The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boss (Life's Work)[edit]

Boss (Life's Work) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to have any notability independent of Life's Work. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Show was a very humdrum sitcom without any unique elements at all, and this episode was par for the course for a 1996 sitcom, with an article editor who is overstating the impact of this show immensely. Also looking at the infobox titlecard for the show, isn't there a standard where we discourage animated GIF images (and it's not even the titlecard, it's a promo for the show.)? Also advising Banquet (Life's Work) be added to this nom; both sources are to editable content sites, leaving it questionably sourced. Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Maybe if someone were to merge this article into the original Life's Work article and make the statements a little more "modest," perhaps it could better serve a purpose to potential TV historians than an outright deletion of this article. GVnayR (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. No merge needed, as the main article already has more than enough detail about this episode. Toohool (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, undistinguished episode of an undistinguished sitcom. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 4 March 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 for Shakthi Scott and delete without prejudice for Adhisaya Ulagam 3D. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shakthi Scott[edit]

Shakthi Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Article deleted at AfD and recreated, but probably not recently enough for WP:SPEEDY. This subject is still not notable under WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ANYBIO because he is the subject of no substantial coverage by any reliable sources.

I am also adding the related article Adhisaya Ulagam 3D, by the same author (perhaps autobiographical) and featuring this actor, as failing WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFILM in addition to WP:BASIC criteria. JFHJr (㊟) 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An afterthought: if the closing admin deletes, please add WP:SALT. JFHJr (㊟) 00:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JFHJr (㊟) 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JFHJr (㊟) 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - both: bio fails WP:BIO; film fails WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shakthi Scott. No further sources have become available since the last time this article was deleted.[1] The young filmmaker exists, but is still receiving no coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adhisaya Ulagam 3D without prejudice as a bit premature. The Deacan Chronicle tells us this Tamil film is in post-production, and we can wait to see if it gets more coverage upon release. No need for Salt quite yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:05, 25 February 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 Tony Elumelu and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs Holdings[edit]

Heirs Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm sure this will, at some point, ether become a notable corporation or go out of business. It has not yet done either. When it does the former it will have a place here, but not, I think, until then. It does not inherit notability by being founded by a notable person. I considered a simple redirect to Tony Elumelu, the founder, but felt a consensus would be better built either to delete or redirect, rather than a bold action being taken. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see nothing notable about this company outside the context of the founder. Except the last sentence (which I just copied into his article), all the info in this article is already in his article's "career" section. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no real indications of notability, and I've noticed a concerted effort on the page creator's part to start promotional articles for Tony Elumelu and organizations connected to him. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tony Elumelu. That article creates a reasonable case for notability, but we do not need articles about each of his projects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 27 February 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. This is an article with difficulties in neutrality. This is however no reason to delete. Arguments are brought forward that the word massacre in itself is problematic for neutrality (that is not saying it should be avoided at all costs in all situations, but, as Gingsengbomb puts it, "the word "massacre" is extremely potent and tends to make it difficult to incorporate opposing views in the same article". There are no arguments brought forward that this issue would only leave the option to delete the article, while there are other options like renaming open. There is consensus that the events that are the subject of this article are notable, and that deleting is not the only reasonable option to prevent NPOV, so keep it is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre[edit]

Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sources are all one sided or the only third party sources available do mention any massacres directly. Another article like this was deleted I nominated it also. It goes against Wikipedia policies and this article should be deleted from Wikipedia, as no reliable sources exist. Unfortunately this article does not meet notable criteria on Wikipedia, no scholarly references are available to give it a status here.(See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agdaban massacre) Nocturnal781 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neutral and reliable sources don't call it a massacre. The information about casualties and the operation to capture the villages can be included in respective village articles. VartanM (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nocturnal781 and VartanM. Sardur (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No sufficient reason was given for deletion. Given argument even contridicts statements made by other users, who insist on rename rather then deletion. So this doesnt even meet the criteria for deletion. Mursel (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a notable event, no reliable sources can back this article up. Renaming it still won't take away the fact that this article is not important.Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As far as I could verify, third party sources do not confirm that a massacre took place. See for instance HRW on the capture of these villages: Eight people were reportedly killed as a result of the seizure of Malybeyli, some of whom were women and children. But the article claims that 15-50 civilians were massacred. --vacio 22:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is Baku a propaganda effort. Dehr (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had originally proposed that we rename the article to Battle of... but it's clear that the article itself would not be long enough to warrant its own page. Again, a lack of sources show why the current name is unsuitable, but it looks like now that renaming it is also rendered untenable.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The use of highly partisan Azerbaijani sources is alarming. --George Spurlin (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mursel. --NovaSkola (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For this kind of artciles there must be international sources.Ali55te (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI agree with Nocturnal. Winterbliss (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Several quite strong international sources are stated clearly in the talk page. Meanwhile, I haven't seen any firm reasoning to nominate article for deletion. Angel670 talk 05:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The problem is that these international sources do not confirm that a massacre has occurred. See for instance the HRW quotation above. --vacio 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to keep: The problem is that HWR is not an only source. There are several international authors who confirmed a massacre, there are whole books by international authors where Malibeyli and Gushchular massacre is very well described. These are all provided in the course of discussion in the talk page. Moreover, the article can be further improved. The other problem is that the user who nominated the article for deletion hasn't read the talk page at all, as I can understand from his text above, moreover, he hasn't provided his input/question in the talkpage (just out of respect to other users who spent energy and time for improvement of the article) prior to nomination for deletion, and therefore, his justification of deletion of well-sourced Wiki article is invalid. Angel670 talk 14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote just one of those international authors. --vacio 16:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you vote here if you haven't checked the talk page of the article at all. All international sources and quotes are clearly provided on the talk page of the subject article. Your unawareness proves that your votes as well as this AdF is fake attempt to get rid of good Wiki article containing interesting facts and testimonies of neutral international authors about these massacres. Angel670 talk 23:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Angel is very right. Firstly, there are many sources in the article and talk page which was given by Angel670 which call the killed event a massacre. And second, Armenians users don't want to recognize them that's why they want to delete all. Dighapet (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The event is mentioned in the report by the Russian human rights organization Memorial: Были изгнаны жители из сел Малибейли, Гушчулар, при этом в результате обстрелов погибли несколько десятков мирных жителей. The inhabitants of the villages of Malibeyli and Gushchular were forced out, and a few dozens of civilians died as result of shelling. [2] Grandmaster 15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it: a shelling is not necessarily a massacre. --vacio 16:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, but my point is that the event described in the article took place, therefore the article should not be deleted. Whether it should be called differently is another question. Grandmaster 18:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article is based on reliable sources which show the evidence. Ladytimide (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the subject is not noted by any credible sources. Grandmasters "the event described in the article took place, therefore the article should not be deleted" misses the point. We are not here to decide what happened or did not happen and if it is a singular "event" that canbe given a title, and Wikipedia is not here to cover every event, it is here to cover events that have been noted by other sources. I have read through the talk page. The phrases "Malibeyli Massacre" and "Gushchular Massacre" are only used in propagandistic sources that are never going to be suitable to be used as sources on Wikipedia. Meowy 03:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you are saying is not true. There are credible sources mentioning massacre in Malibeyli and Gushchular villages. And this is enough to keep the article. The other thing is that you may not like those sources and discredit them for your own reasons. You may possibly not like the Dutch journalist who wrote about these massacres because you think he is an alcoholic or drug-addict or of different sexual orientation. In reality he can be just a nice chap undeservably labelled and cornered by some "prominent" Wiki users. You can not remove the article because your dont like the personality of the author of neutral source. Even the fact that there is such a long discussion here means, that this discussion should be continued on the talk page of the artile. This is as simple as that. Angel670 talk 21:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, based on Baku-based propaganda sources. - Fedayee (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: C'mon, dont be silly. Where you see Baku propaganda? Innocent civilians were killed, just pay respect to those who died. Have you seen me assigning Maragha Massacre for deletion or trying to call it Maragha Battle, although Maragha happened in the course of full-time war unlike Malibeyli&Gushchular, Garadaghly etc.? You know why? Because I can pay respect to died victims. This war experienced a lot of mistakes by both sides, you must be able to face them and admit them. Don't even try to hide them. Angel670 talk 21:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's because Maraga Massacre is supported by neutral and reliable sources, unlike Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre. Sardur (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - all sources are valid. All a reader can read from talk page of article is proved sources that massacre happened and is rightly called massacre. As per BabbaQ.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no problem with the sourcing. Besides, the event was notable enough; the occupation of the said villages is even cited by Armenian sources, so I fail to see how notability can be an issue here. Parishan (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin As you have probably realised this article relates to one of those between two conflicting parties. Therefore, its nomination for deletion is the intentional decision of one of the sides. The article is well-sourced and meets Wiki criteria (though it has already been vandalised several times, including last editing). Now it requires that any uninvolved editor experienced in coordinating dispute between two parties, join in the talk page, and assess the neutral sources provided there: Rao Johannes, the German expert on Caucasian issues, Charles van de Leeuw, the Dutch journalist, and one more source by Charles van der Leeuw published by Finnish expert, all supporting the massacre event, in addition to other international sources such as HRW, Cornell etc. supporting term “ethnic cleansing” and “eviction” of people, and various links with testimonies of victims, documents etc. Uninvolved editors who joined in the discussion of this article previously at first glance would accept suggested sources and requested the arguing party to provide their sources against the article. This request was left unanswered and not a single source has been provided putting the article under a question. In such a situation, the uninvolved editor in search of compromise requested more supporting sources from one side that kept providing them continuously throughout the whole talk (this request was really unfair). This had been clarified too. In an attempt to make both sides happy, he simply got confused with his requests, or felt incompetent to make any judgement on the issue and withdrew. I would very much appreciate if you approach the article with the simplistic eye, based on Wiki rules, just saying the Dutch journalist, German expert and Finnish expert and other supporting sources listed here are neutral or not, if not, then why. The decision on this article neither is resolving the dispute nor fuelling it up. Uninvolved editor is required only to assess the neutrality of sources provided, without a headache to try to make everyone happy or to dig into the debris of the conflict. Thank you. Angel670 talk 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The following is what I said at another of this editor's nominations, but I think it applies to this one just as strongly:

“

This article does come from an Azeri author, but based on that it seems there are claims of massacres that merit mentioning. I should add that the editor nominating this article has been nominating several articles on alleged massacres of Azeris by Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Seems there may be an ulterior motive for these nominations (one of the articles this editor has nominated already got scrubbed even though the source above demonstrates there have been claims of a massacre there as well). WP:NOTCENSORED means some offensive claims should be included if there are reliable sources to back it up. At the very least we have sources attesting to widespread claims of a massacre and I imagine with a bit of snooping we would find better sources to establish those allegations being discussed by independent sources if such sources are not already provided in the article.

”

I think these articles need improvement, but I can't help but see this editor's actions as being a tendentious attempt to censor information about massacres by Armenians during this war. This was one of those conflicts where tit-for-tat massacres and reciprocal ethnic cleansing were common. An editor attempting to expunge the record of one side's abuses because it discomforts them is inappropriate for this sort of situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no reliable source about a massacre. And copy-pasting your opinion here and there deserves you. Sardur (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to submit the list of neutral sources for this article on AfD too to make things clear:

a) Antero Leitzinger, Caucasus and an unholy alliance, Kirja-Leitzinger, 1997, p. 55

b) Johannes Rau: Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002). S11. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-89574-510-3

c) Charles Van der Leeuw. Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity (Caucasus World). p 171. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0-312-21903-2

a) Croissant, Michael P. (2006). The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: causes and implications. Praeger Publishers. p. 78. ISBN 0-275-96241-5

b) Goldman, Robert K. (1992). Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Praeger Publishers. pp. 24–27. ISBN 0-275-96241-5

c) Svante E. Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers: Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. A study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus. p 79-81. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New-York, 2001. ISBN 0-203-98887-6

d) Kathleen Pellatt (2008). Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and Chechnya: Violence and autonomy in Eurasia's secessionist conflicts. A Thesis submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies of the Royal Military College of Canada. ISBN 978-0-494-47900-1

I haven't included here the book by Azerbaijani historian as a compromise and the links which are secondary supporting sources to the article.

I hope this helps. Angel670 talk 22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously check the sources and their author, and then WP:BATTLEGROUND. All this has been discussed on the talk page. Sardur (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't see any ground you show me to the link of battle ground. I'm simply providing my sources which are neutral and reliable according to Wiki policy. They are not of Azerbaijani origin, they are international, they are published by reputable publishers, and they are widely cited in scholarly research works. Angel670 talk 00:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Angel670. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is an open misinformation, with clear trace and political goals. It should be deleted, since it doesn't provide with a reliable information from reliable sources, and is designed and expected to push on an emotional aspect by mentioning deaths among civilians. Non-Azeri sources mention operation to suppress firing position, which is natural during the war. The information has been "reinforced" and aggravated by the author, which doubts his/her objectives. Still, the piece remains another unconfirmed allegation. Spankarts (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)— Spankarts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to admin. Given the history of the latter commentator's contributions, it seems like he registered merely to vote for the deletion of Azerbaijan-related articles. Parishan (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per The Devil's Advocate and Angel670. Unfortunate to see such open partisanship around these subjects, and more unfortunate to see one side of the conversation resorting to deletion as a kind of "nuclear option." The sourcing is, for the most part, sound; and where it isn't sound, it should be addressed via editorial activity, not deletion of the entire article. I may be sympathetic with renaming the article -- the word "massacre" is extremely potent and tends to make it difficult to incorporate opposing views in the same article -- but I have no suggestions for a better name and, indeed, the sourcing really does seem to support the current name. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per stated reasons above, sources are reliable enough. So many neutral sources were presented, especially on the talk page of the article. The massacre as per the neutral sources is irrefutable and this move to get it deleted seems politically motivated. Lava22T (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient sources. I agree with the above comment that the opposition to the article is that of political dislike for the subject, which "didn't happen". the article is a little non-neutral at present, but that is fixable--at least, it is fixable if the various national groups stay away from it. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 2 March 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 by User:Fastily. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hashimoto Robo[edit]

Hashimoto Robo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can find no articles about this in English or Japanese on the net. Fails WP:GNG, if not WP:CRYSTAL. The article was created by a new user whose edits and user name resemble the indefinitely blocked User:SushiDumpling (who was blocked for hoaxing). Michitaro (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a blatant and obvious hoax. Since there is absolutely nothing outside of this article mentioning anything about it, it is very doubtful this exists. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've gone ahead and tagged it as a Speedy Deletion candidate under criteria G3, with the hope that this can be quickly resolved without having to go through the whole deletion discussion process.Rorshacma (talk) 00:39, 23 February 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. The consensus below is that the scientific studies of this body are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1248 Jugurtha[edit]

1248 Jugurtha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced, only a single external link to a primary source is in the article, and hence there is no evidence of notability. Checking the traffic log shows negligible traffic, so is not being used as a reference. Wikipedia is a reference work. I'm therefore suggesting that this be deleted, but without any issue about it being recreated if it becomes notable for any reason, it's just not right now. - Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A lack of traffic isn't a valid argument for deletion. Just because an article isn't referenced very often or has a negligible number of pageviews doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of a reference work; a very small number of people using it as a reference still means it's being used as a reference. Also, for what it's worth I've written two GAs with fewer views in the past month than this article, so it's hardly one of the least referenced articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make this GA, you'd be doing really, really, really, really, really, really well. The nearest thing I found to 'notability' was a primary source paper saying that somebody had once measured its light curve, and even that had nothing exciting about it apparently, although apparently it spins.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, it was created by a brainless bot and fails the relevant notability guideline even when I looked.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A Google scholar search found multiple published works whose primary subject is this body, so it passes WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. I will add these references to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't consider that just 3 primary source papers measuring that it spins with a CCD to be significant coverage. And where's the secondary sources? There are none at all.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  By any normal standards, and by the specific standards of the relevant guideline, this is not notable.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me quote the specific standards of the relevant guideline to you since you seem to have missed something when reading them. “The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.” In this case we do have multiple non-trivial published works in peer-reviewed scientific journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but the general notability guideline says: ""Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

  and I interpret the specific notability guideline in that context. You have no secondary sources at all, so these primary sources don't count as published works for the purpose of notability. I have never seen a more clearly not notable topic, ever.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein. -- 202.124.75.180 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My inclination is to keep, since it has been the primary subject of separate published sources. Whether or not it was added by a brainless bot is irrelevant. Its small size right now is irrelevant. It seems plausible that this article can be expanded into a suitable article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's impossible that it will be any more than it is at the moment; at the end of the day, it's a single fucking pixel on a CCD! Why would there ever be any secondary sources talking about it?- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : At a size of ~80km it is a fairly bright asteroid (magnitude = 13.0 to 15.3) and is easily within the range of amateur equipment. "Incompetence", your foul language does not add to your cause. -- Kheider (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now that several references have been found, the article passes the GNG and WP:NASTRO, and the nominator's other arguments either don't stand up to criticism or boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep since it has been the subject of a few non-trivial works (remember that triviality to you doesn't make something essentially trivial) with a reminder to the nom to keep it cool. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," thus satisfies WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:49, 29 February 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Nawrocki[edit]

Ryan Nawrocki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A baseball pitcher. Drafted in the 45th by the Brewers. Hasn't gone above Rookie ball. Article says he is going to play A ball this year, but I haven't found proof. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Though it appears he's an active minor league player, I strongly oppose a merge to Milwaukee Brewers minor league players in this case. That page is meant for players who appear close to notability, but may not break that threshold yet (top prospects, high draft picks, players on 40 man rosters, etc.). A 45th rounder with no sourcing should be deleted, not merged. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take back his "apparent" active status, as HBWS brings to light that this article is a hoax. Speedy delete this per G3. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete. Mr. Nawrocki is a notable minor league player and upcoming prospect in the Brewers organization. He is a hometown hero for Fort Wayne and has accomplished a lot, with more yet to come. --Mizzoufan24 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily there's another wiki that would love to have this article. Feel free to copy it there. If Ryan ever makes it to the majors or receives significant media coverage, the article can easily be recreated here. -Drdisque (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly failes WP:NSPORT for Baseball. -Drdisque (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be a hoax article. Both stat links on this article go to pages for Jake Odorizzi, and no player named Nawrocki shows up on the rosters or stat pages for any of the Brewers' affiliates last year. The article's claim that "Nawrocki" was a 45th-round pick by the Brewers in 2010 similarly fails to stand up to scrutiny - the actual player selected with that pick was a high school pitcher from Texas named Lucas Moran, who did not sign with Milwaukee. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also kind of embarrassed that nobody who commented on this AFD before me apparently bothered to check the sources on "Nawrocki", since doing so would have demonstrated that the article was an obvious fake. Do your DD next time, guys. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you're right. I thought it was a clear delete without bothering to confirm he existed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete. Contrary to the user above, I found a "Ryan Nawrocki" on several minor league baseball databases, AND on the roster for his current team. --Airforceblue15 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've opened up a sockpuppetry investigation relating to this hoax page and the other, Corey P. Hughes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 24 February 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 deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) with comment of ‎"could not find any record of this player on milb.com and/or is not notable enough to have a Wiki page" (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corey P. Hughes[edit]

Corey P. Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A baseball player. He is just out of high school and hasn't played pro ball yet. He was drafted in the 42nd round. Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not all baseball players are notable. This one certainly isn't. Clearly fails policy doktorb _words^deeds 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable player. Should not be merged to Colorado Rockies minor league players because there should be a minimum threshold for that page. It should be there for top prospects and other minor league players with some coverage, but who just don't yet meet notability. This individual has no sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • HBWS, below, is right. This article is a hoax. I change to 'Speedy delete under G3. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete I really don't think you should delete this page. He seems relevent enough to warrent keeping a page. I would at least wait until after the 2021 MLB season to see how far he has moved up before we go crazy deleting pages. 23:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.64.251 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - I'm going to presume the above vote was a typo and the user in question doesn't want us to wait 9 years to delete stuff. Player in question currently plays for the Tri-city dust devils, a minor league team. If/when he actually plays a game for the Rockies or acquires substantial coverage, then he will be notable, not before. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax page. No "Corey Hughes" is listed on any of the rosters of the Rockies' affiliates at milb.com, and contrary to the article's claim, the Rockies' 42nd round pick in the 2011 draft was right-handed pitcher Jordan Johnson out of a high school in California. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, a trout-slap to everyone who commented in this AFD without bothering to take 30 seconds to verify whether or not the article's claims were even true. Keerist. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've opened up a sockpuppetry investigation relating to this hoax page and the other, Ryan Nawrocki. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 24 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swimage encore[edit]

Swimage encore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Hate to rush to AFD so quick after creating, but this is just MS spam. One of the references had nothing to do with the article (deleted), another one triggers the "Warning Will Robinson" filter in Google Chrome for malware, the rest is whitepapers and MS's own site. Not notable marketspeak. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A non-notable software component that has spam written all over the place. Tinton5 (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 →Στc. 01:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, I hate yanking a speedy tag, particularly when you are right, but I sent it here because of the "appearance" of sources, and a decision at AFD makes it simpler to CSD when it gets recreated (and this stuff tends to). Recreating and just removing the promotional aspects would mean starting over with the process when you Speedy via G11 (A7, not so much). That, and the AFD is likely to close within 1 day anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:59, 1 March 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. WP:G7 - author blanked the article ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andie Heid[edit]

Andie Heid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No refs, No significance, see google --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 20:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this qualify for speedy delete (A7), no credible claim of significance or importance?--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps UnQuébécois, you might actually like to familiarise yourself with the guidelines and learn how to implement them properly before trying to recommend that to others? Just a thought. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but where is there an indication that the subject is important or significant? I'm also unaware of any Wikipedia policies that prevent people from discussing something about the article? I do not see where I have recommended anything here, I did ask for clarification. --UnQuébécois (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wow, I couldn't find anything about Andie Heid anywhere. Google Web Search, Books, News, News Archives, Scholar, and queries on other search engines come up with little to nothing. Certainly fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see any actual sources for this article, facebook, twitter as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnQuébécois (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 February 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. henrik•talk 09:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Africapitalism[edit]

Africapitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable neologism coined in 2011. Perhaps later, but not yet, surely? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An obvious "thing we made up last week" neologism. Google suggests it has been used once in December though the validity of the source is open to question. No reason to keep it here at all. doktorb _words^deeds 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it was made up by Tony Elumelu and is described in Forbes.[3]. I'm counting over 3k g-hits. Rklawton (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tony Elumelu as a new NEO that has a little coverage but in a very narrow area. As for the number of ghits, no one cares, as that isn't a reason to keep or delete in a blog filled world where a silly word like Funktastic gets 982,000 ghits, yet isn't notable. It might catch on, it might not, redirects are cheap, and in this case, appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - I think the salient point is that one of the most influential men in Africa is using the term and it's being repeated in business journals. Thus far more people care than would care about street slang. Rklawton (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, comparing it to "street slang" is meaningless. The question is if it passes WP:N or any subset, not how it compares to anything else here on Wikipedia. It might someday, I believe that, which is why I said to redirect. But it doesn't seem to yet. Based on my reading of the guidelines for inclusion, it comes up short. For now. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't comparing it to anything else on Wikipedia. It's who all is using it that may make it notable. Something made up by some kid after school one day isn't notable (street slang). Something made up by one of the most influential people on a continent and picked up by the media is a different story entirely. Rklawton (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is being 'repeated in business journals' and those are reliable sources then cite it in the article and the discussion changes. As it stands it is a non notable neoligism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no real indications of notability or usage, and I've noticed a concerted effort on the page creator's part to start promotional articles for Tony Elumelu and organizations connected to him it's definitely a WP:SPA account. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N and may violate WP:COI. The notability of the individual who coins a term is not transferred to the term and it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I suggest that if the term appears in Oxford Dict. in the future then it can be reconsidered; now it fails WP:N without doubt.

MadZarkoff (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per MadZarkoff, and, especially WP:NEO. Wikipedia has not been the place for words coined last year, unless it becomes an extraordinary fad. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 14:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tony Elumelu#Philosophy, which discusses this term, seems appropriate. No standalone notability, however. Rlendog (talk) 20:41, 29 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SubRosaSoft.com Inc.[edit]

SubRosaSoft.com Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Fails WP:N. Sources search only returns press releases. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure whether this article should be kept or deleted, but I request that this be relisted for another week instead of being closed after seven days. There are potential sources here which need to be examined before this discussion can be properly concluded.

  The final paragraph of WP:PRODUCT reads, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." This may be the case with SubRosaSoft.com; even if we can show that its products have been reviewed independently, the company itself needs to be the subject of coverage in secondary sources in order for the relevant guidelines to be met. Google searches for independent sources about the company itself are frustrating, turning out a sea of press releases. So I tried a simple search of Macworld’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to articles; this turned up 34 articles. A search of Macworld UK’s website for "subrosasoft," restricted to news results, turned up 14 items. Macworld and Macworld UK are reliable, secondary sources, but I haven't analyzed any of these results to see if any provide the significant coverage needed confer notability, nor will I have the time to do so until later in the week. But I think that holding off on deletion for now – that is, until at least a couple of editors have examined these potential sources – would be prudent. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:17, 22 February 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, henrik•talk 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete As noted in my comment above, searching the websites of Macworld and Macworld UK for "subrosasoft," restricted to news/article results, yielded a total of 48 hits. Having looked at each of those, I don't think that this software company meets our guidelines for notability. All or nearly all of the results are short-takes, most of which amount to "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued," which are classified as trivial coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, this short-take is the only article I found which was about the company itself and was not routine, trivial coverage of the company's products. Unfortunately, the piece is does not amount to in-depth coverage. Macworld’s website appears to have only one review of a SubRosaSoft product, while Macworld UK’s has two (FileSalvage 6.0, DasBoot); this low number of reviews does not correspond to the number of news-briefs. In addition, a search of MacUser’s website for "subrosasoft" yields zero hits. Finally, while my vote doesn't rely on this, it's worth noting that Forensicswiki.org lists SubRosaSoft as one of 42 "vendors of computer forensics software and hardware", which suggests that perhaps the lack of significant coverage of the company is an indication that it's not among the most prominent of those vendors. If it was among the most prominent, a case could be made that we should ignore WP:CORP here; as things are, we should follow that guideline and delete this article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:03, 29 February 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 userfy to User:Vietminh/List of campaigns against female genital mutilation. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation[edit]

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Withdrawn per below Vietminh (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Non-notable organisation: This page was created after User:Cherylbarksdale tried to enter self promoting content onto the Female Genital Mutilation page. The user was attempting to promote this organization: http://cagem.org/default.aspx for which the article is named. Upon googling "cagem" I could only find the organization's website, a yahoo groups page, and a facebook page. Only one of the 10 sources used to create the article makes any mention of the organization (source #8). On this source, under "additional resources" there is a link to an eventbrite.com page made by the organization itself. I believe the article thus fails WP:GNG. Additionally, I have conducted a thorough search for reliable sources on this subject and could find no mention of either "cagem" or any "Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation" in the sense that the article portrays. There are many organizations which have the goal of eradicating Female Genital Mutilation, but these organizations do not coordinate together in the way the title or content of this article suggests. Vietminh (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything self promoting on this page. Perhaps you should try adding "citation needed" just as several articles on wiki have instead of trying to delete the entire article which I feel has valuable infomation. The fact that you didn't find anything does not mean it does not exist especially when dealing with issues in third world countries who don't have a lot of web pressence. Are you sure these organizations do not coordinate together on ground? When you say you did a "thorough" search are you just "browsing" the web or did you go to Africa to investigate? I find it amazing that you think "googling" is thorough research. Do you know how many articles, books, and sources in Africa cannot be found on google but can be verified by other means such as trips to libraries in Africa which I doubt you have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.168.188 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 74.123.168.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

• Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article. I created this article in good faith after my trip to several countries in West Africa. I was very neutral and tried to list as many campaigns against-FGM as I could find and will continue to try to improve this article. I am asking all experts in the field to do the same and save this article from the Vandal who is trying to delete it. The user:Vietminh who nominated this article for deletion has used multiple IP addresses in the past to vandalize wiki, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vietminh&diff=prev&oldid=448186041
• As per wikipedia's article for rescue squadron "Sometimes Wikipedia articles about notable topics exist in poor form, badly written, unsourced — but should they be automatically removed from the encyclopedia at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that simply need improvement." This article has passed the test for "topic notability". It is a new article and should be kept to allow others to contribute and improve it. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator's history is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of this nomination, and merely constitutes a personal attack. I would strongly advise you to strike it out. I would also caution against referring to him as a "vandal"; please reserve such terms for those actively trying to harm the encyclopaedia. Jakew (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have stuck it out. I was only drawing attention to the credibility of the submitter because I felt I was personally attacked in the AFD submission which said I submitted "self promoting" info which is not true. That has now been struck out and i believe we will be able to resolve this matter by improving the article rather than deleting it.
• Keep this article. It was very informative for me when writing my paper and I find the sources to be credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.105.51 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.114.105.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

• I believe that there is an attempt to influence consensus on this page through either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, I have referred this matter for investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cherylbarksdale. Vietminh (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Meatpuppetry, On the investigation page (link above), the User stated that they did recruit people to comment on this AfD in response to my nomination, the User did not know this was against policy. I asked the User to formally acknowledge the violation of policy and to inform the people they contacted to cease their actions. The User did not do either of these things. Suspected meatpuppets are tagged with SPA per SPI case outcome. Vietminh (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete this article. I'm a student and got relevant information from this article. I see no reason why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.46.41 (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 198.105.46.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

• Delete - None of the references in the article are third-party reliable sources that establish any sort of notability for the article's subject. Searching online did not yield any either. Fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cherylbarksdale's remarks. Ou tis (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I can't see any evidence of the coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that's needed to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jakew (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vietminh's proposal RA0808 ^talk_contribs 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing I am withdrawing the nomination per WP:WITHDRAWN. In it's current form the article fails guidelines, but a List of campaigns against female genital mutilation would be notable, there are several high profile campaigns in and of themselves which stem from several notable organizations. I will re-work the article in this format for re-consideration. Given the amount of comments that have been added I won't close the discussion myself, but further evaluation should be made based on the revised content. Vietminh (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the article as it currently exists is not notable enough to stand on its own, but I do think that a List of... article might be more appropriate and would very likely be notable enough. However, it appears the consensus is to delete this version of the article, but because the "new" article would essentially cover a broader topic, perhaps it might be better to temporarily userfy this article until then? - SudoGhost 01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article, sources are on their way as we speak. I think that since it is an international campaign we can restructure it to include all the campaigns while giving the organizations that were inspired by this original campaign credit. Since last week, i have been incontact with the international campaign and asked them to send me all the campaigns against FGM they have in their database. I expect to receive them by tomorrow. But please note that a lot of them are in small communities and may not have web presence but may have been featured in local news. I will put in the sources and please feel free to edit it as you wish if you think it does not read properly.Cherylbarksdale (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you SudoGhost, we should probably wait for some more feedback to move forward with the userfication, I have notified the other contributors to this page. Vietminh (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, this is a confusing page to read!

I'm not opposed to a List of campaigns against female genital mutilation article at all; the general concept of a campaign against "female genital mutilation" is indeed notable. It's the specific (and note the capitalisation implying usage as a proper noun) "Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation" that seems to fail notability criteria. If anything looks salvageable, then I say go ahead and userfy. If not, delete the present article and write a new one. Jakew (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kk, I will userfy immediately given the consensus here. Sorry about the poor shape of the article hahaha, I was about to begin working on it last when I walked downstairs and spilled a giant bowl of microwaved berries all over my hallway, it looked like crime scene. Vietminh (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The userfied article is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vietminh/List_of_campaigns_against_female_genital_mutilation. Many thanks to all involved for offering their opinion on this matter. Vietminh (talk) 18:22, 27 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poetrytramp[edit]

Poetrytramp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable philosophy by a redlinked person. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold on a sec The term was coined by a German person. Therefore, "poetrytramp" may very well be an English translation (of some kind) of the original German phrase (or maybe in some other language for some reason). Until the actual name of the term is established, the fact that the English term has no links is not solid proof that the concept is not notable. I will scan through the references to see it i spot what i think is the German phrase.--Coin945 (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi, Coin/SaintLucia' Both, "poetry" and "tramp" are so called loan words in Germany. While "poetry" is known from the phenomenon poetry slam but remains as an American/English alien word — "tramp" is so more familiar and very romanticized: In German 'trampen' means hitchhiking. In so far: "Poetrytramp" as an recoined word has a new sound. Wypi (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012

Update Hmm... seems very dubious. Had a peek at his/her editing history. Sympathy as music term [most likely a translation of this German article Sympathie (Musik) ], and significant work done to Gottfried Benn are both done by the editor as well. Should be looked into. Only started editing from 2 February 2012. German account started on 19. Jan. 2012. --Coin945 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update [4] has some roughly translated comments in "usertalk" in "Piratenkniff"'s German Wikipedia account. [5] has usertalk for Wikimedia Commons. A list of his/her contributions to the German Wikipedia are here: [6]. I assume one of them is the "offending" article, that they have merely tried to create a translated version of.--Coin945 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No offending contents found!? Wypi (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2012

There is no article about "Natias Neutert" on the German Wikipedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete.--Coin945 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 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, Wifione ^Message 04:55, 15 February 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, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Doesn't seem to be mentioned in any reliable sources I can find. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The reasons above seem very tenuous. Not reliable or notable. doktorb _words^deeds 22:43, 22 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substepr[edit]

Substepr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable enough for an article of its own. Math321 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Die: Roll to Proceed[edit]

Die: Roll to Proceed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable play or whatever, from a non-notable entertainment organization. The organization is up for speedy deletion, but there is apparently no speedy deletion criteria for plays. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:53, 7 February 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 February 7. Snotbot  t • c »  05:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 February 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:52, 15 February 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) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete already. Sources are not reputable, no notability asserted at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not finding the reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After searching, not finding coverage for this topic in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete, needs polishing - Saw this on Broadway World today, http://broadwayworld.com/article/Interactive-Comedy-DIE-Roll-to-Proceed-to-Begin-Run-at-The-Red-Room-330-20120228 ^[1], this source is valid. Other sources in article need verifying or deleting however.Broadwaycritic2009 (talk) 19:01, 29 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TVS Wego[edit]

TVS Wego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to be hardly anything but technical specs for a scooter. Doesn't seem to have any real content, and doesn't seem that notable. Math321 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete  Almost entirety of the article is a copyright violation. It's the same data, presented in the same order, same format, as http://www.tvswego.com/techspec.html . Fixable, yes, but until and unless someone does fix it, it needs to be gone ASAP. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Withdraw delete; thanks Northamerica1000. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources. The last two article titles are similar, but their content is different.

• "TVS to ramp up Hosur plant production for 'Wego'". Business Standard. December 14, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
• "TVS Wego launched in Guntur". The Hindu. 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "TVS Wego Scooter launched". The Himalayan Times. March 9, 2011. Retrieved February 22, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Copyright violation problem in the article has been resolved. Copied and pasted information removed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Expanded the article by two more sentences. There are many sources and hence there is scope to expand the article further --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:08, 29 February 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 see no reason to salt, the article hasn't ever been recreated Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Head-Roc[edit]

Head-Roc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROMOTION. PROD was removed and a huge amount of additional unsourced material was added. Pburka (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete - an editor has commented that they will be adding sources for the additional info. I'll come back in a few days and cast my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've voted 'delete' because no indepth, reliable sources have been added to the article. There are plenty of blog posts online by Head-Roc, but these are self-written. His 'Occupy D.C.' performance with Dead Prez was noticed in newsblogs, but IMO that does not on its own establish notability. Sionk (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Most of the newly added material was copied from http://www.beatmp3.net/artist/head-roc.html so I've removed it. This article has a history of copyvios from WP:SPAs. Pburka (talk) 04:29, 8 February 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, Bmusician 03:39, 15 February 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) 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete and Salt. Wikipedia is not a preparation area for articles. Either an article meets inclusion criteria or not. Here it has not been shown to do so. Salting will ensure future copyvios are not an issue and of course the article can be created via AfC if (ever) notability is established. Cloudz679 15:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. There does appear to be brief mentions in the news, but the coverage is fairly trivial. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:32, 3 March 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. After several editors searched, no reliable third-party sources have been identified to support WP:N notability for this subject. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loud Online[edit]

Loud Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability, lack of reliable sources to be found. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 February 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, Bmusician 03:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as non-notable web content. No indication of notability, and no reliable third party sources can be found. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 22 February 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) 17:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - After several searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources to qualify this topic's inclusion on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 23 February 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Varvara P. Mey[edit]

Varvara P. Mey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no notability and her book appears to be non-notable also. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 February 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, Bmusician 03:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment The Russian Wikipedia article is far fuller and, even if (judging by Google Translate) it is not all that good, it does seems to cite a couple of potentially reliable sources. And assuming (as in fact I do) that the Russian article is not a tissue of lies, she was a leading member of the Kirov Ballet (though possibly more as a teacher than a ballerina) for several decades during the Soviet period. I would expect her to be notable. And searching for her name in Russian does produce a few GBooks and GNews hits - though, to be honest, I'd expect rather more if we could get hold of Russian sources from thirty or forty years ago. However, most of these are probably not online. PWilkinson (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Weak Keep, based solely on the fact that I can't really parse the Russian Wiki article or its sources, and I don't really trust Google Translate. Note also that their Notability requirements may differ from our own in subtle ways. That said, though, being a long-time leading member of a high profile ballet would seem to indicate notability. Contemporary sources may be a problem, as PWilkinson notes, but I think it's likely that the subject is notable under our rules. Maybe someone from Ru.Wiki could pinch hit and help get us going here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:38, 22 February 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) 17:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Planet of Dance encyclopedia entry [7] describes her as an "outstanding teacher of classical dance" (выдающийся педагог классического танца). There are lots of copies of her book Alphabet of Classical Dance available both new and used on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk (actually now one less...) which suggests that it still relevant to an international readership. If we keep the article I can add that quote, tidy up the referencing a bit (the cqout ref is to an expired auction item so can be removed) and see if there is further relevant information in the book when I get it. --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 29 February 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. henrik•talk 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chat Avenue[edit]

Chat Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no significant coverage under both names. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article is being deleted. The notability here is evident. Search up chat rooms online and you will find this site is among the top results. It is one of the most populated and visited chat sites on the net, if not the most popular. I realize there is a lack of third party sources about it, however it is listed and referenced in Yahoo! and chat blogs. --Roomdown657 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 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) 17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Fails notability guidelines and WP:WEB, as per nominator. doktorb _words^deeds 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Appears non-notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:36, 23 February 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. henrik•talk 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glorei[edit]

Glorei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete Unsourced; no indication of notability; promotional; creater was advised and given the opportunity to improve the article but has declined to do so. Rklawton (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello There! I am already working on improving the quality and references of this article, may i kindly have the prod tag - which I mistakenly removed - again and get a couple of days to complete the article improvement process? Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrokhalid (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the prod tag twice and were advised of the consequences. This AfD will take a week. If you can improve the article, then it will no doubt be kept. However, you must demonstrate the subject's notability using reliable sources. If you have a conflict of interest, you must also declare that on your user page and on the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally did not decline its just that getting myself familiarized with the tags and laws again is taking me sometime thou am a coder.. I am hoping to save my only contribution to this great project and once i overcome the deletion issue, i will try to even seek help from other contributers and try to expand to the article in order to reflect why it is so important to keep this article.. I totally understand where you are coming from thou.. I have added some references but somehow were removed! its taking time for providing references as I am trying to select appropriate links; i.e. ones that fit into the wikipedia criteria. Some help in this regard would be highly valued.

Afrokhalid (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy Delete as promotional and non notable corporation Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Found these sources:

• (Stated as sourced from the Oman Daily Observer): GLOREI backs Oman Capital Markets Forum as silver sponsor.
• (Stated as sourced from the Times of Oman): Tawafuq formed.

Found this that may possibly (or may not) be a reprint of a press release:

• From Oman Economic Review: Quality matters

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - For now, based upon the likelihood of sources that address the topic with significant coverage. (See the first two sources in my comment above.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy guidelines at WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Tsiknopoulos[edit]

Erick Tsiknopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced vanity article about an insignificant person. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Possible autobiography, and the author's only attempt to assert notability is through puffery. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a clear case of self-promotion, all puff and no sources. Even includes contact details. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:SPIP. I enjoyed the contact details as well. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 16:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just not finding coverage in reliable sources to qualify this topic's inclusion on Wikipedia per Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's been trying to delete this page and to remove the AfD header from the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 29 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survent[edit]

Survent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I see no coverage apart from the press releases, and even those don't hint about long-term effect on the history of statistics, software or whatever. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:11, 20 February 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) 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Software for telemarketing surveys, it seems. No specific significance in history, technology, or culture outside its narrow trade. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced, promotional intent clear: no indication of notability. Page author also involved with CfMC, Computer-assisted telephone interviewing and Computer-assisted personal interviewing (all linked from article) so perhaps they all need AfD-ing (linked to this AfD?) as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This topic doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, (after several searches). Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:43, 23 February 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. Fails WP:NFOOTY and there is consensus that it doesn't meet WP:GNG either. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schlösser[edit]

Jan Schlösser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:NSPORTS as he only ever made the subs bench for Bayern's first team and also fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep According to WP:NFOOTY: "Players who have appeared...in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." I am not an expert on the subject (which is why my vote is weak), but it seems that being a substitute still counts as "appearing" on a professional team. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has never appeared (i.e. played) in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - never appeared in a leage above the Regionalliga, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet GNG or played in a fully pro league.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: The article could do with another reference or two, but I feel Jan Schlösser at least passes the WP:GNG guidelines for his early career. . Jared Preston (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:41, 23 February 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 as an especially blatant hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Racing[edit]

Medieval Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is about a non-existent organization, probably a joke/hoax page --D-Day (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Almost certainly a hoax, since no other information can be found on the supposed group. None of any of the claimed members have any information indicating that they have any connection to a "Medievel Racing". Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, maybe speedy, definitely looks like a hoax. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 22 February 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. Weakly and mainly per lack of argumentation for deletion. Given the current state of the article, WP:G11 is nearly applicable. henrik•talk 21:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics Disk Defrag[edit]

Auslogics Disk Defrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article was previously submitted through AfC and rejected. It appears the author simply bypassed the official process and created the article anyway.

Also the article is a clear advert. Sabre ball ^{t c} 13:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, the author did not "simply bypass the official process and create the article anyway", but an admin moved it into article space, because I approved the article of it being moved into article space, and another member of WPAFC also approved too, but the article was protected from creation. Check the edit history. --Bmusician 13:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So... you're saying we should or should not delete it? --Sabre ball ^{t c} 13:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will choose to abstain. Regards Bmusician 13:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was the one who moved this out of AfC space to main space, after unprotecting the title per user request, and after being told that the reviewing editor who had initially denied the request for creation had withdrawn his objection. I was involved because I had salted the original page name after several recreations and deletions. Discussion can be seen at User talk:Nolelover#Auslogics Disk Defrag. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the article has quite a few editors' reviews from download sites; even a couple of such reviews were previously considered enough to keep. That said, the article definitely needs complete rewrite, but this problem can be solved out of AfD. BTW, how does all this discussion above (including the nominator's comment) is relevant for AfD? The issue of breaking the AfC process should have been discussed at WP:AN/I, and no actual deletion rationale was suggested here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Ihcoyc and Bmusician, it was accepted at AfC so original rationale is invalid. Sourcing is plentiful. A412 (Talk • C) 01:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm involved as the editor who reviewed the AfC and accepted it (although Ihcoyc actually moved it), so I'll abstain here, but I just want to comment on the nom's rationale. Articles for Creation allows you to submit a page as many times as you want, to as many reviewers as you want. Furthermore, a page can be accepted even if not technically submitted, which I've done many times to pages that have been improved and the newbie will ask us to check out. There was no lapse in process here. Good faith objection, but a common misperception among non-AFC'ers. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Also the article is a clear advert." Not IMBO (in my biased opinion). While some words aren't neutral, the article demonstrates notability of its subject. If it does so by mentioning how well the product did both in downloads and in tests by 3rd parties, then that is a requirement for Wikipedia, not a valid reason for deletion. OTOH, I think that no single defragger is notable enough to deserve an article in its own right yet, although this is one of those that come close. The defragmentation process itself is notable and deserves an article, and the "Auslogics Disk Defrag" article should be one chapter in a long Defragmentation utilities article, ie - it should be merged into such a thing. BTW, the "10 million users" reasoning is flawed, but that has been tagged already. 217.251.155.99 (talk) 07:36, 2 March 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. withdrawn (non-admin closure) mabdul 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eysenck[edit]

Michael Eysenck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although he developed the "theory of the 'hedonic treadmill'" which has it own article - I believe he fails to get the threshold of WP:PROF. mabdul 12:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep According to the Web of Science, MW Eysenck has published over 300 articles, which have been cited over 5000 times, with an h-index of 39. Fifteen of these articles have been cited more than 100 times, with top citation counts of 438, 239, and 170. If one goes to the freely-accessible GScholar, one also finds hundreds of citations for several of his publications. Meets WP:PROF handily. Article could use a lot of re-writing, paring down of the list of publications, etc., but that is not a reason for AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am bewildered by this nomination. If having been a (UK) professor and head of department is not enough, consider one of his many books "Fundamentals of Psychology". In reviews I see "The sheer breadth and scope of this book is amazing", "Eysenck is one of the best known psychologists in Europe and perhaps the best known A-Level psychology writer", "In my opinion Eysenck is the finest textbook author in the world at this level", "This must be surely one of the most comprehensive psychology textbooks in existence", "Twenty years ago Eysenck revolutionized the teaching of cognitive psychology".[8] Debrett's think he is notable.[9] Thincat (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. Guillaume2303's point is conclusive. Eysenck's WoS citation counts are: 438, 239, 154, 148, 142, 136,...far past what WP:PROF #1 suggests. I suggest that in such clear-cut cases, AfDs like this should just be closed straightaway so that we can spend valuable time elsewhere. Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - Eysenck was a staple of undergraduate courses, with, as has been noted, dozens of well-cited (and thousand-essayed) papers as well as major textbooks. He has always been a strong and controversial figure, but non-notable? Hardly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 22 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Villeins[edit]

The Villeins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previous AfD was no consensus following only one vote, which was to delete. This is a non-notable local band, and fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. GiantSnowman 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks coverage in reliable independent sources – fails WP:BAND. --Bmusician 11:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I recently prodded the band's EP as I could find no significant coverage, and a search for the band itself yields only marginally better results; just some pieces of local coverage, as suggested by nom and as evidenced by the article's sources (dead links or otherwise). I'm unable to verify whether the claimed "breaking bands" listing in NME amounts to anything more than a trivial mention.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:47, 22 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verject[edit]

Verject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neologism for which there are no reliable sources to support notability. —Ryulong (竜龙) 09:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Does anyone have access to the (one, so it would not be sufficient in and of itself) source referenced in the article? And if so, could they describe the depth of its coverage? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be mistaken, but I believe it is this PDF. I'm confused though, this is an English translation of a source written in Japanese about Spanish sentence structure? - SudoGhost 10:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just quickly skimmed through the cited source. I would classify it as a work in the philosophy of language, though others may call it theoretical linguistics. In brief, the monograph argues that language reflects the structures of cognition. It re-labels the syntactic role "verb" as "verject", since the former names both a syntactic category and a lexical category. The data for the monograph come from Spanish, but there is no suggestion that "verject" is limited to Spanish. Indeed, the theory (and thus the term) addresses human language generally, though all the linguistic data seems to come from Spanish. Cnilep (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NEO. Aside from the one PDF reference, the only other things I could find online were internet forums discussing the recent "invention" of this word, and how it isn't an actual term. That's not to say non-internet sources don't exist, but it seems very doubtful. - SudoGhost 11:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete - Appears to fail the conditions specified in Wikipedia's policy for the inclusion of articles on neologisms. Unless someone can supply the reliable sources necessary to show that those conditions are satisfied, the article should be deleted. Even if use of the term were to become sufficiently widespread to provoke discussion of its definition in reliable secondary sources, it seems unlikely that there would ever be much scope for an article's including anything more than a bare definition of the term. In that case Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, would seem to be the proper place for it.
  David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. From the sole source given in the article, the term "verject" would appear to be being used to refer to nothing more than the main verb phrase of a sentence. If that's the case, and use of the term were to become sufficiently widespread to provoke discussion of its definition in reliable secondary sources, then the appropriate place for any explanation of it would appear to be in Wikipedia's article Verb phrase.
    David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • David, "verb phrase" in linguistics is limited to generative syntax's use as simply a verb+it's object. And unfortunately the verb page on WP is already such a mess that introducing additional information as is may be detrimental. Allowing verject however would likely allow for greater clarity on that verb phrase.Drew.ward (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no hits on JSTOR.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete -- Being as the concept was presented and published in 2006 (over 5 years ago) it is not a neologism. It is also a unique term for which there is no other word out there. Linguistics is a developing field and when something is contentious it is quickly contested in other published works. If in 5 years no one has bothered to dispute the validity of the concept of verject, it is not likely that it is to be disputed.

  In developing fields, number of sources should not be the primary impetus behind decided whether something is of encyclopedic value or not. The branch of linguistics dealing with how things work holistically is usually called functionalist grammar and has a fairly limited body of work as it's only come into its own since the late 1970's but at the same time the focus of the linguistics community as a whole during this time has been generative syntax which ignores function and supports a different system of analysis in which the verb is tied to its object rather than analyzed separately. Even in this body of work though there is quite a bit of discussion of the concept of verject yet lacking a single term for it, instead is talked around in various periphastic ways.

  The article cited is a translation into English of an article originally written in Japanese with verject proposed in a discussion of Spanish. This shows the universality of the concept as being understandable across three different languages and should be seen as an advantage unlike so many wikipedia articles which attempt to shape linguistic concepts only into a mold reflected a particular editors view of English and ignoring linguistic universals.

  I will concede that this concept is not well published about. It is also fairly poorly understood as it comes from a branch of linguistics that has yet to gain more popularity than Chomskyan schools, and that it will likely be another couple of years before more papers are published on this (because of bias and specific foci of conferences rather than validity). However, I would also point out that the standard practice here on wikipedia (and in much of linguistics) of calling everything from the part of speech to a phrase to a group of items to the verject itself simply "verb" leads to a great deal of confusion among linguists, educators, and lay readers alike and that deleting this article will only sustain and propagate this confusion whereas allowing the concept to be referenced would allow much greater clarity as wikipedia editors would have the versatility of using this concept in the many articles dealing with the concept that currently require a rewrite including grammatical tense, grammatical aspect, grammatcial mood, voice, polarity, and several others.

  If consensus is delete then so be it. However, let that consensus be based on linguistics, clarity, and the like rather than fear of something different than "the norm". And also, please ensure that the same level of scrutiny is applied to verject as is applied across the spectrum of WP and WP linguistics articles. Otherwise there is a massive list of articles that will need to be on this list.Drew.ward (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If in 5 years no one has bothered to dispute the validity of the concept of verject, […] — On the other hand, if in 5 years no-one else has taken the concept on board, then it has failed to escape its creator and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia because it is simply not in the general corpus of human knowledge. If you want to prove otherwise, then prove it the proper way, with source citations of linguists other than its inventor discussing and documenting this concept. This is an encyclopaedia. Consensus isn't to be based upon linguistics and how cool you personally think an idea to be. Consensus should be based upon encyclopaedism — whether this concept has escaped its creator and become a part of the general corpus of documented human knowledge. If it hasn't, then no matter how cool you personally think it to be, and how cool you think it to be to be able write encyclopaedia articles using a novel idea that linguistic scholars and linguistic works simply don't document, it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Make your argument properly, with sources, or you will lose it. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drew -- Question. Given that the article is, at least at this point, a bare dictionary definition, might it not be appropriate to park it instead at Wiktionary? We generally don't host bare dictionary defs.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't advise him to shunt it off to some other project that has lower standards of inclusion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ryulong - what's up with your tone? You seem oddly deadset against this topic. @Epeefleche, most linguistics articles on WP read like definitions at their core with many others being only definitions. However, if a user sees a concept in an article he is unfamiliar with , then being able to click a crosslink to a page on that topic is not only helpful but necessary. I could easily expand this article considerably but felt that as it is new that I limit it to the common concept lest accusations of original research be put forth.Drew.ward (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this case, however, the word is a "constructed" word that, according to everything I found online, has been used by (at most) exactly two people, yourself and one other (the other one being a dubious translation), and has not accepted and used or commented on by anyone in any reliable sources. - SudoGhost 06:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drew.ward, I am deadset against people like yourself trying to get their personal projects on Wikipedia for some sort of level of international acknowledgement when they should not be using this site to promote their original ideas or other personal items. No one aside from yourself has ever used the word "verject" before, and some Japanese publication translated into English should not be used as a way to promote your fringe linguistics concept.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ryulong, I do not nor have I ever used WP as a soapbox. In fact I spend most of my time working to keep opinions and such out of the various linguistics articles on here. You on the other hand are using this deletion debate in exactly the way you are accusing me. Because you seem to disagree with the idea of the article you are declaring it original research, soapboxing, and the like. Arguing to keep something you don't like out of WP (and further arguing against its inclusion in other wikis) because you don't like it or don't like that another admin was challenged on it originally, is exactly the type of behavior WP:SOAP is meant to prevent.Drew.ward (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Drew, your arguments convinced me this article had no place (yet?) in Wikipedia. -- Luk ^talk 11:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there aren't reliable sources discussing the term, then there shouldn't be an article on it. As simple as that. If Drew can, in the future, get some reliable sources to discuss and use the term, then he can resubmit the article with those references included. Silverseren^C 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ryulong exactly what qualifications do you have that allow you to judge this as fringe or not? Also, this is not my original research and if it were there would be a lot more to the article.

Regarding the source -- why is there such insistence that this is not a valid or acceptable source? I also don't see why the fact that the document was written by a Japanese linguist and originally in Japanese has anything to do with anything. As to the quality of the translation, the translation was carried out by the original author and the quality of the English is far greater than most of that found in wikipedia articles and in the various comments left by admins including those disputing its quality here.Drew.ward (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no need for any qualifications. A simple search in academic journals shows there's nothing about this term that you are grasping onto.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There IS no need...(grammar and all since we're talking about language). In fact though, your statement shows the ignorance of such a claim. Beyond the idea that someone shouldn't question and judge material for which they are not equipped to properly analyze, anyone working successfully in many fields, especially linguistics, would know that there is no such thing as a "simple search" and that simply plugging a set of terms into Google or JSTOR rarely returns effective results.Drew.ward (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. The article should be written so that someone with no previous knowledge of the subject should be able to view the article and gain some measure of understanding of what they are reading, and to be able to judge for themselves the notability of the subject based on the reliable sources presented. Therefore, the "qualifications" of an editor are completely irrelevant to any AfD discussion. If the article and its reliable sources are presented in such a way that only "qualified" individuals can asses the information presented, then the article has critically failed in its purpose. Furthermore, if anyone is "not equipped to properly analyze" this article, it is only because the article is lacking the very basic "equipment" that every Wikipedia article is expected to have, reliable sources. This article, as presented, does not belong on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 06:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my point. The article is written in such a way but the source is being deemed unreliable. In technical fields, although the articles itself should be written toward a lay audience, judging the quality of sources should require more than lay understanding. Most articles by Chomsky seem like gibberish if the person reading them doesn't have a background in linguistics and in his case especially if that person hasn't already read all of the previously written things by Chomsky. However, I doubt that anyone here would declare one of his essays unreliable simply because a third grader in Wisconsin can't understand it. Whether this article meets overall wikipedia standards is one thing, but who and how can effectively judge the quality and reliability of sources is a very important issue as the pattern and attitude seen here would limit wikipedia to only "popular" writings and if policies are to be applied evenly, many articles and many more sources within articles would need to be removed.Drew.ward (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per User:Silver seren, couldn't have said it better myself. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no other scholarly sources using the term. Although it seems like a useful distinction, it is not one that is established in linguistics or philosophy. (See also my comments above in response to Epeefleche.) Cnilep (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the lack of sufficient coverage in multiple RSs, and the fact that it is a dicdef. I'm open to reconsidering should these issues be shown to be addressed, but at the moment I believe this does not meet our criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also failed to find any independent sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:40, 29 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean by-election, 2012[edit]

Singaporean by-election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, the by-election is not confirmed when and may not even happen, hence the article is created too early. Xaiver0510 (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for nominator's reasons. The Government of Singapore takes the position that it has full discretion as to if, and when, to call by-elections, and it has only said it is carefully considering the matter so it is not at all confirmed that a by-election will be held. Furthermore, the Clerk of Parliament has given the Member of Parliament who was expelled from his political party until Friday, 24 February, to let her know whether he wishes to contest his expulsion. Thus, no decision on whether his Parliamentary seat has been vacated will be made until after 24 February. (Also, the unsourced statement "The PAP still continues to use controlled media to brainwash the masses from voting for alternative parties" is hardly NPOV ... :-) ) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the time that you wrote that comment, sources had been published contradicting you for an hour. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The by-elections have not been declared. The content merely links to speculation in the news media. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is going to be a saddening discussion to watch, I predict. Not only did the nomination coincide with reports of a development that made it certain that there is going to be a by-election. But the discussion closure is going to coincide with the publication of the news reports covering what happens about this in the Singapore Parliament on the 28th, its next sitting according to the sources cited here. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The Speaker of Parliament has declared the Parliamentary seat in question vacated, but, as I mentioned previously, this does not necessarily mean a by-election will be called. Unlike in other countries, the Singapore Government asserts that it has broad discretion as to whether or not to call a by-election, and that it is entitled not to call one at all and to leave the seat vacant till the next general election: see, for example, [10] ("Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said there is no fixed time within which he must call a by-election") and [11] ("In 2008, PM Lee told Parliament that the timing of one 'is the prerogative of the PM. He has full discretion and he is not obliged to call a by-election within any fixed timeline'."). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The San Jose Group[edit]

The San Jose Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. This reads like an advert, and looks like it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I see quite a few Google Books hits in trade magazines and marketing books, but not enough for us to have an article on it, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another advertising agency (this one specializes in multicultural lifestyle and behavioral marketing solutions) advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 unambiguous advertising + Delete as failing WP:CORP. Yet another advertising company implementing their "premier" and "leading" "social" blah-blah-blah spamming-Wikipedia-is-social-media whatever. References fail under WP:CORPDEPTH: A quick search of the first few pages of Google News archives finds only one mention (a Chicago Tribune article) that might be of any substance; the rest is either the usual press release emission, or unrelated generic references to groups of people from towns named San Jose. --Closeapple (talk) 00:35, 24 February 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. Per WP:KEEP #2: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination)". (non-admin closure) Bmusician 08:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Brooks[edit]

Alison Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no enough notable sources sited Alice0000 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Bad faith nomination - apparently was nominated only as a retaliation for this AfD nomination. Klilidiplomus+Talk 07:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Obvious trolling Per Klilidiplomus. --Bmusician 07:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Clearly notable Lithoderm 07:59, 22 February 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Atalebe[edit]

Stephen Atalebe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced article since April 2010 of a non notable person who seems to have written one book which seems to be not notable either. TMCk (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:Author as there is nothing to show that the individual is notable in the slightest. At least one, if not all, of the claimed books were self-published, and based on the username of the page creator, it was autobiographical to begin with. Its kind of embarassing that it actually lasted on Wikipedia this long. Rorshacma (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no sources out there to show that this self-published author has any notability. All of his novels that are currently available are all being published through CreateSpace, Amazon's self-publishing arm. There's one that doesn't seem to be in print that was published by a non-self published source, but getting published by anyone is not enough to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete. I personally don't want this article to be deleted, but there's not much else that can be done to save it. Parts of it are blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, unsourced, far from neutral, and with no evidence whatsoever that the man is notable. If the article's subject can be found notable, as evidenced by reliable, trustworthy sources, then it should be re-created by a user who will write it in an impartial way. dci | TALK 23:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator.TMCk (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to Google Books, he has written 3 books. One was published by "the Author" and the other two were published by CreateSpace (Amazon self publishing). These works clearly do not satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I see no evidence of WP:GNG.-- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:57, 26 February 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 to User:Jeffwang/Wikiunity. Note that userfication isn't a permanent alternative to deletion, but rather a way to offer the editor time to refine the article and address concerns raised here (such as lack of obvious notability). If it sits for a while, and no progress seems imminent, an editor can bring it to Miscellany for Deletion and have the draft deleted in that manner. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiunity[edit]

Wikiunity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability, a google search reveals that said subject has not been covered by independent reliable sources as required by the notability guidelines. Alexa rank is not an indication of notability. Netalarm^talk 06:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to userspace. --J (t) 12:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 22 February 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. henrik•talk 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LG GX500[edit]

LG GX500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Contested prod. No indication of notability. Not every mobile phone manufactured deserves its own article. No references. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Time is not the concern, the content is. This has no context or much content. Unless expanded upon, it should be deleted. Kinkreet (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 15 February 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, Bmusician 06:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete for lack of sourcing or obvious notability. I thought a redirect to List_of_LG_mobile_phones#GX_series might make sense, but there are only two incoming links and that's one of them. So, no need. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:07, 22 February 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 Cowon. henrik•talk 21:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cowon America[edit]

Cowon America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:NCORP specifically discourage creation of the articles about the companies' branches and I see no reason to believe that this article is somehow special. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:12, 16 February 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, Bmusician 06:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge to Cowon Systems per Czarkoff. They were a fairly significant company in the portable audio player industry for a while, but that industry has pretty much collapsed due to smartphones, so Cowon is trending towards less significance rather than more. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cowon Systems per 67.117.145.9. —Ruud 23:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added all the relevant info from the source to the proposed target (Cowon). Though not much, as the source is 3 sentences long. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:24, 27 February 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 (and salt). —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wooday P Krishna[edit]

Dr. Wooday P Krishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This unsourced biographical article about a not so notable person has been created thrice after deletion. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Judging by the creator's username, this is pretty blatant WP:ARTSPAM. The text is copied from the subject/creator's website (which is a piece of work in itself). Wikipedia is not the place to sing your own praises. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while it's not a complete copyvio of his website, there's enough direct lifts I would have no problem with this getting speedied under G12. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As the article has been deleted before as well, I request the administrators to make the title "Create protected" for atleast a month. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. nothing notable here, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 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. Also delete The Zone FC 10 henrik•talk 21:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Zone FC[edit]

The Zone FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an unsourced article with no indication of notability. My search found a lot of ghits, but a lack of good (IMO) reliable sources. I see blogs and youtube entries, as well as the organization's website, but perhaps someone can find some reliable sources in all those hits. I have stronger feelings that the event mentioned below should be deleted.

I am also nominating the following related page because this event has no independent sources and appears to just be routine sports results:

The Zone FC 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Papaursa (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete the event, weak delete the organization It's clear the event fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. There may well be reliable sources in that mess of google hits for the organization, but the article is unsourced and the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned above there are a lot of hit on Google and Google News, but it seems mostly be forums, blogs and routine event results and organization profiles. I think we'd be hard pressed to find significant coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:59, 29 February 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, housekeeping, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Games (disambiguation)[edit]

No Games (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems like all entries except No Games itself are WP:NPOV commentary rather than citably used terms as names for the entries. DAB pages are only for actual terms used as identifiers, not lists of pages an adjective might describe. DMacks (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not WP:NPOV commentary. The PS3 has a fame of having no games. Maybe I can put it a bit more subtle as to not implied as if that were true.--Deltasama (talk) 04:36, 22 February 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.