< 1 July	3 July >

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. -Scottywong | communicate _ 15:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DAYDREAMER[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only primary sources given and appears to have been created by Mueller. Google searches not revealing anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing useful. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There might be one or two non-primary sources, but I'll have to search a little harder. There's a criticism of Mueller's work in this book and he's mentioned here and here, but even if there are enough RS to warrant keeping, the article will have to be almost completely re-written.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That book ref isn't bad. (It's better than I've seen used to support keeps in some AfDs.) If you or someone else can spot another that good, that would be enough for me. Msnicki (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is Dyer directly involved in Mueller's research? If not, then a paper by him and him alone could be considered a RS if he's an authoritative source when it comes to research of this nature. [1] Mueller is also mentioned in these research papers as well, so some of these could be usable: [2], [3], [4], [5] (this one has distortion issues, but he was mentioned in a NASA paper), [6] (this is a MIT student's paper, but might be usable if the student later became notable). I don't know all of what I'm looking at, so I'll refrain from voting or editing the article, but I did find enough to where someone with more experience might be able to sort through this and see what can be used.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though controvercial, there are independent reliable sources that reviewed it, therefore it is notable. I agree with Tokyogirl79 about re-writing the article, but re-writing does not necessarily mean deletion. The problems can be fixed under normal editing practices. Perhaps starting with a stub.Tamsier (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some third-party publications that discuss, mention, or cite DAYDREAMER:
- Rosalind W. Picard. Affective Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.
- Philip N. Johnson-Laird. Human and Machine Thinking. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1993.
- Marvin Minsky. Society of Mind: A response to four reviews. Artificial Intelligence, 48:371–396, 1991.
- John S. Antrobus. Toward a neurocognitive processing model of imaginal thought. In Jefferson A. Singer and Peter Salovey, editors, At Play in the Fields of Consciousness: Essays in Honor of Jerome L. Singer, pages 3–28. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1999.
- Jon Rowe and Derek Partridge. Creativity: A survey of AI approaches. Artificial Intelligence Review, 7(1):43–70, 1993.
- Joseph Bates, A. Bryan Loyall, and W. Scott Reilly. An architecture for action, emotion, and social behavior. In Cristiano Castelfranchi and Eric Werner, editors, Artificial Social Systems, volume 830 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 55–68. Springer, Berlin, 1994.
- Daniel Deslauriers and George W. Baylor. The usefulness of the script concept for characterizing dream reports. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 496–502, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988. Lawrence Erlbaum.
- George W. Baylor and Daniel Deslauriers. Dreams as problem solving: A method of study - Part I: Background and theory. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 6(2):105–118, 1986.
- Rachel Karniol and Michael Ross. The motivational impact of temporal focus: Thinking about the future and the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 47:593–620, 1996.
- Thomas Wehrle and Klaus R. Scherer. Toward computational modeling of appraisal theories. In Klaus R. Scherer, Angela Schorr, and Tom Johnstone, editors, Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, pages 350–368. Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
- Alberto Greco. Integrating "different" models in cognitive psychology. Cognitive Systems, 4(1):21–32, 1994.
- John H. Andreae. Associative Learning: For a Robot Intelligence. Imperial College Press, London, 1998.
- Harwood Fisher. Self, Logic, and Figurative Thinking. Columbia University Press, New York, 2008.
- Scott R. Turner. The Creative Process. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994.
- George W. Atkinson. Chess and Machine Intuition. Intellect, 1998.
- Syed I. Ahson. Daydreaming robots. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics, pages 342–346, Oita, Japan, 2000.
- William B. Gevarter. MoCog1: A computer simulation of recognition-primed human decision making. Technical Report FIA-91-23, Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center, 1991.
- Paul Martin. Counting Sheep: The Science and Pleasures of Sleep and Dreams. Thomas Dunne, New York, 2004.
- David C. Moffat and Nico H. Frijda. Functional models of emotion. In Giyoo Hatano, Naoyuki Okada, and Hirotaka Tanabe, editors, Affective Minds, pages 59–68. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000.
- Akifumi Tokosumi. A computational literary theory: The ultimate products of the brain/mind machine. In Tadashi Kitamura, editor, What Should Be Computed to Understand and Model Brain Function?, pages 43–51. World Scientific, Singapore, 2001.
- Hirohide Ushida, Yuji Hirayama, and Hiroshi Nakajima. Emotion model for life-like agent and its evaluation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Tenth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pages 62–69, Menlo Park, CA, 1998. AAAI Press.

Etm (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay, I'm satisfied. The article needs improvement but that's irrelevant to the question of notability, which is the only thing we need to establish at AfD. I'm satisfied by the arguments offered by Tokyogirl97 and Etm that there are sufficient sources. Thanks to both of you for your efforts. Msnicki (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of the new verifiable, third-party sources. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-primary sources cited. I came to the article as it was listed at WP:Copyright problems. On investigation, I found that virtually the entire text of the article was verbatim from:

Mueller, Erik T. (1990). Daydreaming in humans and machines. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

I've had to reduce it to a stub, but have added enough references to it for anyone who wants to re-expand the article to get started. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 9 July 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; deleted by user Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) at 01:22, July 3, 2012 with the following rationale: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: dubious notability, but obvious spam (non-admin closure). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jason (television)[edit]

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

Despite receiving an Emmy for directing a documentary, this person does not appear notable per the notability guideline for biographies. I Googled for sources using the term "Robert Jason" television. Google Books hits seemed to be false positives / brief mentions, Google News hits were brief mentions of him directing an upcoming documentary produced by Janet Jackson, while Google News archives hits were also false positives / brief mentions. The notability guideline for biographies specifically states that well-known awards make people more likely to be notable, but do not guarantee notability, and I feel that Jason lacks the independent, reputable coverage necessary to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert created VH1 reality show Transform me and the Style Network documentary "Born Male Living Female", now he is producing the Janet Jackson documentary ""Truth", this 3 shows are about transgender people, he is making a great contribution to transgender rights. However he is a well known filmmaker but I need some hours to populate the article with references, external links, and more info about his career. Please allow me to work on this the next 48 hours so you will have more information to evaluate his notability. Unfortunately "Robert Jason" is a common name so google is not a good tool to evaluate his reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidyjimenez (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds quite reasonable, but unfortunately, someone else has already speedily deleted the article under this criterion. I apologize for wasting your time with this. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 July 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. -Scottywong | chat _ 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lachezar Angelov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

G4 Speedy deletion was contested without providing a reason. He still has not played in a fully pro league, and he still has not received significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as lacking indepth coverage in independent third party sources, as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league or represented his country at senior level, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 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. -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuukit[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Only independent, reliable source is a local news article about the company. Singularity42 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP with no WP:RS --Artene50 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:per nom. -- Dewritech (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one local news article doesn't confer notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as lacking indepth coverage in independent third party sources, as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 8 July 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. A move discussion on the talk page may be warranted. -Scottywong | comment _ 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albums considered the greatest ever[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely subjective inclusion criteria, fails WP:Source list. Note that this article is essentially a new version of Albums that have been considered the greatest ever, which was moved and later deleted at AfD. Tgeairn (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not completely subjective - it's a list of albums that have been selected as the best of all time by a notable publication. That seems a clear criterion. The information belongs on Wikipedia because it's mentioned in the entries on many of these albums, the only question is whether we need an index article to this info. If it was restricted to best album lists that were discussed in secondary sources[7][8][9][10][11][12], or those in lists which have Wikipedia articles (e.g. The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, All Time Top 1000 Albums), would that satisfy notability guidelines? It's illogical to mention in an article that an album is number one in a list, but not have a list that indexes to that article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of course this is subjective. Who decides what lists are pertinent for inclusion criteria? Who weights the lists against one another? How come some lists from some "notable publications" are included and not others? The ten selections here cherrypick from some lists, haphazardly. This is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Ravenswing 11:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the validity of this argument. If you would like to add an well-sourced entry, there's nothing stopping you. — goethean ॐ 12:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(neutral) I'd like to point out that we do have Seven Wonders of the World and that ranking albums is something that is debated in notable publications. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To answer the two comments above: Which makes the list indiscriminate into the bargain. What constitues a "well-sourced entry" here? My hometown newspaper has been deemed a reliable source. Would its Top Twenty All-Time Albums count?
As far as the Seven Wonders go, that is a well-acknowledged list going back centuries; its provenance is not in dispute, nor are the particular wonders in question. Beyond that, that ranking albums is discussed in notable publications is irrelevant; what makes this particular synthesis notable, and why would it be any more notable than if I replaced the list with one of my own liking, citing the Top Album lists which I claimed buttressed my choices? Ravenswing 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is considered reliable about the subject, and if it makes a claim about an album being the "greatest ever", it can be listed in the article. This seems like standard procedure. The NYT would be considered a better source than a heretofore unknown paper, but that doesn't make this article different from any other article. And I don't think that the list of Sevens Wonders is closed to debate. — goethean ॐ 15:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - In practice, including anything that is or can be reliably sourced would create an unbounded list subject only to editorial whim as to what gets included and what doesn't. If I pull out a stack of early 60s magazines I will find different albums for inclusion than if I use a current stack, and next year will bring a different set. For an example of editorial selection, see this conversation on the article talk page. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it seems that this makes this article just like lots of other articles, where the determination of better and worse sources is determined by consensus on the talk page. It seems to me that there has not been much interest or discussion/debate on the talk page, which arguably may have resulted in a somewhat arbitrary list. But, as with other articles, the remedy for that is article improvement, not deletion. — goethean ॐ 19:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Although my knee-jerk reaction was initially delete when I read the title, I see that this entry is really a variety of a "List of lists" type of article, which is acceptable per the guidelines. It needs clean-up, it REALLY needs a new title. I don't feel that it's SYNTH or OR, because I see no novel conclusions being made, except one. It appears that the albums are ranked based on some sort of weighting within the lists. The albums would have to be ordered based on release date or something. We know which lists are notable, since they're the ones on Wikipedia... but that doesn't leave many lists, which is a problem. Roodog2k (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Roodog2k: "...I see that this entry is really a variety of a "List of lists" type of article, which is acceptable per the guidelines...." — goethean ॐ 19:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of lists is fine. Topic is encyclopedic. Greglocock (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced (not greatly, but it is), and as Greglocock said, the topic is encyclopedic. I suggest moving to List of albums considered the greatest, similar to List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. Statυs (talk) 06:40, 5 July 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 all. Notability of these individual prisoners is not sufficiently established. I am willing to userfy these articles on request if anyone would like to merge information on the detainees to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Hadi Mohammed Badan Al Sebaii Sebaii[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBigXray 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. (Note I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [13] [14] [15] was Delete --DBigXray 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Guantanamo" gets 136,000 hits on Google News. Are we to believe that this is because of the architecture of the internment facility there? Or perhaps the guards, or their uniforms?

It is said that notability is not inherited, but this is a red herring. Not inherited from what, exactly? It is the other way around, Guantanamo is discussed because of the imprisonment of the subjects of these articles: 10,000 hits for the over 98 years between 1/1/1903, the year the base was founded, and 9/11/2001, the year, you know, that thing, happened. Google hits for the less than 11 years between 9/11 and today now total 136,000. Gitmo, before prisoners, got 100 articles a year; once prisoners were moved there, it go well over 10,000 a year. Gitmo prisoners are 100 times as notable as their prison.

A score or two of Gitmo prisoner articles have been deleted, first on the basis of an outdated interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY rule that forbad all primary sources, and now an invocation of GNG that clearly contradicts the facts. Guantanamo prisoners have always been notable, and are a clear case for WP:IAR to bypass the contradiction with GNG. The article, like all Guantanamo prisoner articles, has been savagely cut, from a 32k article down to only 2k bytes Anarchangel (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Gitmo is notable, the prisoner issue is notable, individual prisoners are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination: notability isn't established for any of these articles. The above 'keep' vote obviously isn't based on the relevant guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:BLP) and is basically an example of a WP:INHERITED argument. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following, as once they all had the Summary of Evidence memo information removed, there is very little material outside of what is in the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees and no notability other than their detention:

~~Keep~~Weak Keep for reasons stated:

Mcewan (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mcewan for taking a look at the articles. But I must also inform that the two articles that have been suggested for keep has issues.

Ohmed Ahmed Mahamoud Al Shurfa has only a passing reference in the media, which was coverage "on transfer of prisoners" rather than the "coverage of the subject" in particular.

Mohammad al-Shumrani There is no coverage in the news, Please provide links of the news you are referring to. --DBigXray 22:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmed Ahmed Mahamoud Al Shurfa - fair enough - and changed to Weak Keep.

Mohammad al-Shumrani - You are right: my apologies. What I saw I must have imagined or it must have rotted away. Changed to Delete. Mcewan (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All articles don't have in-depth coverage by secondary sources, and therefore fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Still WP:BLP1E for all, being arrested and held in Gitmo is not a noteworthy enough of a single event to surpass 1E even where there is scant reliable Source coverage. Tarc (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my addition of two new refs to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the links Stuartyeates, sadly both of them are unable to establish Notability here

cageprisoners.com Primary source on Guantanamo Prisoners with its routine articles, does not establish Notability.
Guantanamo Bay detainee file primary source see the link above. --DBigXray 11:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Also there is nothing WP:N about them. →TSU ^tp* 15:06, 8 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Landmark Hotel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No in depth coverage in reliable Indian media. All I see are some user generated blogs and reviews on Tripadvisor and Cleartrip. The article mentions some controversies related to the hotel, but they have nothing to do with the hotel as such. Propose to delete. — westeros91 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 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 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom; refs etc.: nothing to meet WP:GNG.-- Dewritech (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: It is shocking to see that a five star hotel does not have any coverage in newspapers. But, has to be deleted per WP:GNG Anbu121 (talk me) 08:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not having luck finding sources, just a nice notel.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:04, 9 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion Challenge[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem relevant to Wikipedia. NaBUru38 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 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 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 20:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable event, literally nothing on the web as far as I can see other than a couple of PDFs of newsletters on the school's own website -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete as per nom and ChrisTheDude. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Family Organization. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irit Rosenblum[edit]

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

Created by article subject. Possible self-promotion. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks notabilty--Shrike (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either this or New Family Organization and redirect one to the other. Rosenblum/her organization appear to be notable based on their involvement in several notable cases (with Rosenblum as the lawyer) and so on, but there is no need for separate articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there are elements of this which do seem to be self-promotion of some form, I don't think it's a case for deletion. The references are sufficient to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. But the self-promotion elements do need to change.Squareanimal (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to New Family Organization (which is needs a complete re-write but has references). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not yet notable enough for bio article. --Shuki (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to New Family Organization. Presented references insufficient, IMHO, to pass WP:BIO or WP:BASIC; a reasonable search finds nothing directly detailing, but other more determined searchers may find something which meets WP:IRS. I think a merge is the best option. BusterD (talk) 22:29, 9 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Markelis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Theodore Markelis

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

He has not played a senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 games for Vicenza and 8 games for Australia u20 national team, senior career commenced when he turned 18 as Theo had signed a 2 year professional contract for Vicenza.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbourne.sport (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were not senior appearance for Vicenza, appearances were in the reserves. Junior international caps are irrelevant in this discussion. Has signed a pro contract but the fact remains he hasn't made a senior appearance therefore fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 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 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 20:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I found a few sources, and there are a few more if you search "Theo Markelis". --99of9 (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he hasn't played in a fully professional league yet, or represented his country at senior level, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erin umberg[edit]

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

Contested prod. Biography of a young scientist who is starting her career but is nowhere close to meeting the basic requirements for biographical articles or the ones specific to academics. Pichpich (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't DeleteGiven her family background and young career and military ranking, I would consider this a valid addition to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.194.62 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — 128.195.194.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Unless that military background or family background has resulted in in-depth coverage of Erin Umberg in reliable third-party sources then this article cannot stay on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the only existing coverage is related to a harassment charge with absolutely no encyclopedic interest. Pichpich (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable yet per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A total of 2 cites on Google Scholar. No possibility of passing WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Far, far, far too early. Negligible sources. Author of article seems to be confusing Wikipedia with Facebook. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No doubt a worthy individual, but fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. -- 202.124.75.150 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Good luck Erin; when you're a prof with more articles etc., hope to see you again. Till then, see the WP:PROF guidelines for why we've deleted. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Erin Umberg is a professor. Her background is of interst to a wide group of people. In addtion, she is part of a well known politcal/miltary family - particularly in California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.135.78 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — 63.241.135.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Don't DeleteSeems reasonable given that both of her parents are prominent political figures in California, so would be of general interest to many. That, in addition to her authorships and professor position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.11.116 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC) — 76.87.11.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Several anon spas are arguing for keep on the basis that the subject comes from a family background prominent in political and military affairs. The subject's father appears to be Tom Umberg, a minor politician and former Guantanamo prosecutor. There is a complaint on his talk page that unfavorable material has been removed from it by spas. Be this as it may, notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. All WP:OR, no WP:RS, and no obvious pass of any of the standard notability guidelines. Agricola44 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per Michael Scott Cuthbert and Agricola44. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:SCHOLAR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Her parents may be notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED --Joshuaism (talk) 20:53, 9 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Varnell[edit]

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

Fails to meet the requirements for biographical articles. The film career of this comedian is too thin (a minor part in a B-movie and another one in a single episode of a cable show) for the requirements of WP:NACTOR and I cannot find reliable sources that discuss him in any sort of detail. The current references in the article are to databases that confirm the birth and death of someone named Patrick Varnell but there's no way to connect that to this actor/comedian. Pichpich (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search of Patrick Varnell will bring up 'Patrick Varnell The Stick' automatically. Although he has only appeared in one movie and TV show, the character has become a cult favourite and people on the Internet are trying to find out details of his life and death — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisbickle87 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You say that "A quick Google search of Patrick Varnell will bring up 'Patrick Varnell The Stick'". Surprisingly enough that appears to be true. However what follows is (on my computer) a grand total of seven links, two of which are his Wikipedia bio and the Wiki article on the film, three are to an identical tumblr comment and the last two are a french review of the film where his name is mentioned. What we are looking for is in-depth coverage in reliable sources so Internet chatter isn't sufficient. Pichpich (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was to be deleted, would you be able to keep the details on the Student Bodies page? (birthdate and date of death) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisbickle87 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, I would say no because the sources are weak and not explicitly connected to the comedian. Every bit of information on Wikipedia should be verifiable through reliable sources. Without these the speculation about his date of birth and death will need to stay in chat rooms. Pichpich (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Not enough good referencesHairy poker monster (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage in independent reliable third party sources, as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:55, 8 July 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 does need more encyclopedic information, Keep !voters please work on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morenu[edit]

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

This is pretty much a dictionary definition of a Hebrew word. Dtm1234 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DICDEF. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's an important stub, not just about a word, but about a rabbinic position and title as part of a larger picture relating to Haredi Judaism. I have added the categories of Category:Hebrew words and phrases and Category:Orthodox rabbinic roles and titles for clarification, and just by delving into them one can see right away that this stub is part of a very much larger important subject. IZAK (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps then you could add some information to the article beyond it's simple definition? I agree that the term is commonly used to refer to Roshei Yeshiva and other big rabbis; however, I don't think that there is really much here to say beyond what it means. Dtm1234 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Totally agree with IZAK. --Coin945 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DICDEF.

Oh, sorry, was that a vague wave? I mean these bits: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written." and "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic... but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns." It seems likely that this article can and should be expanded to discuss the role and its relationship to Rabbi. Cnilep (talk) 05:52, 6 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Monroe[edit]

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

The only claim to fame here is that the subject supposedly won two Grabby Awards, but a perusal of that article and a Google News search suggests that that award is of marginal and questionable notability. Otherwise, this person seems to fail PORNBIO and GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO as the Grabby Awards are not a well-known and significant industry award, such as the AVN Award. Unable to find any independent, reliable references that go into any detail. Bgwhite (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO and is little more than a pretext for promoting a blog WP:Linkspam BO | Talk 07:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:49, 25 June 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, Davewild (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --99of9 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. in particular agreement about the (in)significance of the Grabby awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:14, 6 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enamel signs in argentine[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly written, poorly referenced, wrong tone for WP, does not fit in with current articles, and may be a copy vio. Ok, all but the latter are not grounds for deletion but collectively it screams "Delete". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Making vague accusations of copyvio is improper. Note that Jimmy Wales is today reported as saying "The internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement." The general topic of enamel signs is notable as there are multiple books devoted to it. We ought to start with a high level of coverage and so I have started a stub, enamel sign. The particular coverage of the matter in Argentina might form a section in that, pending further digging. 13:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DGG left a note on the talk page about the copy vio. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:11, 25 June 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, Davewild (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Most of it isn't even about enamel signs, but about posters. The little that is is WP:OR and/or unreferenced. Nothing worth merging to Enamel sign. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:34, 3 July 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. deleted as copyvio The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A2 Wind Tunnel[edit]

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

CSD was declined, but the article still has no references and no indications of notability. Also, its creator and major contributor seems to have WP:COI. Specs112 t c 13:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As wind tunnels go, it's notable. I found sources that state that it's used in research, by companies such as Porsche and Trek (bicycles). Lance Armstrong used it for training/research. AfDs on niche items can be difficult. A merge to Wind tunnel may be in order, too. Roodog2k (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:08, 25 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from [17] -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 6 July 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. A rough consensus developed that, although much of the sourcing in the article currently is insufficient to show notabilty, there are sufficient reliable sources (particularly the independently written books) to keep the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iain King[edit]

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

I found this with a WP:PROD template, but, as a recreated article, it is ineligible for that deletion procedure. The reason given in the deletion proposal was "I'm unable to find any independent, reliable references about him. Without good references per WP:SOURCES, the article cannot remain." I agree with that rationale. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep (I'd !vote "neutral" if that was an option) - see below. He is indeed mentioned in the reference provided in the article, and it seems a sound enough source. However, I couldn't find any others, and without other sources evidence of notability is a bit lacking. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. King's work is becoming increasing well known in some philosophy departments and easily meets Wikipedia criteria for retention.Chriscook54321 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable reference goes into any detail about him. Refs are just some quotes, his books and backing up facts like he was a Cambridge fellow. Bgwhite (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is my opinion that this easily meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for writers/authors, for 'multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.' First, there are two detailed pages analysing Iain King's ideas critically in Geoff Crocker's 2010 book available and verifiable here[[18]]. Second, there are two pages about Iain King in Roman Kzrnaric's 2012 book, available and verifiable here[19], published by Pan Macmillan, a large and much respected publisher. All indications are that these are independent sources - they are also extensive (should the main article quote from them some more?). Then there is the Liberal Democrat element: Chriscook54321 cites a Liberal Democrat news piece which suggests he has influenced the junior partner in the UK's coalition Government, which must indicate significance. That newspaper does not seem to be online, so I cannot verify it. But it is quoted on the publisher's website, and the publisher is a division of Bloomsbury, who are large and highly-respected, so the assertion must be credible. Then there are shorter references in Gary Cox's 2010 book, verifiable here [[20]], a CNN interview, verifiable here [[21]], and several other references, such as to American Universities now provided in the article. Surely the Wikipedia criteria are met, and this article is informative and useful. Felixthehamster (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixthehamster (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- CNN interview establishes authority on the subject and while all the other references have some problems (too close too author, semi-RS, or short mention) there are enough of them to establish notability as a writer and thinker. (does not pass WP:PROF, but it seems that the GNG is satisfied). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve just added several more references including one from the Sunday Observer, the best-selling English-language newspaper in Sri Lanka, in which Iain King was discussed alongside Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche. Obviously, he’s not actually as important as Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche (nowhere near), but that must definitely make him notable enough for Wikipedia. If he’d been discussed that way in the best-selling newspaper in the UK or US, I'm sure there’d be no questions about him being notable enough. (Or does that make him only notable enough for Sri Lanka's Wikipedia? And does this discussion mean Wikipedia is biased towards British and American sources? Or even subtly racist? I hope not!) By the way, chapters from Iain King’s book were also on my philosophy reading list at University, which was for the same course studied by David Cameron, so Iain King’s ideas might be a basic text for Britain’s Prime Minister 25 years from now. Definitely keep, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollie Cromwell (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see a lot of mentions of him, but I still can't see any significant coverage by sources that are both reliable and independent of King himself, so I'm still not convinced that he passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. Regarding the mention in the Sunday Observer - he was mentioned, yes, but it was only a couple of sentences, and I wouldn't really count that as "significant". If there was just one more really solid source, then I might change my mind, but I'm not quite convinced yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are now at least two books - proper books by respected publishers, one of them quite critical, the other neutral, each of which give two full pages on Iain King. Then also a lengthy CNN interview, and the coverage in Sri Lanka's best selling newspaper is a full paragraph - more than on most of the other philosophers mentioned in the piece, such as Jean Paul Satre. Surely all four of these sources count as both reliable and independent? If not, why not? Ollie Cromwell (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Mr. Stradivarius, who wants (yet) another source, I found this: yet another book with a chapter on Iain King: [22] I accept it's probably not as reliable as the other sources - it contains chapters on several Fellows of Wolfson College, Cambridge, not just Iain King, and it's either out of print, or a print-on-demand book. But the fact is the publishers did choose to give Iain King a full chapter and space alongside people like Kiri Te Kanawa (who seems to be the most famous Fellow of Wolfson, Cambridge). So can we assume the publishers are independent? Or, like the other books which discuss Iain King, are the publishers automatically considered suspect? Ollie Cromwell (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to go through all the new sources tonight, but just to comment on the Books LLC source you linked to there - Books LLC originally took that material from Wikipedia, so using it would be circular sourcing. It wouldn't really make sense to source Wikipedia to itself. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main wikipedia page now has about twenty different sources of varying strengths, lengths and forms - how many sources do there need to be? I ask that genuinely, not rhetorically; there already seem to be more for the Iain King entry than most other biographies on Wikipedia. The balance of evidence certainly seems to point to 'multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject', which is the criteria for notability Ollie Cromwell (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of different references, and many of them. Hairy poker monster (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article now fairly easily meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE (but not WP:PROF); and I see lots of references added after some of the earlier 'delete' comments (which may no longer apply). So, as long as it starts 'Iain King is a writer', GNG is met and its a definite 'Keep'.Squareanimal (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm still not convinced about the suitability of the new sources. For example, the CNN interview was asking King's opinions on the situation in Kosovo, but it doesn't actually talk about his role in Kosovo or about him in general (save the brief introduction at the start of the programme). The book How to Be a Philosopher doesn't mention King on page 6, and if Google's "search inside this book" is to be believed, it doesn't mention him at all. And the Wordpress source doesn't count as reliable. So I'm going to stick with my previous assessment, unless anyone can find another solid source. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mr. Stradivarius here again - I'm using my alternative account. It's getting hard to follow this debate because different sources have been discussed at different times, and the result is looking quite disjointed. So, I'm writing up my thoughts on all the sources systematically, so that everyone can be clear about my position.

Liberal Democrat News, page 8, Issue 1034, 6th March 2009
I can't access this source to verify the contents, but it is a specialist publication for a political party, and we usually don't give as much weight to specialist sources.
King offers a reason to try to do what is right - quote verfied here, bottom of page 1
This is from Continuum books - Kings's publisher, and therefore not independent.
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/02/05/imp06.asp
A good source, but King only receives a mention lasting one sentence. The paragraph is not just about him - to me, it looks like a general statement about one faction of utilitarian philosophers.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/wp/article/iain-king-ethics
Not a reliable source.
For example, see this Drake University (US) Website
A catalogue listing - not a reliable source.
Including Oxford University's PPE course
A footnote.
Roman Krznaric, 2012 (2), Published by Pan Macmillan, ISBN 978-1447202288
I can't access this to verify the claims. I'm skeptical, however, due to the precedent of the Cox source, where King wasn't mentioned at all.
UK Government website, accessed 25th June 2012[2]
This is published by King's old army unit, so not independent.
Verified on this US University Website
Same Drake University source as above.
'Iain King is a Former Fellow of Cambridge University, UK' - verified here3
From Continuum books, so not independent.
King is described by Crocker as "an erudite academic, a UK Cambridge philosopher and colleague of Simon Blackburn" - taken from Geoff Crocker, 2010, on page 85-86 of ‘An Enlightened Philosophy: Can an Atheist Believe Anything?’, ISBN 978-1846944246
This is the best source I saw. I can't read p86 on Google Books, but p85 looks like good coverage. With no other solid sources, I don't think this source is quite enough, however.
CNN interview - official transcript of interview, December 2007 accessible on CNN website here4
Not significant coverage - see my comment above.
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/02/05/imp06.asp
Same news article as above.
He also found time to write a philosophy book - taken from page 6 of Roman Krznaric, 2012, ISBN 978-1447202288
Same as above - I can't access this to verify the claims.
Gary Cox, 2010, Page 6 of ISBN 978-1441144782,
King doesn't appear to be covered in this book at all.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-84706-347-2
This looks like a PR site for the publishing industry, so not reliable.
How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, 2008, ISBN 978-1847063472
King's book, so not independent.
King, 2008
Not independent.
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/02/05/imp06.asp
Same news piece as above.
http://ispitphilo.wordpress.com/
Not a reliable source.
How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, 2008, ISBN 978-1847063472
King's book, so not independent.
Quote from 'Culture Wars - 'Against an Ethical Lifestyle'[5]
Written by King, so not independent.
Page 85-86 of ‘An Enlightened Philosophy: Can an Atheist Believe Anything?’ by Geoff Crocker, 2010, ISBN 978-1846944246
Same source as above.
How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, 2008, ISBN 978-1847063472
King's book, same as above.
Gary Cox, 2010, Page 6 of ISBN 978-1441144782, 'How to Be a Philosopher’
As above, doesn't seem to mention King at all.
Page 85-86 of ‘An Enlightened Philosophy: Can an Atheist Believe Anything?’ by Geoff Crocker, 2010, ISBN 978-1846944246
As above.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-84706-347-2
As above.
Page 85-86 of ‘An Enlightened Philosophy: Can an Atheist Believe Anything?’ by Geoff Crocker, 2010, ISBN 978-1846944246
As above.
King offers an anchor of moral certainty - Liberal Democrat News, page 8, Issue 1034, 6th March 2009
As above.
Quote verified here6
From Continuum publishing, so not independent.

So, to sum up, the only actual proof of notability that I have seen is Crocker's 2010 book. Also, we still have to verify the Krznaric book. I would like to actually see proof that King has significant coverage in this book, especially as it seems he is not mentioned at all in the Cox 2010 book. I think that the claim to notability is much weaker than some of the editors here have claimed. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For Mr. Stradivarius, to access the book you say you couldn't see, put this into your browser: http://www.amazon.com/Find-Fulfilling-Work-School-Life/dp/1447202287 Then just click on the picture of the cover, then scroll down (instead of typing in a search term). Extensive references to Iain King come up pretty soon, including the quote. (Using the same method, I found him discussed in the Crocker book, and mentioned on the inside cover of the Cox book - but I agree, it was only a mention) The trick is to scroll, not type in a search term. Also, since he is an author, when CNN describe him as exactly that, then interview him at length, I don't think you can discount it so easily. Ollie Cromwell (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see the mention in the Cox 2010 book. But that is just a mention of the title of his book on a list of other titles available on Continuum books, and so can't be used for notability. I also found the mention in Krznaric 2012, and it is four large paragraphs, which is usually long enough for notability purposes. I'm still not totally convinced that we should count this towards notability, as he is used as an example of someone who is dissatisfied with his work, rather than being covered as someone interesting in their own right. But the Crocker book shows that he's been noted for his philosophy, and we can use Krznaric 2012 for some biographical details, which should be enough material to write a basic biography. Because of this, I've changed my !vote to "weak keep". I'm not ecstatic about having an article in Wikipedia where the sourcing is this weak, though. By the way, how did you find Iain King in the Cox book on Amazon? That eluded my Google-searching skills. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:23, 9 July 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. General consensus seems to be that ZakZak is either unreliable or shaky at best. With no further reliable sources the general consensus seems to lean towards deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Pop Girls[edit]

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

Unless there is something in Japanese I can not find, does not appear to be notable. Prod removed by original editor. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been able to find a number of articles on ZakZak: here, here and here. ZakZak is a web information site owned by Sankei, one of the major news and media conglomerates, but I am not sure if all the articles there fulfill the requirements of independent RS. What concerns me is that DPG does not have anything on Oricon, which means they've never charted or had TV appearances of note, and that the group seems to be on hiatus. I tend to think that a group that has only had two singles, neither of which has charted, and that may never have another single, does not deserve a Wikipedia page. Michitaro (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, but leaning to delete pending confirmation of ZakZak as a reliable source. Comment - My search fails to find enough reliable coverage in either English or Japanese, just sites that list their music. The fact that none of their music ever charted doesn't help either. Unless ZakZak is determined to be a reliable source, I just can't see this group having an article. I like a number of J-POP groups and duos, and I know how hard it can be to write articles for them without reliable sources, but unfortunately this is the case for Dance Pop Girls. If ZakZak is confirmed to be reliable, I'll change my !vote to keep. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC

Changing !vote. My !vote and explanation is below. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The group doesn't appear to have a Japanese Wikipedia article. So much for notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did a little more research on ZakZak. Basically, it is the web version of Yukan Fuji, the evening tabloid published by Sankei. As a tabloid it contains a lot of fluff articles and articles based on PR, but it is a more serious news outlet that American tabloids like the National Enquirer (for instance, it contains a lot of political analysis, albeit from a right wing perspective). I would tend to say as a whole that it is a RS, although its entertainment articles may be colored with PR. Michitaro (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean, in this particular case, ZakZak cannot be a reliable source? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment articles may be colored with PR, but I have no evidence that they all are or that these ones are. Also, since this PR coloring is not unique to ZakZak, but is the case with all but the most serious news sources, if we were to reject ZakZak, we'd have to reject the majority of news sources. That would require more discussion. Michitaro (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per multiple coverage on ZakZak. Further coverage from other sources would be nice, this is the reason of the "Weak", but I personally have no problem with the reliability of this source. Cavarrone (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if we accept ZakZak as a RS, my main qualm is that this group is on hiatus, and has been so since November. There is a possibility it will never do anything else. In this case, perhaps WP:NTEMP applies. The guidelines do say that "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage", but "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual". While there is no "event" here, the coverage is weak and all from a 7-month period at that. Michitaro (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As this point, although ZakZak does appear to be reliable, that's about it, and it appears that ZakZak should only be used as a source with discretion. For me, being an inactive group doesn't necessarily mean that the group has only temporary notability (here is another example of an inactive group). My problem is simply that, apart from ZakZak, there really aren't any reliable sources that would establish any form of notability, whether short term or long term. Of course, additional sources are always welcomed, but since they're hard to find, at this point at least, I don't think Dance Pop Girls is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it will be against the basic Wikipedia notability principle to delete the article. Their activity was repeatedly covered by a reliable source. Now, when the group ceased to exist and they deleted their Twitters, the Wikipedia article must live forever. Oricon doesn't list everything, I've seen singles not linked to a profile in their charts even. And one Twitter is stll there: [23]. -Moscowconnection (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was covered by a reliable source, not reliable sources. Even if they are inactive, if there are no other reliable sources, their Wikipedia article should probably not survive. The more it needs more reliable sources, since it's about long-term notability. I would have reconsidered if there was anything on Oricon, but there isn't. The fact that the group doesn't even seem to have a Japanese Wikipedia article doesn't help much either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted from the Japanese Wikipedia or anything. So, no one created a page... For example, E-Girls didn't have a Japanese page until recently. And I've found the group's official YouTube channel: [24]. Not very popular. --Moscowconnection (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. (1) There is only one third-party source, and a rather borderline one. (2) Usually, music groups based in Japan receive a wider coverage on the Japanese Wikipedia, but no such article existed there, so I can only conclude that it is unlikely there are sufficient additional reliable sources, be it Japanese or English, to meet WP:GNG guidelines. (Contrast this to a similar debate.) - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no truly independent coverage of this group, and it's a fact that the relationship between Japanese entertainment outlets and the companies that produce idols is considerably more entwined than in the west. This makes me doubtful that there is any reliable sourcing for notability purposes at all. This looks like yet another group that failed to register with the public in a meaningful way. Kudos to DGG for being so patient in waiting for sourcing and dealing with (apparently young) author of this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think, especially towards the end of the discussion, a rough consensus formed that the subject meets inclusion guidelines. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Battle[edit]

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

dePRODed without addressing the notability issues. References are scant and Internet searches return only gallery listings and some pictures of fminor eatured works - nothing of biographical note, no awards, no art fellowships, etc. Fails at WP:BLP and WP:ARTIST Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably the first article on a sculptor I've not stood behind, but, at least as is, there is not much IS. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 18:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the contents of the articles in the "Western Daily Press" and "The Times" it is not inconceivable that notability is achieved.

There are two sources listed that look promising but which I have no access to:

1. ) Tristan Cork (22 September 2010). "Cathedral sculptures offer new perspective on a sacred space", Western Daily Press, p. 31.

2. ) Katherine Swift (27 April 2002). "Where art and nature meet", The Times, p. 12.

I don't know how one can say that notability is not met without first seeing these articles in these newspapers. Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – It was me who added the additional references. Jay Battle received attention for a 2010 exhibition at the Salisbury Cathedral (where he had previously done some stonework, as noted in The Times article), and the Western Daily Press article says that he is among "Britain's finest contemporary sculptors". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jay Battle has shown his work almost every year since 1997.[25] Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All artists expose their works - it's part of their job in the same way as all journalists write articles in newspapers. This does not make them automatically notable. In depth coverage is required, along with some important awards or dedicated articles that clearly assert notability according to Wikipedia criteria. Gallery listings, brief reviews, or entries in exhibition catalogues do not do this.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. I think a steady track record of showing work in galleries counts for something. Obviously inclusion of an artist's work in only a small number of shows would not count for much. But I count almost 30 shows in galleries in the London area since 1997. I think this indicates a degree of stature for a visual artist. Compare this to what qualifies for notability for some artists found in Category:Graffiti artists. I think that you will find in many instances a sparser track record of significant recognition. Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is the same sculptor who made the new statues on Salisbury Cathedral and is already listed on Wikipedia under:'Table of the Statuary of the West Front of Salisbury Cathedral' [26] as 'Jason Battle'. There has not been another contribution to Salisbury's West Front statuary (from a single individual) since James Redfern in the 19c.[27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppertack (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The pieces in the Times and other newspapers mean, I think, this meets notability criteria.Squareanimal (talk) 12:34, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Summer Tour (Rihanna)[edit]

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

Delete - whilst some of these events (like the BBC's Hackney Weekend or the Rock in Rio festival) are notable, there are no WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:INDEPENDENT sources to back up the claims that they collectively form a series of summer concerts. Therefore, this page is built on the basis of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, violating WP:NOT#FANSITE as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT. This WP:INDISCRIMINATE grouping breaks point 1 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and should be deleted. SplashScreen (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title itself is wrong. This is not a tour, rather a series of some random concerts on which Rihanna performs this summer. Since the article is out of context it should definitely be deleted. — Tomica (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tomica said it perfectly. I previously removed this information from the Talk That Talk article, as it is completely unfounded. It is random concerts performed by Rihanna in 2012. That's all. Worth a note in the Talk That Talk article. Statυs (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be deleted since it is Rihanna's summer tour according to verifiable websites such as rihanna daily and her official web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewBGaGa1 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are definitely Wikipedia unreliable sources. The first one is a fan site and the second one is the official site of Rihanna, a non Third-party source. In fact, Rihanna official website and all the other TPS didn't announce this as a tour. Rihanna herself did not announced the name on Twitter, the stage and stuff. This is something different than Loud Tour, they are just random concerts. — Tomica (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tom and Status' rationales. —Hahc 21 16:48, 4 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrar Rafat Al Quwari[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports). Subject has a mention of name in a news article on sleep deprivation, still fails WP:BLP1E, DBigXray 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like most similar articles, this one also fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E, being arrested and held in Gitmo is not a noteworthy enough of a single event to surpass 1E even where there is scant reliable Source coverage. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of WP:RS makes it fail WP:GNG. Also fails WP:BLP1E. →TSU ^tp* 15:09, 8 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assem Matruq Mohammad al Aasmi[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. There are no secondary sources to claim notability and the citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports). DBigXray 15:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Prior to this Afd this article was gutted on questionable ground by a contributor who was subsequently permanently blocked for edit-warring. Rather than try to roll-back the article to prior to the questionable edits of that contributor I spent most of today rewriting the article.
Al Aasmi, or to call him by his real name, Walid Hijazi, was the first Guantanamo captive who was not a Spainard who was transferred to Spain. He has subsequently had multiple profiles in the Spanish press. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mónica Ceberio Belaza (2010-05-02). "El encierro no acaba en Guantánamo" [The closure does not stop at Guantanamo]. La Pais. Retrieved 2012-07-03. Walid Ibrahim Mustafa Abu Hijazi aterrizó en España procedente de Guantánamo a finales de febrero vistiendo aún su mono de la "cárcel de la vergüenza". Es palestino; el primer preso de Guantánamo acogido en nuestro país en virtud de un acuerdo del Gobierno de Zapatero con la Administración de Barack Obama. mirror
- Andy Worthington (2010-05-08). "Abandoned in Spain: The Palestinian Freed from Guantánamo". Retrieved 2012-07-03. ... there are concerns that the ill-defined obligations of countries accepting cleared prisoners from Guantánamo have left the first prisoner given a new life in Spain — the Palestinian Walid Hijazi, who was released in February — in a precarious position, effectively abandoned by the State, and largely reliant on the kindness of strangers for his financial and psychological support. mirror
- Andy Worthington (2009-01-28). "The Guantánamo Files: Website Extras (9) – Seized in Pakistan (Part One)". Retrieved 2012-07-03. The Palestinian Assem Matruq al-Aasmi, for example, who is from Gaza, and was 21 years old at the time of his capture, was seized by the Pakistani authorities from a hospital and handed over — or sold — to the Americans. mirror
- Mónica Ceberio Belaza (2011-05-11). "Eight years on suicide watch". Cageprisoners.com. Retrieved 2012-07-03. mirror

Comment @ creator Geo Swan Andy's Blog entry 1 and Andy's Blog entry 2 are blogs from author who has written a book on the Guantanamo prisoners WP:COI ?. cageprisoners.com Primary source on Guantanamo Prisoners with its routine articles, does not establish Notability. The subject still fails WP:BLP1E --DBigXray 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still WP:BLP1E, being arrested and held in Gitmo is not a noteworthy enough of a single event to surpass 1E even where there is scant reliable Source coverage. I sincerely hope at the end of all these mass AfD noms that Geo Swan is topic-banned from any terrorism-related articles so we can be done with this junk once and for all. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E applies here, especially as the article provides no evidence of repeated in-depth coverage in the Spanish press as claimed above. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 9 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zarina Sani[edit]

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

Can't find evidence she meets our criteria for notability. I do see some circuitous referencing in articles created by this editor, and note that the publisher of this person's book has only published 12 books, which seem to be also by subjects of articles created by this editor. http://openlibrary.org/publishers/Bazm_e_Seemab Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to see if there was anything out there about her and unless there's sources that aren't posted on the internet and/or in another language, there's just nothing out there to show that she meets any of the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. I tried to see if maybe she could pass WP:ACADEMIC because she helped create a language dictionary, but I'm not sure that this is enough to really make her pass any of those guidelines since the dictionary doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly notable itself. If anyone can provide sources I'm willing to debate, but the late Sani just doesn't pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I created this page. I have restored and added references in evidence of Zarina Sani officially recognised as an Urdu poetess of note which list highlights notable poets from 13th century upto 2006. I have also brought forward in evidence the two books that made her a note-worthy researcher which are in addition to her research effort on Seemab Akbarabadi that earned her a P.hD. In India review of books etc; is not common and most of the opinions etc; on books are not available on the internet. I find no reason why this page on Zarina Sani ought to be deleted.Soni Ruchi (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe only problem is that I see a lot of sources that go to the official site for her and pretty much just confirm that she wrote things. These are considered to be primary sources, which means that they can't show notability. They can confirm that she wrote the books but it doesn't confirm that the works are considered notable per Wikipedia's notability policies. (Just publishing things does not guarantee notability.) Now if they reference books and articles that talk about her in depth, that's slightly different but it would still need to be checked to ensure that the books/articles say what the website claims that they say. I mean no disrespect by this, but in the past we've had a lot of sites that tailor and edit sources to make them appear as complimentary as possible to the subject. As a result we generally do not consider any republishing of information on a primary source to be reliable. (There are exceptions, but those are few and far between.) It shows us that sources might exist and gives us a direction to start out on, but for the most part we can't use anything that has been published by anyone involved with the topic at hand (in this case, the late Ms Sani). The link to a syllabus does help, though. If you can show that many schools use the book (by many I mean more than just one or two schools) then that could help show notability for the book or for Ms Sani through WP:ACADEMIC. The biggie here is that you have to show notability through sources that have not been published by Ms Sani, her people, or by anyone that would fall under WP:PRIMARY. Here's a rundown of the sources:

[28] This just lists her as an Urdu author. It establishes that she did write, but it isn't something that would establish notability.
[29] This is just a list of results on Google books, which is unusable as a source. You need to be more specific with the result. Even if it does establish that she got a degree, getting a degree is not something that establishes notability per Wikipedia guidelines. The only time that obtaining a degree is notable is if it's been established that it's the first time that the degree has been given to someone and even then you'd have to establish through reliable secondary sources that this was notable. Just listing that someone has a degree is not notability.
[30] You listed this twice, but the fact remains that publishing books on a subject does not give notability to the author. It doesn't matter how notable the subject of the book is, that notability is not transferred to the book or the author. Now if you could show through multiple reviews by independent and reliable sources that the books are notable, that would help a lot. If many of the sources are off the internet, you can always establish that the sources exist by scanning a copy of the source or by taking a clear picture that shows that the source exists, goes in depth on Ms Sani (and/or her works), and is by a reliable source.
[31] This is something I listed, but this is considered to be more of a trivial source since it only briefly mentions Ms Sani and one of her books. We'd need more than just this and unfortunately even though this does show that she's accomplished something that could be notable, it wouldn't show notability in and of itself.
[32] This helps, but we need more than just one syllabus showing that a class is using her book(s). We need multiple sources to show that many schools are using her books, not just this one class.

I know this sounds harsh, but the rules for establishing notability are incredibly strict and unfortunately the subjects about people, places, or things from foreign countries usually end up getting removed because of language barriers and a potential lack of sources that can be found online. Since you seem to have access to the sources, it unfortunately puts a lot of emphasis on you to provide the sources. What I can recommend is that you look into getting some of the people from Wikipedia:WikiProject India to help you out on this front. They're a team of people who specialize in focusing on articles that pertain to India, so they'll be a valuable resource when it comes to finding sources that might be in another language or not on the internet. Here's the link to the active members (Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Members#Active_members).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/urdu_wrld/u_auth/index_all.htm is not just a list. It is a list of poets covering almost 800 years of Urdu poetry recognising their noteworthiness amongst thousands of other poets who do not find their names in this list. Kindly do not set aside this list. Here it is considered as a place of pride. I have cited her book Boodha Darakhat in few other articles that I have posted. No, I do not have access to sources that are not on the internet. When I sought those sources for my use in the few articles that I had posted the standard response of surviving members of a few families I could contact was that after their respective demise no papers or books or magazines pertaining to them were preserved, mostly sold as waste paper. In absence of related links try I did but could not locate the originators of those destroyed sources. http://www.mu.ac.in/syllabus/4.10%20Urdu.pdf is the syllabus that is followed by all colleges affliated Mumbai University that hold post graduate Master of Arts (urdu) classes; the book is not meant for schools and the number of colleges can exceed one hundred; it is a big and important university that is over one hundred years old. There is not much time left, how am I to contact the suggested active members?Soni Ruchi (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. I have contacted one member and sought his assistance.Soni Ruchi (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Why does the info-box refer to her as a 'Professor'? She was a lecturer at a college, where she was the head of her department, not a professor at a university! Big difference.--Zananiri (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zananiri Ji, I did not insert the info-box; it is to be corrected. Google Books search revealed two books making mention of Zarina Sani. Her name figures in the book titled - Indian poetesses: past and present published by the Govt. of India which fact cannot be ignored. She died 30 years ago when internet had not arrived in this country, and no one then thought there would be Wikipedia demanding a lot more information than is readily available now. You must have experienced the same kind of difficulty as I am now. I repeat there is no reason for this article to be deleted. Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am familiar with these lists. They simply give the names of poets and writers, verifying their names and dates of birth and death, sometines incorrectly. They do not establish their importance.

Tokyogirl has made a number of valid points and also refers to two identical references cited in the article, from a website created by Sani's family to give publicity to the books she wrote. Many children like to honour their parents in this manner. It has nothing to do with the importance of the subhect or the books.

It would have been more helpful to cite sources outside Google book lists and the family, as book lists simply confirm that the books were published. What is required is evidence of their importance. Hundreds of thousands of people aound the world are published authors. Sani, too, is an author. Notability is another matter.--Zananiri (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: By importance and notabilty, I mean, of course, notabilty per Wikipedia rules. This is the crux of the matter. No disrespect to the late Sani.--Zananiri (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But, Zananiri Sir, you are ignoring the two books I have cited that I found through Google Books search that mention about Zarina Sani (the URLs for these two finds is very long). And then there is her book prescribed for M.A.(Urdu) syllabus by Mumbai University. Is this not notability which is sublime and with dignity? Regards.Soni Ruchi (talk) 03:03, 29 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have looked at this article and related issues again and have come to the same conclusion again, after considering the following additional points regarding her notabilty per Wikipedia criteria:

Mumbai University course:

The book by Sani, mentioned by the creator of the article to attribute Sani with notability per Wikipedia, appears to be a red herring. It is recommended, not prescribed, for an 'optional' paper not a 'compulsory' one and there are only two affiliated enrolling colleges for this course, apart from a long-distance correspondence course facilty on offer :http://www.mu.ac.in/colleges/List%20of%20Post%20Graduate%20Courses-_new_.pdf

None of the Urdu courses at Indian universities, which are well-known for their Urdu faculties e.g. Aligarh, Lucknow, Allahabad, Jammu, Osmania and several universities in Delhi, recommend her books, as far as I have been able to ascertain. And, as Tokyogirl79 says, far more institutions would have to be using this book to make the author or the book notable. Moreover, courses change, options change and recommended books change, particularly if the book is being used at only two affiliated colleges of one university. In any case, 'recommended' reading lists are never 'required' reading lists. There is a difference. Notabilty, promoted on the grounds that someone's book is being used at a couple of colleges in the world, should and would, by this reasoning, make hundreds of thousands of authors around the world instant candidates for Wikipedia articles.

I note, too, that the person who elevated Sani to a professor in the infobox on 5 May 2011, as the revision history shows, is Sani's son and his own Wikipedia Talk page has an exchange of banter with Soni Ruchi, the creator of this article, as does her own Talk page. These pages provide further clues about Sani's eligibilty for notabilty per Wikipedia criteria or lack of it. His family site has been cited twice in the article. Yet, the misleading bit in the infobox was deleted, only after I referred to it on this AfD page i.e. over a year after it had been inserted in the infobox.

The Urdu Council list mentioned (which merely gives names and years of birth and death of those listed) as being a place of pride for Urdu writers and poets, has a question mark after the year of Sani's birth. Her entry reads: "2284. Zarina Sani, 1930?-84". If she were a renowned literary figure, as the article claims in the opening sentence, that entry should have been correct i.e. 1936-1982. Actually, this is a minor point, but had she been that well-known, the mistake would not have occurred in the first place. I mention this only because the list is being given so much importance by the creator of the article:http://www.urducouncil.nic.in/urdu_wrld/u_auth/index_all.htm

As an academic, Sani stayed on as a lecturer at the same college for well over twenty years, so never, for whatever reason, advanced to a professorship. I could not find Urdu as a degree course subject on the college website. Of course, things may have been different 30 years ago, but strong departments at a college or university generally disappear only for cogent reasons. At present, it appears, one person teaches Persian at that college.

As a writer, her output is limited. She was, apparently, a good friend of the Zia Fatehabadi family and her book on him mentions his children and their activities as well, unusual in a serious academic literary appraisal. I would not have heard of her or this book, if Soni Ruchi had not cited it repeatedly in her Wiki articles. Sani's Ph.D thesis is just that: a dissertation for a Ph.D. Again, there are hundreds of thousands of people, all over the world, who write and have written dissertations on their chosen subjects to obtain a Ph.D. That alone does not make them notable by any standards.

That Sani is listed in the Indian government's list of poetesses, past and present, is neither here nor there. Like the earler list cited in the article, such publications are meant to be quick points of reference, like telephone directories listing trades and professions. They have their usefulness, but they do not pass judgement on the importance or notability of those listed. That is not their aim or function. They are not 'definitive works of reference' on any subject.

Sani, sadly, died too early to have left behind the kind of literary work, for which one remembers most notable Urdu poets and writers. Only a very few attain the notability we are looking for, at the age at which she died. I have come across no sources that indicate that she did either.--Zananiri (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm certainly no expert in Urdu poetry, but I think the fact almost all the sources are webpage ephemera suggests that little note has been taken of her thus far. Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rustam Akhmyarov (disambiguation)[edit]

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

MOS:DABRL says that there should be some scope of creation of the red links in a disambiguation page. This page has 1 blue link and 1 red link, and the red link is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, so having a dab page is not required. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidate for Template:db-disambig. A hatnote should be placed at primary though. Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential discussion on nominator and AfDs
Procedural closure This is one of a set of eight nominations today for disambig pages, five of which have already been withdrawn by the nominator. Shoaib Khan (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Camp Echo (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Keiler (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Gholam Faruq (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Padshah (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Not closed yet Daud Shah (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Rustam Akhmyarov (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Not closed yet Khan v. Bush June 22, 2012 Not closed yet Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why does that mean the AfD should be closed? "Pepper" @ 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I suggest that you examine the other five AfD discussions. That should show a pattern. Beyond that, I think we need to do what we can to discourage unnecessary AfD nominations, and encourage thoughtfully prepared AfD nominations. Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Please Do not WP:AOBF the nominator. All the AFDs were valid at the time of nomination, it was withdrawn by the nominator as the pages were improved after nomination. This on the other hand clearly fits for speedy deletion. It would be nice if you could provide any valid arguement for keeping this, other than WP:AOBF ? --DBigXray 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't see this last comment as the start of a constructive discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] All I was trying to point out was that just because some of the other nominations were improved to the point of keeping, it does not mean that all the nominations are thoughtless or incorrect. If these "unnecessary AfD nominations" were never nominated, but PRODed or speedied, then perhaps the reviewing admin would not have found the other links which have been added to the already closed AfDs. Then, the wiki would have lost a perfectly good disambiguation pages because the user did not try to get community consensus. "Pepper" @ 13:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] If AfD nominations are good for the community, should we start a bot making them? Would we get improvement of the encyclopedia? Or is editorial time a finite resource? Unscintillating (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I second User:Pepper's arguement here. I am rather surprised to see the remark by Unscintillating and I am still pondering how does Unscintillating's opening comment starts a constructive discussion. --DBigXray 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Generally speaking, new page patrolling at the new page log is the substitute for sending all articles to AfD. Articles are reviewed by the community, and if they do not meet inclusion requirements, they are either speedied, PRODed, or sent to AfD (as these were). Though I do see how you are arriving your POV, this article does seem to meet the deletion criteria; I'm not sure why you are sticking with it so rigidly, especially as this is clearly not a bad-faith nomination."Pepper" @ 20:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Agree with Pepper. This page seems to have escaped new page patrolling as the creator has WP:Autopatrolled Rights. Now can we address the page rather than the nominator please. Please feel free to hat or callapse this tangential discussion not relevant to this AfD--DBigXray 10:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential discussion on nominator and AfDs

Procedural closure This is one of a set of eight nominations today for disambig pages, five of which have already been withdrawn by the nominator.

Shoaib Khan (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Camp Echo (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Keiler (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Gholam Faruq (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Padshah (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Not closed yet
Daud Shah (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Rustam Akhmyarov (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Not closed yet
Khan v. Bush June 22, 2012 Not closed yet

Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that mean the AfD should be closed? "Pepper" @ 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you examine the other five AfD discussions. That should show a pattern. Beyond that, I think we need to do what we can to discourage unnecessary AfD nominations, and encourage thoughtfully prepared AfD nominations. Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not WP:AOBF the nominator. All the AFDs were valid at the time of nomination, it was withdrawn by the nominator as the pages were improved after nomination. This on the other hand clearly fits for speedy deletion. It would be nice if you could provide any valid arguement for keeping this, other than WP:AOBF ? --DBigXray 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this last comment as the start of a constructive discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I was trying to point out was that just because some of the other nominations were improved to the point of keeping, it does not mean that all the nominations are thoughtless or incorrect. If these "unnecessary AfD nominations" were never nominated, but PRODed or speedied, then perhaps the reviewing admin would not have found the other links which have been added to the already closed AfDs. Then, the wiki would have lost a perfectly good disambiguation pages because the user did not try to get community consensus. "Pepper" @ 13:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If AfD nominations are good for the community, should we start a bot making them? Would we get improvement of the encyclopedia? Or is editorial time a finite resource? Unscintillating (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second User:Pepper's arguement here. I am rather surprised to see the remark by Unscintillating and I am still pondering how does Unscintillating's opening comment starts a constructive discussion. --DBigXray 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, new page patrolling at the new page log is the substitute for sending all articles to AfD. Articles are reviewed by the community, and if they do not meet inclusion requirements, they are either speedied, PRODed, or sent to AfD (as these were). Though I do see how you are arriving your POV, this article does seem to meet the deletion criteria; I'm not sure why you are sticking with it so rigidly, especially as this is clearly not a bad-faith nomination."Pepper" @ 20:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pepper. This page seems to have escaped new page patrolling as the creator has WP:Autopatrolled Rights. Now can we address the page rather than the nominator please. Please feel free to hat or callapse this tangential discussion not relevant to this AfD--DBigXray 10:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete by Template:db-disambig. The other red link points to a non notable person. --DBigXray 21:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an edit above has removed a !vote
*Procedural closure This is one of a set of eight nominations today for disambig pages, five of which have already been withdrawn by the nominator.
Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 30 June 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary dab page, redlinked article won't ever be created. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:00, 2 July 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. No prejudice against recreation should notability be properly demonstrated — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DBeaver[edit]

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

As a relatively minor piece of freeware released just 3 days ago, it cannot possibly pass the software notability requirements. No third party sources which discuss it in an analytical way (can only find download pages), and so fails WP:GNG, too. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete. It's possible this is merely WP:TOOSOON, but for now, the reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability as required by WP:GNG just don't appear to exist. I searched and found nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the following statement from the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the author of this tool. One of community members wrote original article. As it was considered for deletion he asked me to add references to external independent resources. So i've just added a few links. And I've been a little bit surprised that it was marked as spam. But I understand that it may look like conflict of interest. I won't resent if you just delete this article.

Probably it is really too soon, but actually DBeaver was released as freeware about 1.5 years ago. GPL license was applied just 3 days ago, thats true. Here is list of public freeware releases (freecode): https://freecode.com/projects/dbeaver/releases . There are a lot of users (about 10 thousands of downloads monthly) of this tool. Also we receive many positive feedbacks (many of them a public on support forum). Also it is completely non-commercial. Moreover DBeaver was already mentioned in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_database_tools) - don't know when and by whom. So I believe wiki article might be useful.

Here is list of links with DBeaver overviews/discussions:

I found these links in google by word "DBeaver" in first few pages so I'm sure there are many other conversations and articles concerning DBeaver functionality in existent commuinties. Also as DBeaver is non-commercial there were no promotional articles at all. Most "looks like promotion" pages are placed on different download sites by bots and we have no relationship to them, we are suffering from this spam content as well.

Sorry, I've never wrote anything in Wikipedia talks before so maybe I badly formated this message. Serge.rider (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Sorry, but most of those links are not reliable independent sources. Blogs, forums, and wikis are not reliable, things that are hosted at places like wordpress aren't considered any better than blogs, and so on. As to being non-commercial, that doesn't matter. Non-profits, charities and multi-nationals are subject to the same rules. There must be some sort of notability shown. I think it's too soon for this to be possible. Incidentally, promotional articles about DBeaver would not be of use either. To prove notability, things must be independent, which promo articles aren't, and reliable - which means not only must they not come from the subject, but they must be identifiable as such. In blogs and forums (and wikis), comments may come from independent users who are delighted with the product; they might just as easily come from the PR department. I accept that you weren't trying to promote - the article is written in a very neutral manner as we require, but until the product is better known it is too soon for an article. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I agree. DBeaver is not an "academic standard" for now. Let's wait for a while (as I understand it doesn't make sense to update original article). In our defence I may say only that there are many similar software in Wikipedia with even less notability (e.g. SQLPro_SQL_Client, Maatkit, Orbada, DBEdit, etc) - it made me think that rules are not so restrictive. Sorry. Thanks to Phil Bridger for copying my article here.

Serge.rider (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fully agree about those articles. One possibly has the excuse of being created before rules were tightened up, but the others don't. Things do slip through our net of patrollers, and often the gnomes tidy things and categorise without considering notability. I think some software gets through because a lot of us don't understand what it is, in the same way that I usually avoid things about American sports and mixed martial arts. I will probably put PROD notices on those articles later. However, we do have a policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which stops the existence of an article being an excuse for another one. Please do feel free to join us and use your knowledge of software to root out stuff that doesn't belong, or to update stuff that does. I will understand if you feel reluctant to tag other people's products in case they accuse you of sour grapes... Peridon (talk) 19:27, 3 July 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 Upper cloth controversy. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Channar Lahala[edit]

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

Redundancy: Channar lahala and Upper cloth controversy, both are same. A redirect will do the purpose. AshLey ^Msg 13:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the page to a redirect, I think this AfD could be closed (unless someone feels the redirect is improper) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure). Till 07:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish views on astrology[edit]

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

Appears to be largely an unsourced collection of various rabbi's opinions about astrology. Doesn't look like this article can be rescued. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC) MakeSense64 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the nomination, this article is extensively sourced, and the long list of references makes it evident that this is a notable topic.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ((edit conflict)) The article's references include Encyclopedia Judaica, the Harvard Theological Review and Numen. It should be tagged with ((needs footnotes)), not AfD. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, and reliable sources are readily available. The article should be improved and better referenced, not deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and ample sources are provided, but a far better job needs to be done to associate statements in the article with their corresponding references. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citing well-known sources by rabbis and WP:RS about a subject is admirable and not to be scorned the way the nominator does here. No one would scorn the fact that articles about Science cite reputable scientists or articles about Christianity cite reliable Christian scholars. This is also part of an excellent series that can be found in Category:Jewish views. IZAK (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many sources; topic has a history centuries long. -- 202.124.73.13 (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears the sources need to be inlined but do exist on the page. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:04, 7 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S. K. Shrestha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Claimed to be the chairman of a company that itself fails to pass GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also an unsourced WP:BLP --DBigXray 13:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Added a second version of the same article (not different spacing in the name); delete both. No indications of notability. Shrestha is apparently the publisher of Alfresco (sic), a Nepalese website which describes itself as "a monthly motivational and educational youth e-magazine with a slogan 'for those who love to win'". The website has sponsored the "Alfresco Open Art Exhibition cum Competition", an exhibition featuring artwork primarily by elementary and secondary school students, annually since 2008. Neither the website nor the exhibition appear notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Both lack any sources whatsoever. Googling turned up absolutely nothing useful causing me to conclude the sources simply don't exist to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Msnicki (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Msnicki. GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CEOs are not notable simply by virtue of being CEOs. Hairhorn (talk) 02:10, 3 July 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 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012. (Non-admin closure). Till 07:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Fuller[edit]

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

Delete: losing politician in a congressional election. Fails WP:Politician The Determinator p t c 11:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoa Nellie! Let's start by removing the misinformation from the article. She did not "lose" the 2012 election; it has not yet taken place. Let me fix that and then we can decide if she is notable or not. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012#District 11, which already contains her information. OK, I did the research and rewrote the article, and it turns out she has absolutely no notability outside of her candidacy in this election (and an almost-unnoticed candidacy in 2008). In 2012 she is advancing to the general election, so that is the target article to which this should be redirected. If she wins in November, or becomes a whole lot more notable between now and then, the article can be recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as indicated by MelanieN. Subject does not yet appear to be independently notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 13:19, 8 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork PM[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG. I could not find independent reliable sources about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy.other (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:06, 26 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSOFT. I couldn't find any, either. -- Trevj (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiable third-party sources, fails WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure). Till I Go Home 07:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Railway Museum (Chennai)[edit]

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

Non-notable organization with limited coverage in reliable sources. avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 09:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several of the references are from national newspapers in India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per East. I see Times of India and The Hindu. Both are national. Refs need cleaning up, but that's not a reason for deletion. StarM 01:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA cleaned up sourcing some. I'll try to get back to it before this closed, but while I think there are enough sourced in it to survive AfD, there are also more available if someone has time StarM 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are reference from national newspapers. Please close this AfD as soon as possible. Notability has been established. Anbu121 (talk me) 15:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the WP:VOLUNTEERs for improving the article by the new user. The topic is notable as shown by several sources. --DBigXray 21:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:GNG with the new reliable sources provided. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitley passes WP:GNG, but it could use some more sources. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:12, 8 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davor Čaurević[edit]

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

Contested PROD; non-notable player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL --Artene50 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Saif Ali Khan[edit]

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

Cannot find sources to verify notability of person Mar4d (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced WP:OR with WP:Puffery. The google book hits here and here say that a man named Raja Saif Ali Khan was a village official from Punjab (Pakistan). But apparently the article is on a same named person from a different region--DBigXray 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXray 21:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of verifiable sources, notability could not be established. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per DBX and TG, unsourced WP:OR and not notable. →TSU ^tp* 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since almost no coverage by secondary sources, this article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:37, 9 July 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. all — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Noor[edit]

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. No Secondary source to claim notability. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. The citations used are primary sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports)

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. (Note I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [33] [34] [35] was Delete DBigXray 07:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these people are not notable enough to warrant seperate articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Standard WP:BLP1E fail, some sources discuss unfair detention but we're still squarely in 1event territory. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly weeds[edit]

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

Book released June 2012, no evidence at all of notability. One sentence plus a plot summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I cleaned the article up a little, but I'm a little dubious of the sources. I removed the ones that I could prove were either obvious press releases or were proven to have been posted by the author herself. (Her real last name is Brandt.) Just in case she or one of her people comes to weigh in on this AfD, I'm listing why each one doesn't seem to be usable.

[36] This one seems to be the most likely to be a real article, although this is such a small news site that I don't really think it would be considered big enough to give notability.
[37] This is obviously a press release, which cannot show notability. It's considered to be a primary source.
[38] This one is labeled "press release" at the top, but in case that gets missed I want to show that the contributor's name is "Brandtlm7", the same name that the author uses on her Twitter account. In other words, a primary source and cannot show notability.
[39] This one is so very closely rephrased from the press release that I'm actually a little doubtful that it was written by anyone other than the author or one of her people. I ended up removing it because it's rather dodgy and even if it was re-written by someone on the staff, it's so close to the PR that it'd really only be a trivial source.

So far the only semi-usable one is the first source. I'll see what else I can find, but it doesn't look good.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to clean it up and look for sources, but other than the one semi-usable source that I left on the article, there's just nothing out there that is both in-depth and non-primary.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems a clear case of CoI and WP:TOOSOON (non-notable book) with someone trying to use Wikipedia for early publicity for their book. Well done to Tokyogirl79 for careful analysis showing absence of reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have thanked Tokyogirl79 myself for her efforts to salvage something from the wreck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per info from Tokyogirl179. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Of the references, the salon.com one just mentions the book in passing as part of an interview with one author. Autarch (talk) 18:54, 17 June 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 June 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's a bit of a problem, indeed. Mystery's article was deleted because there just weren't enough sources to show that he has notability outside of a TV show he hosted or The Game. You're correct in that most of the sources mention him and his book briefly. Here's the layout of the current sources for anyone coming into this:

[40] This focuses on Mystery, with the book being just a brief mention.
[41] This also briefly mentions Mystery and the book, but they're not even really the focus of the article. The idea of negging is, the book and its author were just the article's lead in.
[42], [43] These are short reviews from PW and the LJ. Both are very short and so far these are the only two reviews I found that actually focus on the book itself and don't just use it as a brief mention.
[44] This mentions the book directly, but it's more just a summary of its contents than an actual review.

I kind of hemmed and hawed over whether or not the sources combined show notability. I do count the PW and LJ sources as RS, but I don't know if they and the other sources really show that this is a notable book. I'm open to debate, but this is just one of those situations where it walks the very thin line of notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal reviews are sufficient. They're short but not trivial, and that's the key: the book meets the GNG, no matter how offensive it may be. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First great book about seduction.--AeroPsico (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I disagree with Jclemens, Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal reviews are trivial. The PW article is only 6 sentences long, 3 sentence lead in, one sentence with title, price, and ISBN, 2 sentences to describe and critique the books contents. The Library Journal article (scroll down) is two paragraphs long, mostly describing another book 'Hooking Up or Holding Out: The Smart Girl's Guide to Driving Men Crazy and/or Finding True Love'. I'd recommend a merge to Mystery (pickup artist) but that is just a redirect to The Pickup Artist (TV series). Perhaps there is enough material between the tv show and this book, as well as the number of interviews with Mystery to justify a spin-out of Mystery to his own article, but this book fails WP:BKCRIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Insane as it may, those "trivial" mentions count as notability per WP:NBOOKS. Exactly how this gaping hole in the notability standards exists is beyond me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well except the general notability guideline states, 'If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page'. WP:NBOOKS shouldn't have to reiterate that GNG still applies. --Joshuaism (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Book announcements in trade publications do not constitute significant coverage. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but PW and LJ mentions really are too short and superficial to be nontrivial. There's not enough material to support an articles, as inspiring as certain users may find it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The author may be notable (so a merge may be appropriate) but the book itself does not seem to have been the subject of any meaningful coverage. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:21, 3 July 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. There is consensus that the article at this time runs afoul of NFF. However, the article will be stored at the incubator. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Reich (film)[edit]

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

Future film failing WP:NFF - filming is "to begin in August". Has already been turned into a redirect, reverted, PRODded, dePRODded. PamD 21:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Planned_films at all. When it does, recreate it, and welcome. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate ~~Weak Delete~~ per WP:NFF and still being premature. I managed to find another source speaking about the film other than the ONE sourcing the article... a quite nice one too.[45] But two articles do not meet the expectations of persistant and ongoing coverage that could have had us consider this as a possible exception to NFF. Nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? [46][47][48][49][50] etc. etc. --Niemti (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you much for what you brought forward. Dread Central [51] IS reliable enough for Wikipedia, and does share a short article on some pre-production artwork. I'd expect this one to be sourcing something in the "production" section of the article. Bloody Disgusting [52] is also an acceptable source, and I would expect it also to be used for sourcing something in the "production" section. Shock Till You Drop [53] is decent enough, but tells us filming was expected to begin in May. It was itself based upon THIS article in Screen Daily [54]. Sadly, while the interview in Hug A Zombie [55] is the best and most detailed of those you've shared, it is not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. Andy Erupts [56] is also not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia standards, but even they tell us no more really than the film has locked a distribution deal and is not yet filming. The unreleased film projects in Wikipedia that do qualify as an exception to the insructions at WP:NFF, do so due to far more sourcing over a longer period of time and in many more reliable sources than we have here. And a point here is that many of the reliable sources brought speak toward a planned filming date whch has passed while the most recent one, from Stamford Mercury June 10 [57] currently used to source the article, tells us that fiming is now planned to begin in August. These are the changing production situations that WP:NFF was set to address. ONCE principle filming has been confirmed to have begun, then this article would be fine even with minimal sourcing and we'd have the expectation that it would grow and develop as release nears. Heck, I'd fully support it at that time and would even be happy to expand it. It's a close call perhaps, and I am sorry to rankle, but I still believe that this one is still just a tad TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Etc. etc." meant "and many more". I think there should be also some/much more about the original "award winning" short film from 2007. Anyway Oppose, and while I didn't create it I wanted to do it. --Niemti (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my !vote above per WP:ATD as we do have an editor interested in improving the topic. I say, let him... out of mainsapce. This could be welcomed back in a matter of weeks. 07:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: it seems a previous article for this film was CSDd in 2010,though the full text of the article is at that link: it described it as due for release in 2011. PamD 07:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... a predictive stub that was, per WP:NFF, not at all ready for mainspace, much less the article incubator. But as time passes, even future films come closer to fruition. As this topic now has far more sourcing available than was available for the 2010 effort, and as we do have an author interested in improving it, incubation out of article space is what deletion policy offers as a suitable consideration other than outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate (as original proposer of this AfD) - agree with MQS that this seems the right solution for an article which is likely to have a proper place in the encyclopedia but, per WP:NFF, isn't yet appropriate. PamD 06:50, 2 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Larson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neither the relationship nor the game show role is notable. . A classic illustration of why we need NOT INHERITED & WP:NOT TABLOID DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Neither winning a game show, dating someone famous, nor being considered attractive make someone of encyclopedic interest. The coverage of her does not appear to be really 'significant', just run of the mill tabloid stories. --Michig (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Hence, delete. Roodog2k (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No change in my rationale from the 3rd nomination of this subject; really lucky model and Fear Factor winner who had a Hollywood boyfriend for a little while, and very sub-quality tabloid sourcing (the Review-Journal cites are from a high-quality newspaper with a tabloid celebrity columnist). Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 3 July 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. Discussion indicates substantial improvement since nomination; even nominator now asserts keep outcome. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Wayne (biologist)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:PROF. The first point was suggested since he has a well cited review article and a quote on the Times, but independent RS that would establish that he has made a significant impact are scarce. One user has done a great job locating several sources, but I don't think they collectively establish notability. Previously PRODed and the subject of a open WP:COI/N posting. a13ean (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability beyond local papers, a book review, and an NYTimes piece that doesn't support this article's assertion that Wayne was leading the study. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable expert on plant growth. Breakthrough 1985 article Calcium and plant development earned over 800 citations and findings were discussed in NY Times, Washington Post, & Discover Magazine. His work is discussed prominently in textbooks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Tomwsulcer's improvements. Tom has drawn attention to the work of Wayne that has been highly cited, and allocated little space to the fringe stuff that has not won recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some very well-cited papers. -- 202.124.74.122 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good job Tomwsulcer on the reliable sources provided. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator per the recent changes. a13ean (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article now has lots of impressive sources and references from quite a diverse range of highly-respected sources. The 'deletes' seem to have been written before the new references were added. In its new form, it meets WP:PROF as well as Wikipedia's general notability guidelines fairly easily, and deserves to stay.Squareanimal (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guielines. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip giri[edit]

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

Article may not meet WP:notability keystoneridin! (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLOWITUP, unless someone is willing to do some major cleanup on this article. JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The content of the article should not be lost only because it requires a cleanup. Rather I shall advocate to place appropriate tags for cleanup. I'll also try to lend some hand for its improvement. And also the person seems notable. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 08:43, 25 June 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) 03:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not because it needs cleanup, but because the subject isn't notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I reafirm my delete vote because the person does not seem notable JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JayJay, I struck your second delete !vote, as you had already requested deletion above. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure). Till 07:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Goldstein[edit]

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

As most of the sources provided on this "pioneer of the Israeli Software Industry" are either press releases or listings of board members, I would say notability has not been sufficiently demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:29, 18 June 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 June 18. Snotbot t • c » 14:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 12 references provided in the article, 4 are press releases, 2 are Advisory Board and Board of Trustees listings, and the rest (6!) are newspaper articles or interviews. More references will be provided in the near future. YakiD (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is indeed one of the most notable figures in the Israeli IT industry. The article needs to be improved and defluffed but not deleted. There is a lot of news on the web that can be used to source such a copyedit, good and bad, ups and downs of Goldstein's past. --Shuki (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable, I found plenty of additional reliable sources in a quick Google search. Marokwitz (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 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) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Can't say whether he's a "pioneer of the Israeli Software Industry", but there are enough reliable sources available ([58], [59], [60]) to satisfy the criteria of WP:GNG. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Emotron[edit]

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

Not sure this artist meets criteria for Notability:Music. Article does not cite non-trivial independent sources about touring and relies on YouTube and Wikipedia. Not sure if any of the CDs can be considered to have been released by major independent companies. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article just passes both WP: MUSICIAN and WP: GNG. Could use some work, though. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails both WP: MUSICIAN and WP: GNG. Could use some deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If Asbestos Records meets category 5 of WP:MUSIC as "one of the more important indie labels" then I think this artist meets WP:MUSIC -- if not, not. There is an article for Asbestos Records but it seems to have issues, so I'm going to fence-sit here. I'm not sufficiently familiar with indie music to give an opinion on the label. I can see no other way in which this artist meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Ubelowme (talk) 21:21, 25 June 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) 03:05, 2 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acrongenomics Inc.[edit]

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

No sources, cant find anything that would give it notability anyways. JayJay^{Talk to me} 18:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company's website link leads nowhere; I found a number of different listings that say essentially the same thing as this brief stub (and which possibly makes this a copyvio), but nothing that would tell me (a) what the heck their technology platform is, beyond that it's some kind of bionanotech, and (b) that anyone with expertise has paid any attention to it beyond merely listing its name. I found a reference that cites its offices as being in Greece, not Switzerland -- I doubt there are two similarly named companies, but it's a possibility. There is so little information available about this company that it's hard to say. If I felt this article was sticking around, I'd do something about the copyvio. Ubelowme (talk) 15:11, 25 June 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) 03:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several searches, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of company-produced press releases are available, and I did find this one source, a short article from Reuters: Acrongenomics Inc. Signs MOU To Acquire Majority Share Of Cardioexpress Inc., but that's all. This topic appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 3 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asgard secure steel storage[edit]

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

Not notable. Three of the four refs refer to the previous owner (Bullough group) and the fourth is a passing mention. GNews search turned up only one hit. Contested prod. GregJackP Boomer! 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 June 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) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article seems to contradict the "for over 30 years" bit. -- Trevj (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Nothing remotely approaching direct detailing of this Flexiform division in a reasonable search. Sources applied, as nominator reports above, are woefully insufficient. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Champion's Centre[edit]

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

An unnotable non-profit housing organization. Though their aim in certainly noble, they do not seem to pass the GNG. There are no reliable sources about the group at all. There is really nothing to mark this particular transitional housing group as notable. Rorshacma (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 June 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) 03:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 18:14, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Simmonds[edit]

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

Original author tagged it G7, which I declined since other editors have contributed - but I don't really see much in the way of notability here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an autobiography of an emerging artist. Stong candidate for deletion, as does not meet WP:BIO. Harry Simmonds is actually a painter and decorator, and appears to be using Wikipedia to promote his hobby of painting. Reference 2 does not exist. The remaining reference is the individual's own website, which confirms that 3 years have passed since his work was last exhibited. Emerging / up-and-coming is not the same as notable, and in this case the individual has clearly failed to emerge - unless there is other referenceable material to prove otherwise? My aunty gladys paints watercolours once in a while - why not give her a wikipedia article? If the subject wishes to write about himself, he should stick to facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgenup (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just added two local news stories as sources to the article. That said, they're not enough to convince me of notability and I couldn't find any more. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 June 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) 03:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheelagh Gilbey[edit]

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

This article is unsourced, and the subject does not seem to meet notability requirements. Was unable to find any substantive discussion of the subject in searches. Dohn joe (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at present Haven't found substantial discussion of subject, but there is enough information in reliable sources to confirm most of the credits listed. [61], [62], [63], [64], and [65] from Google Books all confirm the movie role. DarkAudit (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I believe the notability is stated and the movie role is confirmed (here is the IMDB reference). I think that the creator of the article needs to introduce some sources for the television programs as having a role in a movie is not inherently notable (the movie itself must be notable). The claim would meet the notability for entertainers; however, the notability must be "multiple" movies, television, etc. At this point, the only reliable source found is for the one role in a movie. --Morning277 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the role in the movie but more particularly the roles in Children's TV in the UK is sufficient. More sources are needed and should be availble: One can see her and her roles on the TV shows via Youtube and although this is not sufficient evidence in itself, I would take it as evidence that evidence should be availble and deletion would be not so useful as a search for more sources. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

PS: have tried adding a few more sources. PPS: might be worth mentioning the viewing figures for Play School (UK TV series) on which she was a main presenter were around 4-5 million. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:46, 29 June 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) 03:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to Play School (UK TV series). Currently it has a list of presenters but no details. Even if many presenters are not separately notable, there's probably sufficient material about the show in print or online to manage short bios of many of them, either in the main article or a separate Presenters of Play School article. Looking at some of the articles about other presenters, merging them might be a good idea as they're not all independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a merge/page would be a little difficult to construct and little articles on the notable presenters might be better. I think in Gilbey's case she had a bigger role in the ITV series "Do It!" and one could perhaps push her bio and redirect into an article on that were we to have such an article. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:10, 5 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga and the Starlight Revue[edit]

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

Delete - Non-notable music act that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. SplashScreen (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just worth a sentence in Gaga's article. FarceFan (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the WP:GNG threshold. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was copied from Gagapedia. I think that says enough. Statυs (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As the nominator said, it fails WP: MUSIC, and fails WP: GNG, too as the site listed is not reliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No context. Only a bunch of dates with no further info that (surely) won't be available. —Hahc 21 16:47, 4 July 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 assertion that the subject passes WP:GNG doesn't seem to have been refuted, and the sources in the article seem to corroborate that assertion. I'm not finding a strong enough consensus to merge to impose that fate here, but no prejudice against starting a merge discussion on the talk page of the article. -Scottywong | chat _ 16:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy of the Born This Way Ball[edit]

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

Delete - An WP:INDISCRIMINATE passage of WP:TABLOID and/or WP:FANCRUFT faux-drama. Any relevant information should be detailed in Born This Way Ball. SplashScreen (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for an article. FarceFan (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above is one of the user's first edits. Till 04:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I'm new (I've done anonymous edits over the years) does not give you a right to your arrogance. FarceFan (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should provide a reason for deletion that is based on policy/guideline rather than saying 'no need' for the article, so the closing administrator takes your vote into account. Kthanksbye. Till 04:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Delete per nom. FarceFan (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please strike out your previous delete vote. Users are not permitted to vote more than once in an AfD discussion. Till 15:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote twice. I simply elaborated. Certainly the administrator -who is more intelligent than you- will figure that out. Geez. If something's a cunt hair off, you're all over it. FarceFan (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expect to be blocked at this rate with those (poor) personal attacks. And you put delete in bold twice. Soz4life but can't do that. Till 04:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll just simply create a new name. Big whoop. Here's some advice for you. Click on stats. It mentions that I did say delete twice. All is well.FarceFan (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It clearly meets the WP:GNG, and there appears to be sufficient content that warrants a reasonably detailed article. Till 04:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep in some form. This has received a lot of press coverage and as Till says it meets WP:GNG. However if possible it should be in the main Born This Way Ball article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inflates fringe criticisms into something more important or noteworthy than they are in undue proportions to the overall acclaim the tour and artist appears to have received. It has a paragraph at Born This Way Ball, which is more than sufficient. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge part of it to Born This Way Ball --Artene50 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reason it was created in the first place. This content was on the Born This Way Ball article, and it contained too much relevant information. Criticism is a perfectly acceptable for an article. The notability is clearly there. She'd had to cancelled one of her concerts due to threats to her safety. The article passes WP:GNG and is most certainly not WP:FANCRUFT. Statυs (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep notable both due to impact on the artist and an indicator of the societal norms of the national governments who took positions on the tour. Deserves its own page as politicians discussing whether a person with cultural positions will be allowed to speak or enter the country is of a different level of interest than how many wardrobe changes or set lists were in the tour which are notable for the tour but don't involve assassination threats from an Indonesian group linked to terrorism. Deleting this page would seem to indicate that as these events took place outside of America they don't matter. --Wowaconia (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge: sufficiently covered in Born This Way Ball - the controversy is not separately notable. If this article contains any key content that isn't sufficiently covered there, it can be merged, but taking care to cut most of the bloat. --Slashme (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs on the Born This Way Ball page speak about reactons to her tweets and her song choices, they do not mention the assasination threats she received if she would step off the plane, the threats to cause harm to her, her dancers, and her crew by promises to burn the stage by groups with known links to terrorism. It does not explain why the police refused to take her side and uphold the law. Nor does it mention heads of state and other international leaders comments on the controversy.Wowaconia (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two sentences to the main article as there was no indication there to the extreme level the controversy had gone to and perhaps the reason this sub-article is being reviewed here is that editors think that it is merely an expansion of minor controversies within the act, rather than a clash of worldviews.Wowaconia (talk) 18:11, 8 July 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 Taekwondo at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Middleweight (65–70 kg). -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 16:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Wilson[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:ATHLETE. That threshold is met by persons who have "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" ... Tae Kwon Do was a demonstration sport, so this does not present any sort of competition. The subject also fails at higher standards of WP:GNG (coverage substantially about the subject by multiple independent reliable sources), and WP:ANYBIO (awards, etc.). JFHJr (㊟) 02:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've searched through previous AfDs and not found one that turned upon whether athletes in olympic demonstration sports were notable, so it looks like this might not have been discussed before. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOLYMPICS says "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games or [...]" and demonstration sports are clearly "at" the games, even if they could be argued to be not "in" the games or to be not "competitions." I'll admit that this is a borderline case, though. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So individual members of a team at the games but whose entire sport is not in them are, in your view, inherently notable? Is that the spirit of WP:NOLYMPICS as you read it? JFHJr (㊟) 04:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, I came here from Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand, rescuing an article which had very ugly BLP issues (see the article talk page). I just cast around for a resolution to the BLP stuff and the references in use at the moment seemed like the way to rescue the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And do demonstration sports participants truly compete? Just another question I suppose my assumptions in nominating beg. JFHJr (㊟) 04:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from demonstration sport and various results sites is that the competitors don't recieve olympic medals, but the events are selected for and run as olympic sports. The NZOC doesn't consider this athlete to be an olympic athlete, but yet she fought others in the ring at the olympics. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to call the NZOC persuasive but not outright dispositive. I think it's the competition as a national representative and the prospect of winning an event (i.e., a medal) that makes notability inherent among competitors of existing Olympic sports. JFHJr (㊟) 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taekwondo_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics#Middleweight_.2865.E2.80.9370_kg.29 since the only thing we can say about her is that she competed. There are also potential BLP issues and so the redirect should be locked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I think this is an acceptable alternative to deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This probably needs a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) as to whether competing only in a demonstration sport at the Olympics is sufficient for notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{([[User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ|Talk] Contribs)} 21:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link. Stuart opened a discussion here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the technical sense, I do not believe people in demonstration sports "competed" as much as they "performed an exhibition" in these sense of the term used at WP:ATHLETE. In a more holistic sense, I do not think that demonstration sports receive the type of media coverage that would make their competitors most likely notable as their non-demonstration sports counterparts. With not meeting WP:ATHLETE and no other WP:GNG established, I would say delete. RonSigPi (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first sentence makes more sense as In the technical sense, I do not believe people in demonstration sports "competed" in these sense of the term used at WP:ATHLETE as much as they "performed an exhibition". As "performed an exhibition" does not appear in Wikipedia:ATHLETE. Is that your meaning? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Olympics are heavily documented in many, many books. There are several books specifically dedicated to New Zealand at the Olympics. These are likely to mention Wilson. --LauraHale (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I'll go along with "surely someone somewhere wrote it down." But would mentions support the notion that participants in TKD as a demonstration sport were Olympic athletes in a way that fits WP:ATHLETE/WP:NOLYMPICS ("participated in a major international amateur or professional competition"/"participated in games or have won a medal")? If the unnamed sources in question exist but give only short shrift in a separate section, it would be hard to justify putting demonstration sport participants on par with competitors in Olympic sports who stand win a medal for their country. Also, unless these mentions approach substantial coverage along the lines of WP:GNG, I'm not sure how helpful they would be in establishing notability otherwise. It may be a matter of giving actual examples of this coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"surely someone wrote about it" is a bit of a wish. none of the books in google books have. can you WP:PROVEIT?-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per The Red Pen of Doom, until as such time we can prove she meets GNG. Giant Snowman 11:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the Red Pen of Doom. Since consensus seems to be that participating at an Olympic demo is not sufficient to show notability, there's nothing else that shows she meets any notability criteria for an individual article. The fact that taekwondodata.com only shows her with 1 fight (a loss at the Olympic demo) seems to indicate a lack of international competition experience. Papaursa (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable. If it weren't for WP:ATH being severely broken, there wouldn't even be debate on this. It's not possible to write a verifiable article on this person, since there's not published coverage beyond trivial listings. Gigs (talk) 20:21, 5 July 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 Find an editorial solution.. The way I interpret this discussion is that the article should be moved back to Toilet (room), which is what it is about (whether that topic is worthy of an article is for another AfD discussion), and Public bathroom should be either a redirect or a dab page. I'm making it a dab page now, but that's an editorial decision and as such subject to change through the editorial process. Sandstein 05:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public bathroom[edit]

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

~~This article is a stub that serves no purpose, as there is a much more detailed article covering the exact same topic at Public toilet. RGloucester (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

The article was originally Toilet (room), about a different topic. I'm not sure why it has been made into a duplicate of an existing article. Peter E. James (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public toilet. I’m adjusting my vote. I really do not see the necessity of a stub about “toilet rooms”. While it is true that separate “water closets” (which would be the more appropriate title for said stub anyway) and bathrooms (in the bathing context) are common throughout the world, there is nothing here that cannot be included in the main article at Toilet. RGloucester (talk) 15:11, 3 July 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 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 01:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to public bathing which is the most direct context for this. Usage of bathroom to mean a water closet is a euphemism and so is best avoided. Warden (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge with Public toilet, which I feel is a better redirect. Roodog2k (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public toilet. This is a fork of that superior piece. There is probably not much to merge... This is absolutely different than public bathing, I believe the esteemed Colonel is wrong with that particular recommendation of a redirect target. Carrite (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the Colonel knows that public bathing and public toilets are different things; this is implied by his comment. The point is that while in North American English the term "bathroom" is commonly used as a euphemism for a toilet, this euphemistic use of the term is not common elsewhere and actually often not even understood, such as in those areas where bathing rooms and toilet rooms are usually separate rooms. --Lambiam 23:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and undo move from Toilet (room). As Peter E. James said, the repeated topic is the result of a move; This is the last pre-move version. Needs references and expansion, but a viable encyclopedic topic; the toilet is (sometimes) in a separate room in some countries and there is also the "powder room" for guests. I've half a mind to IAR and just do that, but it would make this discussion bewildering. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Toilet (room) per Yngvadottir. --Lambiam 06:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate with Public toilet, public bathing, and Toilet (room) as possible sources, to avoid giving too much precedence to either American or British English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this should direct to a disambiguation page, not a straight redirect to a target that American users would find silly. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert per Yngvadottir, I think she has it exactly right. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council[edit]

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

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a directory, it seems like this is an attempt to simply create a directory of any person or organization associated with this particular group. There are NPOV issues noted already but It seems to me like there is somehow a notability issue although I'm not sure how to classify it, the ALEC organization itself is notable but it seems like there isn't a notable reason to create a directory of all the members and associations of it on Wikipedia. Maybe I am wrong I don't delve into the administrative parts of Wikipedia much, but I thought it was worth bringing your attention to for discussion among wiser heads than I. Bystander1234 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to pass the guidelines for a list. It has clear guidelines for inclusion, it's limited in scope, it appears to be manageable. Although WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this really isn't a directory. It's more of a reference, which is OK. Roodog2k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks good enough for a list to me, this is not really a directory IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could definitely use some cleanup to ensure neutrality in the intro and perhaps some reformatting so that the article is not one long list, but I do not believe the page needs to be deleted. Paris1127 (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is ostensibly non-neutral commentary in the introduction but this seems to have been derived from normally reliable sources. It would be better if the claims were not being reported in Wikipedia's voice. However, I would suggest removing most of this material and referring to American Legislative Exchange Council which is the right place for such information (and which is better written). These are entirely editorial matters and provide no reason at all for deletion. The list article is notable in itself and it is well-referenced. Thincat (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced with reliable citations and meet guidelines per WP:LISTN. Per previous comments, it needs cleanup, but there appears to be no valid reason for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 17:01, 3 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Fekula[edit]

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

Not a banker, nor a person, of much, if any, note, or notability, in the City and the State of New York, in the United States of America ([66]; [67]). Extensive COI-editing, either by himself, via and through unconfirmed, but similar IP addresses and numbers, or by his personal friend, a certain Mister John Derbyshire, through and via his suspected account and and his also suspected personal IP address and number. [The article was created by an unregistered user with an IP address and number, and further edits, almost certainly by his same person, were made with other IP addresses and numbers within the same, or of a similar, range, from the United States.] An autobiography, without much [of a] doubt. -- KC9TV 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources offered are trivial and useless. I searched Google, looking for something better, but found nothing. Additionally, the entire article is hagiographic, not WP:NPOV. Msnicki (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Readin (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I came to the same conclusions as the Msnicki. COI, RS, and many BLP issues are in fact irrelevant to WP:N, but they do explain why the content exists at all. Before editing for BLP issues, I looked at the search links and got the impression the subject was very far from WP:GNG. I removed the worst BLP violations, namely unsupported claims about third parties and self-serving claims. Looking again without all the junk in the way, I still didn't see anything notable to hang WP:ANYBIO or other alternative criteria. JFHJr (㊟) 01:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per 'who?' Seriously, why would anyone think this guy merits a Wikipedia bio? Nothing in the article suggests that he does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mr. Fekula is evidently one of Mr. John Derbyshire's personal friends. I wonder who actually wrote this? Mr. Fekula, or Mr. Debryshire? I had absolutely no joy in finding anything off from Google, other than things from MySpace/FaceBook and Linkedin, which is usually to be discounted (does not count), and the "Russian Children's Welfare Society". -- KC9TV 02:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Post-script:- Not entirely off-topic of course, since Messrs Fekula and Derbyshire are personal friends to one and other, but does Mr. Derbyshire actually realise, or realize, that he was in fact, and in effect, "slagging off" his own son (or does he even care to care)? -- KC9TV 02:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wp fekula (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Comment. I am the subject of this discussion and have the following points to make. 1. This is not an autobiography but a biography submitted by John Derbyshire who has been aquainted with me for many years. Most Wikipedia entries that I am aware of on lives of performing artists are submitted by agents who are paid by the artist. That to me is a much bigger conflict than Mr. Derbyshire who was not compensated and submitted the article some six years ago.He is a very accomplished author and I am stunned that the critics do not even give him credit for his very successful writings.It appears that none of the them even took the time to learn who he is before challenging his credentials. 2. The article is totally accurate and confined to eastablished facts of my career. The only edits I have personally made were to insure accuracy.3. My career on Wall Street was noteworthy amongst leaders in the profession as one can observe by checking history of my accomplishments and the colleagues I came in contact with. Senior management of the firms that employed me trusted my integrity and professionalism and placed with me the full authority to act in the best interest of preserving capital. One can surmise loss of sound credit risk policies after I retired in 2004.4. I have no idea o the knowledge my anonymous critics possess in the financial business. I am aware that any "celebrity" has no problems getting space in Wikipedia through people who take a percentage but many very qualified business and other professionals are not mentioned. 5.The charity I am currently involved with has been doing good work in enhancing the lives of children at risk.It has been in business since 1926 and submits audited financial statements every year. It has raised millions of dollars over the years. As President and CEO I have been fortunate to annually have the leading performers of the Metropolitan Opera world perform without any compensation for the benefit of the organization.Why the critics have totally discounted these important, unique accomplishments is a mystery. Perhaps none of these anonymous critcs attend the opera. All the names listed are verifiable and many list the charity in their Wikipedia bios.6. I regret that not one critic has done his job faithfully and I am personally hurt by some of the crude unthoughtful remarks. It does not serve Wikipedia well.I am more than willing to discuss with anyone associated with this disparagement of my honor and integrity Vladimir Fekula[reply]

A simple question. Why do you think that Wikipedia readers would expect to find an encyclopaedic entry on you? What have you done to merit this, with regard to the requirements of Wikipedia notability policy? As for your acquaintance with John Derbyshire, why the fuck do you think that we should care about you knowing this obnoxious little shit? If you don't like 'crude remarks' don't hand around with those that deserve them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As for your acquaintance with John Derbyshire, why the fuck do you think that we should care about you knowing this obnoxious little shit?"

The person writing this is a Wikipedia editor? I thought Wikipedia believed itself to be a serious enterprise? Two taboo words in one sentence -- this is supposed to contribute to a discussion somehow?

Taboo noise-words aside, how does this writer know that I am obnoxious or little? Has he ever met me? I am, in point of fact, 6ft 1in and 190 lbs, and quite fit, as the writer would find out if he cared to confront me in person with his insults. That is, of course, the last thing in the world he would care to do.

There is a notion out here in the real world that Wikipedia is, so far as its entries on living persons are concerned, a vehicle for 14-year-old left-liberal nitwits to work off their grudges, and their infantile fondness for potty-mouth abuse. Not hard to see where such a notion came from.

John Derbyshire

How do I know you are an obnoxious shit? Simple, I've read your works. As for 'little', I clearly meant in terms of significance to the world. And I'm neither 14 years old, a 'liberal', nor a nitwit (I went to the same university as you, and came out with a first). Meanwhile, stepping back from the mutual exchange of insults, since you are responsible for the ludicrous bit of fluff we are discussing here, would you care to explain the grounds on which an article on Vladimir Fekula meets Wikipedia policies regarding notability - and provide proper sources to demonstrate this. Whatever Wikipedia is, it isn't a forum for posting smug and hyperbolic waffle about your acquaintances. As far as I can ascertain from easily accessible third-party sources, there is little evidence that the gentleman concerned exists, yet alone that he has done anything to merit an article here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insults tend to show the weakness in one's case. This subject is not a notable person in the New York area. Much of the information has not a single citation. This person is probably a very nice man, but is not famous as we define it. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post similar remarks. Insults and crude remarks are unnecessary. What may be helpful is explaining that here on Wikipedia, we only have articles about WP:NOTABLE subjects. But we define that word differently here than many people expect. It's not enough that a subject seems notable, there have to be other people not associated with subject who took note and they have to have done it in non-trivial ways in reliable sources. Generally speaking, it takes two good sources, e.g., two magazine or news articles about the subject, to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 23:49, 9 July 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.