in the game. It will quite possibly be recreated when he makes his debut on loan somewhere like Accrington Stanley next season but for now no professional games means no article. Keresaspa (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Worldwide coverage is a furphy IMO, after all the Australian evening news bulletin I watched on TV last night carried a story about an armoured van that nearly went off the side of a freeway overpass in Los Angeles. I also think that a non professional football player should be a consideration, as this particular player has less than 100 games counting; and I feel that every time one of this guy's articles is kept it encourages him to persist. Aside from that, the player can be covered adequately elsewhere - in the article about the team to which the coach was assigned as well as in the list of AFDs. Sonarclawz (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "all the Australian evening news bulletin I watched on TV last night carried a story about an armoured van that nearly went off the side of a freeway overpass in Los Angeles" - am I missing something? What on earth has that got to do with this article....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The more I read it, the less I understand it - the whole post, that is. The news bulletin is, I think, showing that what used to be local news is now world news. I'm not sure. A furphy is a rumour, by the way. Peridon (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Is an "all Ireland runner-up Feile medal in the same year that he won a Kennedy Cup medal" (?in Gaelic Football notable)? Secondly, We don't have articles to encourage people to persist - that's their job. We record them when they get there. Number three: The article says he's professional - does he still have to have played at first team level to pass WP:ATHLETE or is being pro count? (And is he?) Peridon (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not sure what Sonarclawz last sentence above is about. Probably be me missing something somewhere. Peridon (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim to know much about the GAA but a bit of googling tells me that DDSL stands for Dublin District Schoolboys League and youth competitions, whilst they may be notable in and off themselves, do not confer notability on participants. WP:FOOTYN sets the bar for notability for football as at least one league game for a professional club, which O'Sullivan has yet to meet. He is a pro but without that game he fails the specific notability test in this case. And I'm afraid I can't understand that sentence either. Keresaspa (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player. Has not played in a fully-pro league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and has not recieved significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG, and since Mr. O'Sullivan has not played in a fully pro league, the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 20 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.