< 9 June	11 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 if articles (even stubs) on the other locations are written. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adelboden (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:MOSDAB disambiguations should only list red links when other articles also contain such links. Neither Canton of Lucerne nor Canton of Schwyz mention a place called Adelboden and all other instances of Adelboden I could find on a search of Wikipedia refer to Adelboden, Bern. A search for Adelboden, Schwyz and Adelboden, Lucerne did not return any direct hits. Therefore we do not need this disambiguation page. De728631 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless having a dab page before any of the content has been created; it's just a pointless road to nowhere. Could be recreated if the pages in question are created first, but because of concerns outlined by the nom I doubt they ever will be, and so this can be safely deleted. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, those places do exist, Adelboden, LU seems to be a part of Wikon, and Adelboden, SZ is apparently nothing more than a road in Steinen. However, they're not worth any redirects, let alone a dab page. My searches mentioned in the nomination above were internal searches on WP. De728631 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 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 Jimfbleak as G3 (blatant hoax). Non-admin technical closure. Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teared up[edit]

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

A concern was raised that this is a hoax. It was listed for speedy but I declined on the basis that it is not a blatant hoax. Never the less, I am submitting it for AfD because I believe the concerns are justified. RA (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having searched for the film, the "acclaimed director" listed in the article, and all the actors who the article claims "went on to be famous", I can find absolutely nothing on google or IMDB which strongly leads me to the conclusion that this is a hoax. Article creator has made no other edits, so it's impossible to draw conclusions based on behavioural evidence. Valenciano (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Everything (and the kitchen sink) indicates this is a bleating hoax. --Lambiam 00:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Johnmoor, like others have said, she does great work but there's not quite enough coverage of it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Cortes DeVito[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. This pertains to the quality not the quantity of the references. The article has a some references, but the references are primary in nature or only briefly mention or quote the subject. Also not sure the awards mentioned are substantial enough to support the article. reddogsix (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Although primary sources were cited to support the contents of the article, some significant secondary sources were also cited, including:

A copy of "Mrs. Chicago educates women on heart health" originally published by Daily Herald (Arlington Heights)
"Chicago Sky and Bank of America Honor Women of Inspiration" published by OurSports Central
"Saving a heart is as easy as checking the Heartsaver AED box on your income tax return!" published by State of Illinois
"Hooray for Hollywood here!" published by Chicago Sun-Times

*Note that this copy of "Mrs. Chicago educates women on heart health" originally published by Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) is showing just few paragraphs and not the complete article. Thank you.
—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am torn on this one. She sounds like someone who has done and continues to do important work. She clearly has some local notability, and in a city the size of Chicago, local notability is significant. But very little of her coverage is from major media, and what is consists of passing mentions. The awards she has won are local - they are not "a well-known and significant award or honor" which would qualify her under WP:BIO. I'm afraid I am going to have to go for "delete" as not quite meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Difficult. As the nom says, she definitely does good work, but I'm not sure any of the sources do enough to establish notability. There are plenty of sources listed, but they all fall into one of three categories: database-style entries (including pages on employers' websites), non-feature length articles and sources which only mention her in passing. Non of this amounts to non-trivial coverage and so she fails GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficient independent sources for notability. I see this article as promotional, and I do not see her as warranting encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FaultTrack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a piece of software without evidence that it meets the notability criteria. A CSD:G4 was declined today on the grounds that the article is now significantly different from the version of this article deleted by AfD in October 2011. The references in the article are to download sites, but these attest only to its existence and do not demonstrate achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination and request that a speedy category for software be added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree - could have even been CSD templated. Fails GNG. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The Reviews section in the article is misleading as none of the entries are actually reviews and the Softpedia 100% Clean award is nothing excpentional as it simply certifies that somebody ran some tests to verify it was free of crapware. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It barely passed G4. Sources are not enough to get notability as they state not much about the subject. Changes made to the structure, make very little difference between the previously created article as still the problem of WP:RS exists. →TSU ^tp* 12:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Bonahoom[edit]

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

Municipal employee who fails WP:POLITICIAN, receives only local coverage, none of which seems to be of any depth and therefore fails WP:GNG also Valenciano (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on what I see and what little I found, I don't think he would have met the notability guideline even if he had won the election in question. He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN in any respect and I can see no other way in which notability could be demonstrated. All the references I checked are entirely local and connected with the election. Ubelowme (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The opponent referenced in the article (Sandy Kennedy) has not been deleted and is entirely local as well. Were standards set after her article was added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiz100 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct that Sandy Kennedy is also not notable, so I've nominated that for deletion. That, logicially, nullifies your keep argument, also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Valenciano (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Ubelowme's analysis. As for the Sandra Kennedy, that too may well not meet our inclusion criteria, but that is a separate issue and has no bearing on this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheats for WarCraft 3: Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne[edit]

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

Prod contested by the author. Rationale was: WP:CHEATS Wikipedia is not a guidebook. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy cited above. --Teancum (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CHEATS Roshan220195 (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CHEATS Flygon's friend- Smarter than the average bear! 14:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CHEATS. This is an encyclopedia, not a video game guide. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide and Wikipedia is not a directory of cheats or other game guide-like material. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything about this is not a Wikipedia article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 01:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CHEATS. →TSU ^tp* 12:17, 17 June 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 Rannpháirtí anaithnid as A7 (no significance). Non-admin technical closure.Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Travel York[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:NOT. I can find no google secondary source for this company. It is purely a travel directory. Charles (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax (WP:G3). The list of routes is pure fantasy - searching for any of them in Google or Traveline returns no hits, and where similar services do exist they certainly aren't run by this company, which doesn't appear to exist. Given its creator's history of hoax edits ([1]) I think we can safely assume that this is another one. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Jubilee[edit]

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

As the article notes, this term is only a presumption of what an 80th anniversary might be called; there has never been such a thing, and no supporting refs could be found to support it or affirm notability. It is a neologism. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't checked, but the article itself says no sources exist, and I'm inclined to believe it. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Madeup, Neologism, no sources. Barring twitter, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd have said to redirect to Jubilee, but that is only a disambiguation page. As there are no sources (even according to the article), this is an unreferenced, non-notable dictionary definition. LadyofShalott 02:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced neologism, that seems to have been made up with no sources backing it up. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources to support the article. One source is a primary source. Also the notability of the event is in question. →TSU ^tp* 12:18, 17 June 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 when notability is met. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kettering F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable proposed football team. No evidence that this football club exists as anything other than a proposal made in April 2012 on page 64 of a local newspaper. The cited newspaper report is not online but does seem to be discussed here. The team, however, has no website and is not included in the league that they had hoped to be playing in (see [2] and [3]. Pretty Green (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was made, it was expected that more information would come out. There is now online evidence: http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/community/fans-planning-a-new-town-club-1-3856970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.211.37 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also just found more information: http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/local/club-s-future-hope-1-3871112

Delete Club does not meet generally accepted criteria of having played in the FA Cup or FA Vase or playing at Step 6 or above. The United Counties League has announced its member clubs for 2012–13 and Kettering FC are not members. Number 5 7 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL; if this club becomes notable in future that will be the time to have an article on them --John (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for a club which only exists on paper and has no players, no ground and no league membership to be deemed notable, the level of coverage would have to be pretty exceptional. IMO two brief articles from the local paper which both basically say the same thing doesn't cut it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 18:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and the WP:FOOTY rule of thumb on English football club notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are just hoping to come, but haven't yet so they should also just hope for a Wikipedia article. And delete per Chris, they are just on paper and not done anything notable yet. They can get notable in future, but not now. →TSU ^tp* 12:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murda Weapon[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC, shelved albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Speedy deletion declined (criterion does not apply). Previously deleted via prod, so I'm treating this as a challenge to the prod. SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no sources covering this, so it fails to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both non-notable and non-existent. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 01:34, 17 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Norton[edit]

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

Unmaintained stub from several years ago Jes5199 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being "unmaintained" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. (Incidentally, the article has recently been worked on/improved by multiple editors.) A quick GNews search shows that Ms. Norton's activities have been noted by several reliable sources, which makes her notable enough for inclusion. (There are also several articles by her in the search, but not nearly all of the hits are articles by her.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are more than adequate. Nom is welcome to build on the article using the available materials and remove the stub tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is well-sourced, in harmony with WP:BLP, has recent activity, and is not embarrassingly stubby. As a journalist frequently published by major news organizations, Ms. Norton often decides what is and isn't notable according to Wikipedia. Her article helps Wikipedia users put her words into the context of her life, and it would be a disservice to users to delete the article. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced notability is established yet. Most of the sources in the article are written/spoken by her. The only 2 independent reliable sources are the Guardian article about her ideas on copyright, and the Sunday Mirror article about her living arrangements which doesn't really discuss her work or ideas. If there are more articles in WP:RS about her that she didn't write, e.g. on her magnetic implant, then that would be sufficient to establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take long to find a few more references about her, rather than by her:

Media Can Avoid NYPD Arrest By Getting Press Pass They Can’t Get On Wired trying to get her NYPD press credentials.
Wave of the Future: Magnetic Fingers interview on NPR about implant
There's also significant coverage about her by large, independent blogs: Worldchanging, Mindhacks, Gawker

There's likely more out there, I just stopped at five. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 21:54, 11 June 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 Fabian Tassano and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocracy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NEO, unsourced article. Claims in article appear to be based on a single primary source, a book by Fabian Tassano. CosmicJake (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please note that although an article of this name has been subject of a previous AfD, the subject of this article is quite different to that one (it was a garage band). CosmicJake (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a pretty straightforward case of WP:NEO.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism, dicdef. Hairhorn (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note It's not too late for the irony of having an "In popular fiction" section with Idiocracy in it, but time is probably running out. Anarchangel (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fabian Tassano, which already discusses his book on the subject. The article has very little info, and no indication that the concept is notable outside Tassano. I'm dubious about the claim about Solzhenitsyn - there's no evidence what he said or that he said it, and it may not be relevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Seems the reasonable solution. Since Tassano wrote a book about this subject, the redirect is justified DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 17 June 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, defaulting to keep. This has been relisted more than enough times, consensus seems to be that the current article is too promotional but enough people are demonstrating that it could be improved with available secondary sources. - filelake shoe  09:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ClueNet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is not notable. Tow talk 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is poorly written in parts but that can be improved. Furthermore, I'm sure that ClueBot and ClueNet have been the subject of many articles, therefore making it notable. --5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, all the references provided in the article are either primary or unreliable. Also, I think that ClueBot might have been subject of many articles but not ClueNet. ClueBot might be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia but not ClueNet. Due to this I think the article should be deleted. --Tow talk 00:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead reads like an advertisement and makes me want to vote delete just for that. But let's look at the sources this article is based on. I just scanned them and these are the ones not affiliated with ClueNet: http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/, http://evilhosting.org/, http://www.nuxified.org/poll/which_games_should_be_selected_for_the_upcoming_tournament, http://www.nuxified.org/article/nuxified_and_cluenet_prepare_a_gaming_tourney_you_are_invited , so what is that, two that do not mention it at all, and two that are on some kind of tech blog and which only mention it in passing. This does not seem to pass notability, appears to be of a promotional nature, and should therefore be deleted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:29, 3 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, Tow talk 06:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Sound and the Fury. I'm not seeing this pass WP:CORP, or even coming close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per what I said above. Searched FS Daily and Linux Today and found papers on ClueNet. Sure it's badly written but that's not a matter for AFD.--5 albert square (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why exactly you decided to vote twice? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's been relisted, therefore previous vote doesn't count as far as I'm aware. It starts from scratch.--5 albert square (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - To avoid confusion, I'm de-bolding the !vote, because we do not vote a second time after a relist; a relist is just a continuation of the same discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind linking to any such articles? I am fairly sure that if these articles exist they are probably about ClueBot and not ClueNet. Also, do the votes casted before relisting really don't count? TOW talk 03:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - this one and this are just a couple. I did find more by Googling ClueNet.--5 albert square (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs re-writing in part, but some of the tags such as 'Very few or no other articles' are due to the work ClueNet does around users (if you check outside of the main namespace you'll find lots). ClueNet projects have featured in multiple papers and a few have linked articles (as noted above). If a community that creates and maintains projects to help wikipedia (and have made over 3 million edits to that effect - 3,376,628 at the time of checking for related projects in Wikipedia:List_of_bots_by_number_of_edits) is not 'Worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.' then personally I don't see any point in going to the effort of trying to improve wikipedia in part or whole. If the projects don't have an impact then why do users notice when they're having issues and contact ClueNet volunteers/admins. While I may not be an experienced editor that has a fetish for reading policies, I think it's the principle that counts. My $0.02. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From your user page you seem to be involved with ClueNet in some way. Don't you think your participation in this vote is a conflict of interest? TOW talk 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't Cobi's from the second nomination also COI... - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think so. I think the only reason this article has survived 2 AfD nominations before is because the ClueNet community is so active on Wikipedia. TOW talk 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm seeing a good deal of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that 5 albert square has been messaging people people involved in the ClueNet community asking for participation. I wonder if this would be considered canvassing. TOW talk 17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Urm, no, they have not been asking for participation but simply made us aware of this AfD, I suggest you check my talk page again and tell me how it is canvassing... - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 19:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, not canvassing, I wasn't asking them to vote, I was simply making them aware of the AFD, much the same as you did to Cobi. If you look at Cobi's contributions you will see that he's not been active on Wikipedia for about the last month. If he's not been active then he may well not have got the message about the AFD, I had also thought that by messaging Damian and MTCD then one of them may have been able to get a message back to Cobi about the AFD funnily enough even using ClueNet. Also, is it just me or is it strange that someone who posted a delete vote here also posted on ClueBot's talk page to complain about the bot's operator not manually reporting false positives himself?--5 albert square (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Sound and the Fury's and Tow's comments. Cheers,
Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:09, 6 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, TOW talk 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally, I think ClueNet probably warrants an article on WP, but I'm just not seeing the significant coverage in independent reliable verifiable sources necessary to establish notability.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rewrite. modify, but keep! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, this article needs cleanup, but it should be kept, as it is notable enough. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 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 Fulton County School System#Westlake cluster. WP:OUTCOMES The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Creek Middle School[edit]

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

non notable middle school, fails WP:CORPDEPTH William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Middle schools rarely meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Fulton County School System#Westlake cluster. No evidence of notabilty of this particular middle school. LadyofShalott 23:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools; previously done/undone. Only routine coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Middle school with no inherent notability or any that can be claimed under WP:ORG. Blank and redirect as per standard practice for schools, checking that it is listed either under its school district or locality article pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been checked - notice how I specifically gave a target with a section in my redirect cmt. LadyofShalott 23:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination with no other delete votes pending. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Phillip Goldfeder[edit]

Non-Administrative Closure The result was keep. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This politician doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. He is an elected official, but the Politician notability guidelines say that just being an elected official does not meet the notability guidelines, and is therefore does not meet WP: POLITICIAN Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP: POLITICIAN. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep- Meets the primary clause of WP:POLITICIAN: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (emphasis mine). The 'just being elected' caveat is for local officials. I'll add his conglinks momentarily. Dru of Id (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dru of Id. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a state legislature. Subguideline #3 applies to local office holders. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it meets the criteria, as do all of the other members of NYS Assembly.Racingstripes (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets criteria. Can keep --Bharathiya 09:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Doherty[edit]

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

Fails to meet criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Suggest redirect to election article. Arbor8 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly fulfills the first criterion of WP:POLITICIAN: "1.Politicians...who have held...sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" e.g Head of the Rhode Island Police and Doherty also fills the second criterion "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". A major party nominee for congressional office qualifies and also was the Head of the Rhode Island State Police and was also the State of Rhode Island's Commissioner of Public Safety, so is clearly both an important and influential politician in Rhode Island. The article should be kept as Brendan Doherty is a notable Rhode Island politician who is also the Republican nominee for the Rhode Island's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives elections, 2012. So aswell as being the Head of the Rhode Island Police, Commissioner of Public Safety for Rhode Island and the Republican Nominee for a congressional seat in Rhode Island I believe that this article should be allowed to stay on wikipedia due to notability.Slytherining Around32 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Candidate of a major party for a US House seat and google news search yields plenty of significant coverage--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 20:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I'll note that being a major party candidate for US congress is not a reason to keep this, he does seem to have achieved sufficient notability to meet WP:GNG for example here. Valenciano (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bestgore.com[edit]

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

Although the page title is Bestgore.com, It needs to be decided whether the article is about the store or its named owner who falls under WP:BLP. In either case, the guidelines at WP:1E and WP:N(E) should be taken into consideration when voting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the creator of the article. The bestgore.com website and the owner Mark Marek are notable, please see the citations. A general google search provides the following: Google search: "bestgore.com" About 137,000 results (0.18 seconds) It is public knowledge and the citations support that the website Bestgore.com is under criminal investigation by the Montreal Police. There are several similar shock sites in Wikipedia: Ogrish.com, Rotten.com, Stile Project. The article was just created today, it is a +stub and has the potential to expand over time. JunoBeach (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm trying to find sources now and there's enough evidence to make me think that this site is notable outside of the now infamous Luka Magnotta video. To be honest, I don't really think that the owner is notable outside of the website. Most of what I'm seeing in the article mentions him within the scope of the website, although if I find enough to show that the owner has individual notability I might change that opinion. In any case, the Magnotta video has brought the website into the public eye and now there's articles that are focusing on the website itself. It's not as focused on as the murder for obvious reasons, but there's enough to suggest that it has notability. Anywho, I also wanted to state that the presence of other shock site articles on Wikipedia does not mean that an article on Best Gore should be kept if it doesn't meet notability guidelines. It just means that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there seems to be an awful lot of reliable news coverage about the recent controversy and, while a lot consists of brief mentions of the website, there may be just about enough to scrape together a meaningful article. However, the current article reads like it is trying to redress a legal argument. It needs to provide more basic description and history of the website but, if this can't be done using reliable secondary sources I'll probably change my 'vote' to 'delete'. Sionk (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site is sufficiently notable for its identification of Luka Magnotta alone, and for the obscenity prosecution alone; there is at least twice as much notability as needed per WP:GNG. The person maintaining the site might be a WP:BLP1E (I haven't looked into it); in any case it's clear that BLP will favor speaking about what was done on the site, the more directly verifiable data, rather than taking everything the extra step to the more specialized topic of considering one person's role in running the site. Wnt (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Just about enough sourcing for a standalone article, but the current version of the article is more about the Luka Magnotta controversy than the site itself. Needs greater breadth and depth, eg in what year was the site founded?.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Owner was interviewed and quoted at a notable news source. [4] His official site list three news interviews he did. [5] Dream Focus 11:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can/will be expanded to include more than just the icepick-related stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Notability can be established as long as the article is changed from being just a one event thing. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:15, 15 June 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) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timothie Fielder[edit]

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

Has not played at a fully professional level, nor won a major award or gained significant coverage in independent reliable sources for his performances at a lower level. The-Pope (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only played at VFL/SANFL level and I can't find any significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unable to find sources to meet requirements of WP:NRVE. Senator2029 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is lack of WP:RS to cover the facts in the article, thus fails WP:GNG. Also, the subject hasn't played at any professional level and I m unable to get anything notable done by them. →TSU ^tp* 12:35, 17 June 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 Mayor of Fair Lawn, New Jersey. Consensus is that he is not separately notable. I'm redirecting for now to the article on mayors, with no prejudice against further merging of that into the main article DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Etler[edit]

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

Non-notable local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN, no significant coverage in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN (#3) to be notable as a politician and WP:ANYBIO as a person in general--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Light even on routine coverage. EEng (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fair Lawn, New Jersey since mayors are generally part of the history of the cities and towns they represent. Plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Similarly, I also believe Mayor of Fair Lawn, New Jersey should also be merged and redirected to Fair Lawn, New Jersey. Location (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 02:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driptech[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ORG. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small businesses can be notable, especially if they have a distinctive story and an innovative product line, and have been the subject of significant coverage in a wide variety of reliable sources. In this case, the coverage has been in the highest quality sources in both India and the United States, such as the New York Times, the Times of India, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal, the Economic Times, The Hindu, the Silicon Valley Business Journal and Bloomberg Businessweek. The quality of these sources, and many others, makes it clear that this particular small business is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ORG: "...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources...If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited..." I think the sources listed by Cullen (although the NYTimes one is a blog) meet the criteria. Barely.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep - The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH, part of the WP:ORG page, per:

Significant coverage: [6]
Significant coverage: [7]
Significant newsblog coverage: [8]
Significant coverage: [9]
Short article, yet significant coverage (entire article about the product): [10]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: by the given sources.-- Dewritech (talk) 10:16, 11 June 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. I could almost flip a coin on this one. The delete "!voters" and the nom make sound arguments but Metropolitan90's mention of possible non English sources provide just enough reasonable doubt for a no consensus close. If those sources are evaluated and turn out to be sub par then no prejudice against a quick renomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Joe Weise[edit]

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

no real claim to notability, charts are not goodcharts, award minor, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't see any coverage on this guy. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – released five or so albums on a notable label, Tower Records, toured internationally to festivals in Europe and US. Sure, the article needs work but the subject is notable enough.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His albums are on the Blues Breaking Records label, not Tower. That Tower linked in the article is just a shop. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is highly notable, and has traveled the international circuit for over 30 years as an accomplished musician/composer. Has released numerous "highly accredited" recordings with Tower Records. https://sites.google.com/site/gerryjoeweise/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALICANDONO (talk • contribs) — ALICANDONO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
'Keep - has toured internationally & released recordings on notable label. Has obviously had significant airplay in numerous countries. Dan arndt (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What notable label? Blues Breaking Records is a red link. There is a lack of coverage for the touring. How is it obvious? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I want to say "notable because of WP:MUSIC, point four", but there is strangely little independent information anywhere that I could find on him. There does seem to be a lot of blog entries about him, whether that's genuine coverage or some heavy-duty astroturfing I'm not sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:22, 9 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, Black Kite (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability because his name comes up with valid Google News hits in four languages (English, French, Polish, and Portuguese) reflecting performances in multiple countries. That may not be a WP:MUSIC criterion itself but it leads me to think that he probably meets at least one WP:MUSIC criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant independent reliable sources to establish notability. With respect to releasing aklbums on a major label or significant indie label, he has not as Tower Records is acting as a distributor for the label that he released on. With respect to international coverage, what I could find was only concert announcements and listings. As for touring internationally, there appears to be no coverage about his touring. What I see is a working musician. nothing worng with that but that isn't sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 15 June 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 Billy Talent discography#Singles. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Death March[edit]

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

Non-notable single released by Billy Talent. No coverage from reliable sources or charts. The parent album hasn't been announced. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billy Talent. (As a song released a few days ago, it may become notable, but it's not certain, and the song article contains almost no info.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found two sources that past WP:RS: [Exclaim http://exclaim.ca/MusicVideo/ClickHear/billy_talent-viking_death_march] and [Alternative Press http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/billy_talent_stream_new_song_viking_death_march]. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notabolity of a song depends on two factors: 1)it have charted on any national or international chart, or 2) it has become an element of popular culture and is notable because of that. If the song lacks both, it should be redirected to the album or singer page. This song wtill lacks both. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:33, 30 May 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) 00:58, 3 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* 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billy Talent discography#Singles. There is no independent notability. It can be merged to the album article when it is released or resurrected as a standalone article if it is idependantly notable in the future, and a redirect preserves the content for such an eventuality. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding redirect to the band's page. This page doesn't contain enough information to warrant its existence, and it can always be re-created should the single become notable. Not much would be lost as the information regarding its notability would have to be added in either case. President Evil Zero (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I seethe consensus as delete; there's no needto merge as the content is already in the main article, and the title does not seem to be a plausible search term--surely anyone would look for the main article. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Blanca (Book 1)[edit]

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

Non niotable philippine TV show. No coverage from third party reliable sources. A search on Google returns close to nothing. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is about the first season (the first "book") of the Filipino tv series Luna Blanca, which has demonstrated notability.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for the first "book" of Luna Blanca to have its own article. Whatever content there is should (currently little) should be at the main article. Page is not a viable redirect either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 3 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* 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Luna Blanca. "Seasons" in the Philippine TV are quite different elsewhere (except for reality shows). –H T D 07:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL if it's OK, I'd porbably remove the disambiguator in the article title as per WP:PRECISION. –H T D 07:33, 12 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Joel Casamayor[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The lone source is from directly after the fight and there has been no follow up as to why this event is significant in any way. BearMan998 (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:34, 22 May 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, 28 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 21:09, 3 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* 01:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable boxing match, titles change hands regularly. Nothing to indicate this event achieved any significant status. WWGB (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As a championship bout, this probably should be notable, although it really needs better sourcing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many boxing matches occur every year? Should we create articles on every match? I don't think so. Like some really famous bouts deserve their own articles, but the average boxing match does not. Evidence not presented that this box is particularly more notable than countless others. ZackMartin (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hopkins vs. Kelly Pavlik[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. The single source is from directly after the fight and there has been no follow up as to why this event is significant in any way. BearMan998 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 05:35, 22 May 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, 28 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 21:30, 3 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* 01:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable event. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 03:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this appear to meet WP:GNG (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.) As article states was Ring Magazine Upset of the Year in 2008, as well as Upset of the Year from Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0812/boxing.awards/content.6.html). Clearly Ring Magazine and Sports Illustrated are reliable and independent sources and coverage of the year-end awards is typically significant. In addition, after the fight occurred many articles were written that goes above routine coverage. For example, the NY Times covered the fight (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/sports/othersports/19boxing.html) and ESPN profiled the fight in the Fight Credential - something they only do in major fights, about 3 fights a year (http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/fightcred/index?page=pavlik_hopkins). Also, the facts of this fight stand out for the fight being notable: undisputed lineal middleweight champion fighting the former undisputed middleweight champion at the new weight class of the former champion on HBO PPV. To me, this is a keep, but tags should be placed on the article for it to be improved.RonSigPi (talk) 03:41, 13 June 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 Al Bano and Romina Power. Merge to Al Bano and Romina Power, barring sources demonstrating notability for the album. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atto I[edit]

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

Non-notable studio album. No media coverage has been provided. I searched for reliable sources and found nothing. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 21:35, 3 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* 01:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge track list to Al Bano and Romina Power which currently lacks detail, keep as redirect without prejudice to recreation if somebody finds useful sources (e.g. reviews). I find it highly unlikely there are no reviews -- the duo were apparently extremely popular in Italy for many years -- but I have been unable to find them. JulesH (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JulesH. ZackMartin (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Al Bano and Romina Power. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:38, 18 June 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. Non-notable, unref'd promotion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WatchIndia.TV[edit]

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

Non-notable TV subcription service from Cyprus, a subsidiary of Live Asia TV. No references provided. After a search on Google, 3rd party reliable sources doesn't exist, only publicitary sources. Also, the article seems to be written as an advertisement. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Hue Sat Lum 21:44, 3 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, —Hue Sat Lum 21:44, 3 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* 01:39, 10 June 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 Qarsita to preserve the page history and the title. Consensus is that the current article is unsalvageable, but may in future be replaced by a well sourced and properly written encyclopedia article about the named geographic feature. - filelake shoe  09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qarn Jayroun[edit]

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

Non-notable "farms area". Article is totally unsourced and written as an advertisement. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The place the article is about is apparently at 34°26′31″N 36°07′08″E / 34.442°N 36.119°E / 34.442; 36.119 - Google identifies it as Qarn, with Jairoun perhaps a mile to the south-west. It uwually seems to be identified simply as "Qarn", which however seems to be a fairly common Arabic place name - so that might explain the article title. Also, the Google translation of the corresponding Arabic Wikipedia article is close enough to this article to confirm that this has largely been translated from there - which may explain the inadequate sourcing and the occasionally promotional wording by our standards. So far as notability goes, I would be going straight for a Keep vote if I could be certain the place is inhabited - while there are extremely clear signs of human activity there, I can't see anything I would definitely class as habitation. So I will leave it to others to judge whether it meets our usual standards for geographical notability. PWilkinson (talk) 13:00, 1 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) 00:57, 3 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) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass any relevant notability standard. Impossible to reliably verify. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qarsita, the administrative entity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and Salimfadhley. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:Notability (geography) (as a "Named geographic feature"). GoogleEarth plainly shows "Jairoun" at the coordinates indicated. The Arabic term "Qarn" simply means "hill" or "mount" or "mountain", so "Qarn Jairoun" seems something like "Mount Jairoun". There are plenty of English place-names which are referred to both with and without the antecedent "Mount" (eg "Everest" and "Mount Everest"). Incidentally, satellite images of Jairoun seem to show at least a hundred house-size structures, but of course the village is probably nonnotable. No matter, its namesake mountain is inherently "notable" and the article should be retained and eventually improved on that basis. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:14, 19 June 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. there seems agreement that the article as rewritten about the current subject is acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madhurima[edit]

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

Non-notable TV anchor from India. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 May 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, SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 3 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) 00:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not notable enough to be on wikipedia and does not meet any notability guidelines on wiki. No external/ third party/ reliable links provided by the creator of the article. Anyone can upload videos on youtube. So DELETE.--Bharathiya 09:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. There is a far better known actress named Madhurima than this TV anchor. Most Google results lead to that actress, hence I have reworked the article and added couple of sources. Johannes003 (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes003, did you change the content of the whole article to this other Madhurima that you are mentioning? That means basically deleting the old article and thus making this AfD redundant? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that virtually means the earlier article has been deleted and replaced by a new one about another person. Johannes003 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (new version of the article) Editor 2050 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - New version of the article. Bharathiya 02:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (talk)
- Comment You've !voted Delete and Keep in the same AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: True. please check with the history of the page. Earlier there was no reference at all. Please Note that user:Johannes003 has changed the whole article and virtually the old article has already been deleted and another article is in place!!!. The old article was recommended for deletion since there was no reliable links attached. Meanwhile I agree with User:Animeshkulkarni above.- Bharathiya 08:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 1-up (keep). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Aackerlund[edit]

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

Won a videogame competition called the Nintendo "World" Championships (by "world" they mean only the United States of course). He's one among thousands of people that have won these kinds of tournaments. Already mentioned in Nintendo World Championships article, not notable enough for a separate stand-alone article. œ ^™ 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) œ ^™ 20:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - paragraph in 1UP feature, ARS Technica mentions he'll be in an upcoming documentary. On the other hand, two of the three refs in the article are dead. The other one, however, shows a print magazine. Not sure what magazine, though. --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Keep per coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 21:33, 17 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. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a few paywalled news articles which discuss him, e.g. [11][12][13]. As well as the Nintendo World Championships, I see coverage about his Tetris playing and his promotions for Camerica, so I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. I would be happier about !voting keep if there was more coverage, but even so I think he just about qualifies for a stand-alone article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Only if the article gets better sources. It seems that there is more than enough information to write a good article on him, but whoever created the article didn't use those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert'sscribe (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 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) 00:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - This person at least meets WP:BASIC per [14], [15], [16]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 11 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adult grooming[edit]

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

No references supplied, appears to be original research. If and when references to reliable sources are found, it can always be recreated. Attempted prodding for these reasons but was deprodded, so now it's time for AFD. Maratrean (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Proposer doesnt seem to have taken any notice of the discussion on the talk page. To summarise, the word "grooming" is in frequent use in both a child and adult context for the purposes of exploitation of one sort or another. "Adult grooming" is really just grooming and there should really be a general "grooming" article covering both child and adult grooming instead of having child grooming. There is no magical psychological reason why grooming can't happen once the age of 18 is reached. The psychological processes are basically just the same below or above 18.--Penbat (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments are just WP:OR and do nothing to change the fact that we have no WP:RS Maratrean (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No you have got it wrong, AFDs dispute the credibility of the subject of an article's existence not the content. Quite a few Wiki articles dont have sources and that in itself is not a reason for deleting the article.--Penbat (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NRVE - an article lacking reliable sources can be kept, sure, if the topic itself is notable. But, if notability is challenged, then reliable sources are required to demonstrate it. So far you have failed to produce any reliable sources, which goes against notability. 60.225.114.230 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to child grooming; it is unsourced and can't be easily distinguished, but could be a search term. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 6 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, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to child grooming; I couldn't find any sources using this term in the sense it's used in the article. All the searches of scholarly journals yielded only "Primate adult grooming", etc.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. I don't deny that "grooming" techniques as applied to children can also be employed towards adults, but I have never heard it referred to as a separate topic. Perhaps a section saying as much on child grooming is sufficient? Famous_dog 12:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTDIC. wikt:groom#Verb includes To attempt to gain the trust of a minor or adult with the intention of subjecting them to abusive or exploitative behaviour such as sexual abuse, human trafficking or sexual slavery. (That entry also appears to have been edited by the creator of the article in question here, but I don't think they're responsible for including the word "adult".) -- Trevj (talk) 09:22, 18 June 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. Half the commentators consider that the sources are sufficient to make this company notable; half the commentators consider that the sources are essentially press releases and are insufficient to make this company notable. There have been two relists and I am not confident that yet another relisting will produce a clear consensus. It is not the role of the closing admin to cast a supervote to referee between the opposing camps, by giving a personal view of the strength of the sources, when the Community is clearly undecided. At the moment, this seems to be a rapidly growing company; consequently it is better to let a reasonable period of time pass and, if considered appropriate at a future date, revisit this article at a fresh AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genetec[edit]

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

Non-notable tech company. Unreferenced. Also, it's written as an advertisement. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. All I could find at Google News was press releases. (I had to add "Canada" to the search because the name is not unique - there appear to be dozens of companies named Genetec, not to mention the massively better known company Genentech). --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 2 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also search for "Genetic Inc" for some possible refs, like: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ "Company Overview of Genetec Inc". Bloomberg Businessweek.
^ "Here are Montreal's top employers". canada.com.
^ "Technology cuts 2 ways in traffic field". Chicago Tribune. Genetec Inc., the Canadian company from which Chicago bought ... (subscription required)
^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181204777.html Gager, Russ. "Urban security infrastructure: wireless mesh complements the fiber backbone in Chicago's 'Operation Virtual Shield' project.(Technology @ Work)(Editorial)." Security Distributing & Marketing. BNP Media. 2008. HighBeam Research. 4 Jun. 2012 <http://www.highbeam.com>. (subscription required)
^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-153895271.html Longmore-Etheridge, Ann. "Security renewal goes Royal: the jewels in the crown of the Royal Ontario Museum's security upgrade are seamless management of digital video and alarm-sensing technology.(SMART SOLUTIONS TO SECURITY PROBLEMS)." Security Management. American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS). 2006. HighBeam Research. 4 Jun. 2012 <http://www.highbeam.com>. (subscription required)

Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep items 4 and 5 above meet notability requirements. --Kvng (talk) 19:54, 7 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, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Note that the following sources are not press releases; they're articles written by staff writers at their respective publications:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially all the references are press releases. "24th fastest growing technology company in canada" reads to be like good evidence for NOT YET NOTABLE. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NorthAmerica1000. ZackMartin (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't WP:TRIVCOV be the main source of the discussion here? "notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention". If the articles are press releases, then it is not a good source for material or coverage. However, it there are enough articles that make more than trivial mention there are possible grounds for notability. In my opinion, the article as it stands is not encyclopedic and doesn't display notability. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:18, 21 June 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.

Adelboden (disambiguation)[edit]

Teared up[edit]

Danielle Cortes DeVito[edit]

FaultTrack[edit]

Zach Bonahoom[edit]

Cheats for WarCraft 3: Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne[edit]

Yorkshire Travel York[edit]

Oak Jubilee[edit]

Kettering F.C.[edit]

Murda Weapon[edit]

Quinn Norton[edit]

Mediocracy[edit]

ClueNet[edit]

Camp Creek Middle School[edit]

Phillip Goldfeder[edit]

Brendan Doherty[edit]

Bestgore.com[edit]

Anish jerome

Timothie Fielder[edit]

Marty Etler[edit]

Driptech[edit]

Gerry Joe Weise[edit]

Viking Death March[edit]

Luna Blanca (Book 1)[edit]

Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Joel Casamayor[edit]

Bernard Hopkins vs. Kelly Pavlik[edit]

Atto I[edit]

WatchIndia.TV[edit]

Qarn Jayroun[edit]

Madhurima[edit]

Thor Aackerlund[edit]

Adult grooming[edit]

Genetec[edit]