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

The result was nomination withdrawn. No outstanding delete votes. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The Lost Tape[edit]

The Lost Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mixtapes are generally not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We don't delete articles because they cover subjects that are 'generally not notable', and a Google search demonstrates that this one does not fail WP:MUSIC, with all this coverage, for example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of anything is not notable, but this is clearly notable by the weight of coverage it's received. Someone should update the article with some of these refs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy Keep – Passes WP:GNG and criteria #1 of WP:BAND WP:NALBUMS, per: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you mean the GNG, as WP:BAND does not apply to an album. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You cited the topic as failing WP:MUSIC, which is a generic rationale, because this is an entire guideline page; and WP:BAND is a part of that page. WP:NALBUMS is more accurate. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep or Nomination withdrawn - Feel free to close. Thanks all. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 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 (non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AALBC.com[edit]

AALBC.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Alexa Rank 303,323 therefore I highly doubt this is a notable website, it also looks like this article was created for promotional purposes given the user that created this article has been banned. JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Please read WP:Notability. Notability isn't based on Alexa ranks. The article cites two New York Times articles and a Publishers Weekly article about the website. That's the sort of stuff notability is based on. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two articles from the NY Times and two from Publishers Weekly might be might give it a Weak keep but definitely not a Strong keep. JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP: WEBCONTENT. It also meets WP: GNG, and has very reliable sources, including the NY Times. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy weak keep though it may be better to merge the content into a list of online book clubs or something, its not going to have extensive content, Sadads (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While the coverage currently in the article is not very extensive, it does pass WP:GNG. The article could certainly use some addition of reliable sources and expansion, which I have started to do. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:53, 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 delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Conn (judge)[edit]

David Conn (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The sources provided in this article barely mention its subject, who is a living person - they only refer to him in passing in his role as a judge, and don't contain anything close to significant coverage of him as either a person or in his official role. As such, WP:BIO and WP:BLP are obviously not met, and it's unclear to me why the article was created. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Doesn't WP:BIO list certain occupations, which are considered notable, by default? From WP:BIO#Politicians:

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. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.

Four other members of the Court of Military Commission Review were nominated for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold. The consensus there was that this court was a national court, and those articles were kept as per the clause I quoted above. The closing administrator wrote: The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio. Consensus can change, but, given that closure, I thought an artice about Conn would also be in order. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's fair to say that we take BLP issues much more seriously than was the case in 2008, so that isn't a good precedent. Thank you for the explanation of why the article was created, but there appears to be no coverage of this person (for instance a search of Colonel David Conn returns almost nothing on Colonel Conn). Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please be more specific about your BLP concern? Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presumption to privacy. On the basis of my search for sources (which seem to have returned similar results to yours judging from the sources used in the article) Colonel Conn is not notable. As such, we shouldn't have an article on him just because he holds a position through which he's presided over some cases which were reported in the media. On the basis of the near total lack of sources, I'm not at all convinced that there should be any assumption of notability for judges on this court. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

• The lead section says "...must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Were you suggesting the article lapsed from this instruction?
• WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy has subsections, but its main section is empty.
• Can I assume you are not suggesting the article victimizes Colonel Conn as described in WP:BLP#Avoid victimization?
• The next section is WP:BLP#Public figures. If you think the article lapses from this section, could you please explain how?
• The next section WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources is intended to protect individuals from identity theft.
• The next section is WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown -- which I suggest is not relevant for holders of notable public offices.
• The next section is WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event -- which I suggest is not relevant as per WP:BIO#Politicians as I quoted above.
• The next section is WP:BLP#Persons accused of crime -- which I suggest is also not applicable.
• The next section is WP:BLP#Privacy of names -- which I suggest is also not applicable for holders of notable public offices.

Thanks in advance for explaining your privacy concern. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my above comment: he's not notable, so we shouldn't have an article on him, and in my view this article infringes his right to privacy. I hope that asking these questions in such a wordy fashion when I'd already explained my concern isn't an attempt to generate a discussion-stopping WP:CHUNK. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please -- are you suggesting WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown applies? I suggest he is a public figure. He has held a national office. He has published papers. Personal correspondence with him has been cited as a reference in other people`s documents. Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. The near complete lack of sources about this person indicates that whatever the position he holds, he is not really a 'public figure' in any meaningful sense. Judges in prominent roles tend to attract lots of coverage in the legal press and more general news reports and other publications. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You wrote Judges in prominent roles... Please explain how it is not meaningful to recognize that a public official in a prominent role is a public figure... Geo Swan (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources on this judge indicates that this isn't a prominent judicial role. The court appears to be notable, but the near total lack of refs on this person doesn't support claims that its judges are themselves automatically notable. I'm not sure what you're hoping for here to be honest. I've explained my rationale repeatedly above, and you keep asking variants on same questions. I'm not going to answer them again as this really looks like an attempt at WP:CHUNK to me. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You are free to claw-back what seemed to me to be an acknowledgment that Conn filled a “prominent role”.

While you have made several comments here it seems to me you have avoided addressing whether, according to WP:Notability (people)#Politicians (aka WP:POLITICIAN), holders of national offices are notable once RS confirm they held those offices. FWIW WP:SOLDIER similarly recommends that flag officers are notable once RS confirm they were promoted to flag rank. So, those who have argued that Conn is not notable according to WP:SOLDIER are not disputing that by the long-standing convention of WP:BIO there are narrow classes of individuals who are notable due to the offices they held -- without requiring documentation of the usual biographical details we would otherwise look for. Holders of national offices are an instance of one of those narrow classes. According to those who cite WP:SOLDIER, flag officers are another instance. Conn is not a flag officer, but he has held a national office. Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he holds a "prominant role": I clearly said that the lack of references about this person demonstrate that the role isn't in fact prominent. This appears to be a textbook example of WP:CHUNK. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER and was a judge on a court that does not reach the bar of "members are significant". Could possibly be redirected to United States Court of Military Commission Review, but should be deleted first either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain why should it matter whether or not he fulfills the criteria suggested in the essay WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People -- if he fulfills the criteria in guideline WP:Notability (people)#Politicians? Shouldn't a guideline trump a essay? Could you please address whether you agree or dispute whether he fulfills the criteria for WP:Notability (people)#Politicians as a judge holding a national office? Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He fails WP:POLITICIAN, too, as I said in my initial statement ("...a judge on a court that does not reach the bar..."). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but rather than repeat this phrase, can you explain your position? This court can hear appeals of death sentence cases, which I suggest puts it at just below the level of a national Supreme Court. So why do you consider this a court that does not “pass the bar”? Geo Swan (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because this is a military court, not a national one - courts-martial can enforce capital sentences, too, but aren't near the level of a national supreme court. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the USCMCR is a less important court than the SCOTUS. But where did you get the idea that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians aka WP:POLITICIAN only applies to members of the SCOTUS? I think the literal meaing would apply to any judge at the national level. Can you explain why you think the current wording doesn't apply to any judge at the national level? Most of the judges who considered the Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were US District Court Judges. Why wouldn't WP:POLITICIAN apply to any of them? I think one of two of the people who responded here have said they are lawyers in real life. They may not like hundreds of their public sector colleagues being considered notable. But I think that would be a concern that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just removed some fairly POV wording from the article. This includes material relating to 'controversial' tactics used by the prosecution in a case Conn presided over which was cited to a primary source which didn't mention Conn (the news story on the trial only identifies him as being one of the panel of judges which presided over it), a couple of irrelevant quotes included as part of reference citations, and POV wording which implied that Spc. Adam Winfield committed murder - he was found guilty of not preventing murders rather than committing them. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable subject, Fails WP:BIO and also Fails WP:SOLDIER. The creator Geo Swan's arguement of WP:POLITICIAN fails on "the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", because there is no coverage of the subject other than taking the name in the articles on proceedings.--DBigXray 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteFails WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. I can't find reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, which are required to establish notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - (1) colonels are not inherently notable, and (2) the court on which he was a judge is not a major appellate court. He also fails my standards for notability of attorneys. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject fails WP:GNG as there is not "significant coverage" directly regarding the individual. Additionally subject fails WP:SOLDIER. The military tribunal may pass WP:GNG, however those individuals who are part of said tribunal appear not to warrant individual articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- We have policies, guidelines, conventions, and essays. Sometimes arguments in ((afd)) call upon documents in the Wikipedia: namespace as if they had the authority of policy or guideline, when they are essays. Some essays are very widely accepted, and, with some work, and a broad discussion, could be promoted to the status of a guideline.

Several contributors here have argued that this article should be deleted because it does not comply with WP:SOLDIER. But WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline. If the article does comply with WP:POLITICIAN I suggest an accepted guideline trumps an essay.

I request the closing administrator discount all respondents above who echoed the opinion the article violates the essay WP:SOLDIER.

I suggest the most important question here is whether Conn meets the criteria of holding a national office as a judge.

One correspondent above asserted "...the court on which he was a judge is not a major appellate court." First, so what? WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about sitting on an appellate court. Second, the USCMCR is an appeallate court -- one empowered to consider appeals in death sentence cases. That correspondent doesn`t say what a “major” appellate court is, but I suggest any appellate court empowered to consider appeals of death sentence cases should be considered a “major” court.

Another correspondent above asserts Conn was "...a judge on a court that does not reach the bar..." -- but without explaining this assertion. As above, he is a national judge, as per WP:POLITICIAN, and, as above, the USCMCR is a court authorized to consider appeals in death sentence cases.

Do we sometimes ignore all rules? Yes. But, I suggest, when we do so, we should do so after meaningful arguments have been made to explain why we should make an exception. No offense but, I suggest, the arguments for making an exception advanced so far have boiled down to simply “I don`t like it.”

For what it is worth I initiated a discussion a couple of days ago -- Should we create a new namespace, for essays? -- where I tried to address the general problem of ((afd))s where essays were treated as if they had the authority of policy. While my specific proposal found no support I think there is a widespread concern over essays being cited as if they were policies. Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essays remain essays instead of policies because you have to go through the gauntlet of 40 musk-infested elephants to get them to be anything more. The solution isn't to marginalize essays, but instead to establish that essays which are accepted by broad consensus of the community become guidelines, or at least are considered equally. (And I still find it darkly amusing that nobody ever trots out the "oh, that's just an essay" argument with regards to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Oh, and since the article fails WP:POLITICIAN as well, your request that the 'closing admin...discount all respondents...who [stated] the essay violates WP:SOLDIER', without qualification, smacks of trying to get their !votes thrown out completely, even though all the WP:SOLDIER citers above have also stated that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We agree that some of the highest quality and most accepted essays should be considered for promotion to guideline status. Some other essays are crap. Others, without being crap, reflect a fringe viewpoint, and should not be promoted to guideline status, for that reason. And still others, while valuable, may be impossible to turn into guidelines for various reasons.

So, are you tacitly acknowledging WP:SOLDIER, an essay, would be trumped by WP:POLITICIAN -- if WP:POLITICIAN is applicable?

You wrote: “...since the article fails WP:POLITICIAN as well...” Rather than simply repeating this assertion could you try to explain your reasoning... I quoted the first numbered point from the politicians` section of WP:BIO above. The third numbered point, in contrast, states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

I suggest these two numbered points establish a clear distinction between the required notability criteria for LOCAL officials and NATIONAL officials. Numbered point three makes clear LOCAL officials are not guaranteed notability. LOCAL officials can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion. I suggest the distinction being made here is that holders of NATIONAL offices are notable when RS confirm they hold that office. Period. If this wasn`t true there would be no reason for WP:BIO to have a politicians section, at all.

With regard to WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO -- just to be clear, you realize that WP:POLITICIAN doesn`t contradict WP:BIO? You realize that WP:POLITICIAN is a specific shortcut to the section of WP:BIO that applies to politicians -- and other office holders like judges?

With regard to WP:GNG -- the GENERAL notability guidelines are supplemented by specific guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN.

With regard to the role of the closing administrator -- it is my understanding that the closing administrator has a responsibility to discount me too opinions, and to evaluate the extent to which the arguments advanced comply with our policies, guidelines and established conventions. No offense, but while you have been quite clear that you don`t want WP:POLITICIAN applied here, you really haven`t tried to explain why. So, no offense, by my understanding of the closing administrator`s responsibilities, he or she should discount your opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I do want WP:POLITICIAN applied here. Because this is a military court, not a national one - courts-martial can enforce capital sentences, too, but aren't near the level of a national supreme court - and he does not pass it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appellate level judges are notable. The distinction between essays, guideline , and policies is very vague, not only because because we can make exceptions to any of them, but because the actual effect of all of them depends not on how the text is written, but how the community chooses to interpret it. The basic rule of our operation is CONSENSUS, which is itself an interpretation of IAR, and means we can do whatever we want to do if we agree on it. e make the encyclopedia. We decide what is for the good of the encyclopedia. We decide what we want to include. What we want to do depends on what we as a collectivity thinks we should do. Given essentially and reasonable or unreasonable view on that, I can find policy based reasons for it--or against it. The validity of the argument is judged by only one criterion, whether the community agrees on the result. In this case the court is of so great importance that it is reasonable to consider the judges of it notable. Several years ago i realized the uselessness of discussions on policy and by and large stopped participating in them, as I realized the discussions were a waste of time, even when they reached a conclusion. What we say there , and the eventual result of policy discussions, actually don't matter. What we do in individual cases matters. The contrary view is based on the way we have been brought up to respect established authority. This lacks relevance in a community like ours, where we ourselves are the responsible authority, and nobody can judge us, and say except as a personal opinion whether we are right or wrong in what we do. If it makes sense for an encyclopedia , we should do it, and there is no other rule.

I consider that the attempts to remove these articles are in effect political bias, to avoid coverage of what makes the US look in a bad light. This practice is so destructive to an honest encyclopedia that our balanced should be towards keeping them if in doubt. I remain a child of the 60s--with principles based ultimately on the Enlightenment The purpose and effect of free information is to counter the establishment. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? I'm nominating this article for deletion as because its a BLP with no sources to establish notability. Accusing me of doing so due to some kind of "political bias" seems to be a rather massive assumption of bad faith. The rest of your post appear to fall under WP:ITSIMPORTANT I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What it looks like to me is that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians encodes several narrow classes of exceptional occupations. It seems to me that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians specifically encodes that individuals for whom there are WP:Reliable sources that confirm they hold these exceptional occupations are simply notable. Period.

Usually, when someone objects to the wording of a policy or guideline, aren`t they simply told to express their objection on the policy or guideline`s talk page, or on some other relevant policy fora -- and let the Xfd play out according to the current wording?

If what you really want is for the closing administrator to ignore the current wording of the relevant guideline -- to exercise WP:ignore all rules -- wouldn`t it be best for the project if you offered open and explicit arguments for IAR? Geo Swan (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend that my nomination is based on something other than the near complete lack of reliable sources about this living person. I've got no ulterior motive here. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for stating you have no ulterior motive¸-- even though I don`t think anyone has stated or implied you have an ulterior motive.  ::::: What I think your nomination did, and your subsequent comments, is to ignore the clear surface meaning of WP:Notability (people)#Politicians -- which distinguishes between NATIONAL office holders and LOCAL office holders. It states LOCAL officials have to match “the primary notability criterion of ‘significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article’ ” -- and that NATIONAL officials don`t. As I noted in this comment if we weren`t going to recognize that when RS confirm someone held a NATIONAL office they were inherently notable there would be no reason for WP:BIO to have a Politicians section at all. IF WP:POLITICIAN wasn`t establishing an exemption for NATIONAL office holders then those articles would be no different from articles on ordinary BLP. But WP:POLITICIAN does establish more relaxed criteria for articles on NATIONAL office holders. You may not like what the guideline says. Well, there are things you can do about that.

If you think the closing administrator should exercise IAR, then shouldn`t you explain why?

Have you considered trying to explain at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) why you think WP:POLITICIAN should be amended? Geo Swan (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is we don't believe that the United States Court of Military Commission Review counts under WP:POLITICIAN - it's a military court, not a national one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to 'counter the establishment'. Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia - of notable subjects - and David Conn is not notable by Wikipedia policy, not some vague conspiracy by the cabal. I find your lack of WP:AGF disturbing- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification -- are you acknowledging that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians aka WP:POLITICIAN trumps the advice in WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People aka WP:SOLDIER. Are you arguing that the guideline WP:Notability (people) is contradicted by an official policy? If so, could you please cite the policy, and quote the relevant passages? Geo Swan (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. WP:COMMONSENSE. As a member of a military, not national, court, Conn doesn't pass WP:POLITICANS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:41, 24 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) 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baky International Humanitarian Forum[edit]

Baky International Humanitarian Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Adversiting, spam. Saint Johann (ru) 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage to this "annual" event with origins in 2010, and first held in 2011. The event is not notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. No independent WP:RS --Artene50 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 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 delete. I don't think there's a need to break out the salt shaker yet unless it's recreated again. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Knowles (footballer)[edit]

James Knowles (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by afd. Still fails WP:NSPORT, as Mr Knowles has not played in a fully pro league, and still fails WP:GNG in the absence of significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. However, I don't think the PROD needed to be replaced as the previous two AfDs were for a different player. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, to the team's page at best. The article is well written, but I can't see how this person need his own article as his team is a minor or school league. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think fans of Blackburn Rovers would be quite surprised to learn that their club plays in a "minor or school league"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect there's some cross cultural confusion here. I think he means minor in the American sense of the term, (i.e. not top flight), and is referring to the reserves for which Mr. Knowles has actually played. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and Protect Redirect In a sense, if the page is getting recreated over time then maybe it should be locked as a redirect until notibility can be established. There clearly is interest in the person and thus long-term non-perminant protection will stop the create and delete cycle for a while. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom – no indication of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. A redirect would not be a good idea since his name doesn't appear to be a viable search term. – Kosm1fent 15:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, and hasn't represented his country at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:12, 20 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) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphor Entertainment, Inc[edit]

Metaphor Entertainment, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable, no notability asserted. PROD tried by another editor previously but removed Justinc (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very minor company. No real notability established. --Artene50 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree, a brief search reveals no reliable sources and there is no notability here. Ubelowme (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 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. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 04:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Institute of Public Policy[edit]

Pacific Institute of Public Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations and companies or be the subject of any significant independent coverage; reliable sources only contain passing mentions and press releases (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, While it has been suggested that the wiki only includes reference articles which mention PiPP in passing, many of the articles actually only exist in the first place due to topics arising as a direct result from surveys and research findings that came from PiPP. Therefor, it seems a little unusual to suggest that PiPP was only 'mentioned in passing'. On the wiki, PiPP is referenced in papers by the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade along with the Australian Government's aid agency, AusAID. Both are extremely significant in terms of their impact in the Pacific Islands region. PiPP is well-known in the region, particularly in Australia and among the Pacific Islands and is 'notable'. This notability is demonstrated in part by the variety of sources on the wiki, which include government agencies, the United Nations, news media coverage from media outlets in Fiji, Vanuatu, Australia, New Zealand etc. Tobes82 (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since the Institute covers policy for several countries in the Pacific, it would seem to be a notable topic in public policy and Oceanian countries. The article does need to be cleaned up (bare URLs, etc.), but that shouldn't be a basis for deletion. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tobes82's sound analysis--Cavarrone (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find the news coverage to be sufficient (significant and independent and from multiple reliable sources). Considering that this agency's focus area is not a huge media market, the degree of coverage reflected in the article is actually quite impressive. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 24 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, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tochukwu Ipere[edit]

Tochukwu Ipere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR - the books mentioned in the article are self-published - Amsaim (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When I tried to find out more about the "International Poet Of Merit Award", which sounds prestigious, the first website that popped up on a Google search was "Fraudulent Vanity Press Publishing of Manuscripts and Poetry". This is a "pay to play" award. This self-published poet is non-notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. In addition, the article appears to be an WP:Autobiography. Msnicki (talk) 03:21, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Hoxha[edit]

Erand Hoxha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Kept at AfD in June 2009, despite the subject having not played in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. First and foremost, this article fails WP:GNG. While the Albanian Superleague is included in WP:FPL, it's inclusion is disputed. The second and third sources are the same and confirm only that an organisation calling itself the "Professional League" consisting of the chairmen top league clubs and of the the Albanian FA. The first says nothing about professionalism whatsoever. There being insufficient verifiable evidence to confirm the Albanian Superleague as fully pro, we cannot assume that it is. As such this article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I initially nominated this article for deletion years ago, but based on some work by Eldumpo and some additional research I just did, I think the article passes the GNG or comes close enough to keep the article while an Albanian-speaking editor cleans it up and adds references. A quick search of the sportishqiptar.com.al website shows that Hoxha gets a fair amount of coverage (ref #3 is dedicated to his career up to 2009). Jogurney (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:51, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Curran[edit]

Gary Curran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Kept at AfD in October 2008, despite the subject having not played in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, and hasn't represented his country at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:04, 20 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) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Weiss[edit]

Nate Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Deleted at AfD in August 2008 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. As such, the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, and hasn't represented his country at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:02, 20 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, as it was withdrawn by the nominator (see below) (non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anibar International Animation Festival[edit]

Anibar International Animation Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Google translate of Alban wp Rosenhaven (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)— Rosenhaven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Being a translation from another Wikipedia is not a valid reason for deletion. The subject's notability might be questionable but the nomination is faulty. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid deletion rationale. Default to WP:PRESERVE, in my case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per invalid deletion rationale that ignores WP:ATD, WP:CSB, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:HANDLE. Being the ONLY such film festival in Kosovo makes this a unique enough accomplishment so that verifibility should encourage both patience and the seeking of input from Serbian language-reading AND (now) Albanian-language-reading Wikipedians with access to non-English sources that may not be available online. Heck.... this was trans-wiki'd just hours ago. Why the hurry from the SPA nominator to speedy delete and then rush to AFD when the speedy was declined... WHILE it was being actively edited? Wikipedia is a work-in-progress after all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seeking of input fron Serbian Wikipedians with access to non-English sources You lack knowledge. People in the country Kosovo speak Albanian and their enemies in the country Serbia speak Serbian. Rosenhaven (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being the ONLY such film festival in Kosovo Please bring WP:RS for your claim or change your vote. Rosenhaven (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:NPA. The article makes that claim, not me. I seek input from those perhaps more able than myself to advise, no matter their native language... and have now added the Albanian delsort below, thank you. AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion using application of existing policy and guidline... both in addressing a nomination by a single purpose account, and in questioning whether or not deletion policy was followed. It is not to be elavated to a WP:BATTLEGROUND by making it about Serbian-Albanian hostilities. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:NPA. No attack from me. Rosenhaven (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and have now added the Albanian delsort below, thank you. You still lack knowledge. You also add discussion on California to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England only because they speak the same language? Let me guide you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kosovo. If you want to add it to some country, then add it there. Rosenhaven (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes that claim, not me. You make the claim here by repeating it. Your Keep is based on unsourced claim in google translated article. Rosenhaven (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emboldening your points is considered shouting. Shouting is consider rude. I make no claim, but simply repeat the article's assertion in the hope that an editor with access to non-English sources might assist, just as I have added this discussion to other delsorts. If somone able to find and offer a non-English sources does so, then fine. And I have no idea why you make an unjustified claim that I added California to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England, but suspect you said so to make a point. Thank you for suggesting it be added to the delsort for Kosovo. Now done. When dealing with topics that may or may not have soures in a non-English language, I prefer getting as much input as possible from those more able to opine knowledgably. This would include adding to delsorts of the area's languages so that Serbian language-reading AND (now) Albanian-language-reading Wikipedians might assist. And by the by, just as did the others before me, my keep was based upon your invalid deletion ratonale. Please read Deletion policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, not intended to be rude, bold removed Rosenhaven (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being the only such competition in the country does not necessarily make it notable. To the best of my knowledge, I host the only competition in my country to see who can destroy the most keyboards accidentally within a given time frame. This is unquestionably not notable, even though I know of no other in my country (or the world, at that). --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Speedy Keep as no valid rationale for deletion has been provided.DarkAudit (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for procedural mistake, please close this discussion. New discussion for notability discussion that is inappropriate here opened. Rosenhaven (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've just compounded your procedural mistakes, as you cannot have two AfDs open at the same time, in your singular zeal to delete this article. (Incidentally I for one will oppose that one, too, as a Google search shows that the festival is internationally known, and I believe the difficulty is one of finding foreign language WP:RS). (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anibar International Animation Festival (2nd nomination). De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal, you make a mistake. The originator requested this discussion closed (which is, as I understand it, allowable at that point as no dissenting opinion had been offered) before opening the other. Thus the second would have been openable (and ought not have been subject to procedural close) and this one should have been closed instead (now a moot point). Also, Google results alone are not enough to establish notability. If WP:RS cannot be found, notability cannot be established. To suggest that you would vote contrary to the logical result of what you state as the likely problem is to suggest that your vote would not be based on the facts as you see them. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being a translation is also not a reason for a keep. I do not see notability established in this article, nor anything resembling a reliable source. --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added an WP:RS, using the foreign languages function of Google Search. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:GNG, one source alone doesn't seem to establish notability. Still a delete. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin - A second nomination was opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anibar International Animation Festival (2nd nomination) with a deletion rationale while this is open. Only non-procedural delete !vote there was from User:Nouniquenames who has commented likewise here. Second nomination has been closed. KTC (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would actually be willing to withdraw my vote to close this (likely under SNOW) as it has mostly been a procedural debate instead of challenging the merits of the article. This would be with the understanding that, were the originator (or someone else) not to open a new AfD with better reasons listed, I would likely do so. Even if the new AfD then fails, at least it can be based on the merits of the article instead of based on the procedural issues of this AfD (and the other one that was already closed). --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Drop me a note and I'd be happy to do so myself WITH a proper deletion rationale. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redacted earlier delete. Reasoning was based upon criteria unrelated to the proposal. Recommending close as Snow Keep. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might close this myself per WP:IAR, but I am not a neutral party. Ping me when it is closed and I'll gladly do the nomination correctly, and invite participaints to revisit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:10, 20 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. The arguments that the two members of Impaled Nazarene being shared makes this group notable founder on the rocks of WP:NOTINHERITED. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belial (band)[edit]

Belial (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Only sources given show it existed, but nothing to show any significance. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, indeed nothing significant on the web. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" Contains Reima Kellokoski and Jarno Anttila both of which have spent several years in Impaled Nazarene, Finland's biggest Black Metal band which has 100,000+ views on youtube videos and many in high 10,000s. They both feature in these videos and music. Drummermean (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

When copying from this articles talk page you omitted my response - Appearing in a notable band does not automatically make them independently notable noq (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jarno Anttila and Reima Kellokoski played guitars and drums, respectively, in the album, Pro Patria Finlandia, which was the top album import of Japan. http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=54794 . It also entered the national album chart in Finland at position No. 38.

This is not an article about Impaled Nazarene - so why is this relevant? noq (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly an article about Impaled Nazarene, as it bears the title: IMPALED NAZARENE: 'Pro Patria Finlandia' Tops Japanese 'Import' Album Chart - July 8, 2006. Drummermean (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" Discogs.com: http://www.discogs.com/label/Lethal+Records+%286%29: Lethal Records lists Belial and their published work which is independent http://www.moribundcult.com/releases.html: The official Moribund Cult record label which also has a wikipedia page, lists Belial's work here. Drummermean (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummermean (talk • contribs)

Edit: Drummermean (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to two or more independently notable musicians: When searching Reima's alias, 'Repe Misanthrope', around 600,000 results appear in Google as he is search a well known drummer. He has contributed to much of Impaled Nazarene's song-writing, as can be viewed in wikipedia articles.

This is not an article about Impaled Nazarene, why is this relevant? And as has been pointed out on the talk page previously, the discogs and moribund links are purely directory listings and not significant coverage. noq (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Jarno yields 100,000s of views. He has also contributed to much of Impaled Nazarene's song writing which can also be viewed from sources. Jarno recently left Impaled Nazarene and attained a lot of coverage, such as by Roadrunner Records http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=143118 , who are probably the biggest record label for metal and rock music. Drummermean (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC) (duplicate signature removed)[reply]

This is not an article about Impaled Nazarene. Or Jarno. noq (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=143118 is completely about both subjects. It bears the title: IMPALED NAZARENE Parts Ways With Guitarist, Announces New Album Title - July 17, 2010 Drummermean (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Drummermean (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussiion is about Belial - references about another band do nothing to establish the notability of Belial. noq (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance to notability, two or more independently notable musicians:

Jarno Anttila has produced independently notable tracks for Impaled Nazarene. He was involved with an album which was the top album import of Japan and entered the national album chart in Finland at position No. 38 (see above for links). When he recently parted way with the band, he had many news articles bearing his name. One example, as well with the one above, is: http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=58016 Reima Kellokoski has also produced independently notable tracks for Impaled Nazarene. He was involved with an album which was the top album import of Japan and entered the national album chart in Finland at position No. 38 (see above for links). Drummermean (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Drummermean (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read to the end of the criteria - "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Being in a notable band does not automatically make you notable! Your metalunderground link just shows he left a notable group - that does not make him individually notable anymore than joining the group does. As I keep saying, this debate is about Belial - your arguments have all been about Impaled Nazarene. noq (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The main argument for inclusion here seems to be that since Belial shares two members of Impaled Nazarene then it meets the inclusion criteria as it "contains two or more independently notable musicians". Unfortunately, the individuals in question do not appear to have any independent notability outside of Impaled Nazarene at the present time. Youtube, Google and Discogs are NOT reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 13:59, 22 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. Nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boffin[edit]

Boffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Apparent flagrant violation of WP:NAD. This is evidenced by its references as the OED and Urban Dictionary. There is no reasonable place to move/merge any of this in Wikipedia as it basically all amounts to trivia. At best a tiny amount of the "origins" section of this article belongs in the otherwise empty Wiktionary etymology. Teply (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have separate articles for nerd, geek, egghead and anorak (slang) which are all quite similar and so it seems that this class of words is among those allowed for by WP:NAD: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". As examples of sources which discuss this type in detail see Typical Men: The Representation of Masculinity in Popular British Cinema; Churchill's War Lab: Code Breakers, Boffins and Innovators; Movers And Shakers: A Chronology of Words That Shaped Our Age. These approach the topic in various ways: cinematic stereotypes; wartime history; influential words, and so demonstrate a depth of coverage which satisfies WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The other words you list, I (mostly) agree, may have some generally notable encyclopedic value because of the connotation of those words, which is explained in those articles. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, "boffin" is just used in verbatim exchange for "scientist/engineer" with no particular connotation that needs explaining, sort of like how "grand" to mean 1000 units of currency is not an encyclopedic article. An example of this verbatim exchange is in the very title you mention, Churchill's War Lab: Code Breakers, Boffins and Innovators. Teply (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "boffin" is a notable British term, which has a slightly different meaning than just "scientist". CodeTheorist (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are some more sources which further demonstrate particular connotations:

The role of The Boffin as abject Other in gendered performances of school achievement

The Boffin: a stereotype of scientists in post-war British films (1945-1970)

The Natural History of the Boffin

Warden (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I guess I wasn't familiar with the "film stereotype" connotation. I won't withdraw my nomination, but I'm less concerned now. Teply (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not the best article in Wikipedia but worthy of inclusion as a notable slang term in many English speaking countries. I don't accept that it violates WP:NAD, only the first short sentence is concerned with defining 'boffin' (the job of a dictionary), the rest talks about the etymology of the word and discusses some renowned boffins.--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article goes beyond dictionary definition by discussing its connotations, the origin of the word, and its cultural role. References show the term is widely used and there's sufficient discussion of the term in popular and scholarly media to allow an article to be written that goes well beyond dictionary def. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Save Boffin from the coffin. Articles like Bimbo or boffin? Women in science ... and Let luvvie embrace boffin in the digital future suggest it has acquired sufficient stature for its own page. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A term that can sometimes (in British newspaper headlines) simply be a synonym for scientist or engineer but, as per several preceding contributors to this discussion, almost always carries a mixture of positive and negative connotations (such as brilliant, unworldly, socially inept). A further couple of possible references:

Jennifer Quinn (27 May 2004). "In defence of the boffin". BBC News Online Magazine.

Dyer, Nicole (2004). "Rebirth of the Boffin". Popular Science. 265 (Sep 2004). Bonner Corporation: 160. ISSN 0161-7370. -- PWilkinson (talk) 15:27, 23 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throw In Records[edit]

Throw In Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

unconnected series of unsourced "facts". Anything that a source can be found for would fit in the existing Throw-in article. noq (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the content can be verified to a reliable source, it could be included in Throw-in. Sperril (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a lot of unverified original research. Anything worth salvaging should be included in throw-in, provided that sources can be found. — sparklism ^hey! 06:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only one of these is a "record" per se, and that is unsourced, the others are just random trivia. Nothing really worth salvaging that I can see -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced original research, and pure cruft. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I struggled to understand what this article was about at first. Definitely original research and cruft. – Kosm1fent 15:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced information, possible Original Research. Creator has had ample time to add sources, and has failed to do so. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced and not useful. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - serves no use whatsoever. GiantSnowman 21:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced and original research. There is no information in this article that cannot be placed in Throw-in if a source is added. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced trivia. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:35, 22 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) 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brand journalism[edit]

Brand journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

WP:NEO, basically. It's a term coined by one guy and popularised by one guy and the people who snarf his blog posts. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The content is a superficial rewrite of some of the sources. The topic lacks in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the phrase is a promotional coinage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Cullen. Basically, it's spam masquerading as lingo. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blah, blah, blah. Jargon-filled spam. Puffery for a fairly obvious "new" phrase for some fairly obvious old concepts. And (now that I've got that off my chest) no independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 24 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 for Garnik Hovhannisyan, Hovhannes Harutyunyan, Sargis Movsisyan, Armen Babayan and no consensus for Samvel Petrosyan with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garnik Hovhannisyan[edit]

Garnik Hovhannisyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Kept at AfD in March 2008, despite having not played in a fully professional league. Therefore, the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Hovhannes Harutyunyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sargis Movsisyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Samvel Petrosyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Armen Babayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mattythewhite (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom – none of them played in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. – Kosm1fent 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and Kosm1fentSeasider91 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom. None of them have played professionally or received significant coverage. They all fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - per nom, and about time, too. Cloudz679 18:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Samvel Petrosyan became Soviet cup winner playing for Ararat. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Petrosyan - Delete the others - Petrosyan played for Ararat Yerevan from 1973 to 1983 when they played in the Soviet Top League and won the Soviet Cup. The others haven't played in a fully professional league, or been capped at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Petrosyan - As pointed out, he played for a cup winning club, and in the Soviet top flight, which is generally regarded as sufficient for inclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 22 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 Speedily deleted per Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.

Kevin Mesa[edit]

Kevin Mesa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Deleted at AfD in March 2008 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hasn't played in a fully professional league and media coverage comes from questionable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:23, 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 evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL presented j⚛e decker^talk 17:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Ayre[edit]

Keegan Ayre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Deleted at AfD in February 2008 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Perhaps worth pointing out the article was created by a now-banned user, Zombie433 (talk · contribs). Mattythewhite (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - hasn't played in a fully professional league and media coverage on him is routine. – Kosm1fent 16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He still has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage, fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, or played for his country at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:40, 20 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 both Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Torbeši (Našinci)[edit]

Torbeši (Našinci) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Seems to be a partial copy of Macedonian Muslims; can't read the parenthetical so I have no clue what this means. Don't think it would qualify for a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as pov fork - the significant difference is that it denies that they are ethnic Macedonians. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Torbeški, created by the same user, should be deleted along with this one. --Local hero ^talk 01:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as POV fork. Torbeshi are a kind of Pomaks and Torbeški is not a distinct language. Jingiby (talk) 05:04, 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 Speedy keep 1 as nomination withdrawn "and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of lists[edit]

List of lists of lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Original research, no independent sources, no useful relevance Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per consensus reasoning in the first AfD, two months ago. A legitimate navigational aid and no reason to get rid of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ArxiloxosSeasider91 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous AfD, q.v. --Seduisant (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh, where is that other AfD coming from? No mention of that on the talkpage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at the first link in the "AfDs for this article" box just above. --Seduisant (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a user-navigational index page, not an encyclopedic topic. The fact that Mr. Hammer, a serious deletionist at AfD, withdrew his nomination the first time around, acknowledging the page's utility, should have been taken into consideration by the nominator. The title is whimsical, but descriptive. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did look on the talkpage for an earlier AfD, but there was mention of it. So I assumed I was the first to nominate it. It seems the closing of the first AfD was handled incorrectly :-( Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Request speedy close as keep as nominator. No article but navigation. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Out of principal I don't close AfD's I have started[reply]
• Keep valuable, useful, interesting, clever. Which may not be valid keep arguments but keep anyway.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:52, 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 List of gurdwaras#Georgia. There's a clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article at this time. I'll leave the history intact but protect it for 6 months. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sewa Gurudwara Sahib[edit]

Sewa Gurudwara Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Does not have WP:RS and notability is not established. The Determinator p t c 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 19:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 19:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 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) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I hate to say it, because unlike Christian churches which are a dime a dozen in this part of the world, gurdwaras are pretty uncommon here. I feel like it should be notable for that fact, but I'm not finding any sources other than the organization's own website, Facebook page, etc. If a suitable redirect target could be found (or created) I'd support redirecting it, but I haven't found one so far. LadyofShalott 23:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked again and came to the same conclusion: Delete The Determinator p t c 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of gurdwaras#Georgia. Have applied related source to list as citation. Agree with User:LadyofShalott above this is an uncommon institution in Georgia, but since page lacks sourcing, redirects are cheap. Page can be rebuilt if sufficient sources can one day be found. BusterD (talk) 17:19, 16 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:32, 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 merge to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2012#District 21. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Henao[edit]

Cesar Henao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable candidate for public office, fails WP:POLITICIAN, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or the General notability guideline. Google news shows only three hits in any way related to the subject of the article: one is the site recording his registration for the election, one is about him as an intern for another politician 4 years ago, and the last has a quote from him in an article about Hispanics registering as Democrats in Florida. -- Donald Albury 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2012#District 21 (currently empty); likely search term. Merge basic candidacy and redirect. Dru of Id (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge first two sentences to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2012#District 21. Like Druid says, this is a likely search term (don't know how many of those are Wikipedians looking at the AfD, but still) and the elections page is a natural spot for the content to be at. Appears to be weak when compared to relevant notability guidelines. No prejudice against recreating should he do something surprising ("notable") later on, of course. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE :: I am also a candidate in the same race, same district as Cesar. We are, in fact, opponents. In these times of societal turmoil, when democracy has been sold to the highest bidder, it is important for societal institutions to support the democratic process. In the context of the November general election, Cesar IS NOTABLE as one of only three candidates (including an incumbent) who has qualified for the ballot to represent 696,000 citizens in the United States House of Representatives, as I have. We both face an uphill battle against an entrenched, moneyed, career politician. Any community forum, including Wikipedia, may serve as a potential resource for the people who are looking for information about those who are vying for their votes, hoping to serve. For that reason, I suggest that you not delete this page, at least until after the general election date of Tuesday, November 6, 2012. My name is W. Michael (Mike) Trout; I am a candidate for Congress in Florida's New 21st Congressional District, and I approve this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.74.21.109 (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 108.74.21.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are subject to agreed guidelines, such as WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE AND CHANGE POLICY I do not believe this article should be deleted either. I may be biased because I am the Campaign Manager, but I believe in the principles of opensource information sharing, and I don't believe deleting this page is justified simply because Wikipedia thinks that Cesar Henao isn't "famous" or a "celebrity". I think Wikipedia needs to change their standards, and recognize the kind of exposure a private citizen chooses to undergo by qualifying as a candidate for public office. We have filed documents with the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Election Commission, and the State Department of Florida - all of which are public record. Deciding to run for public office is something that sets people apart, because most people don't do it. I disapprove of Wikipedia's attempts to be a gatekeeper of information on such an important subject as voter education. I think Wikipedia's standards are based upon the wrong measurements, and is based upon a "celebrity" mentality when it comes to approving pages. This policy is not helping anyone in the 21st century who wants to be better informed about their government, and the people hoping to represent the people in elected office.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonWeakley (talk • contribs)

— JasonWeakley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to the election page as per above. Sorry, Mike and Jason, I know this may be upsetting, but that's the consensus here at Wikipedia; we have to have standards for inclusion if we are to maintain our credibility as an international encyclopedia. Simply running for office does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. If you want to be notable enough for a page here, either win the election (then the page will be restored), or else demonstrate that you have received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, not counting routine election coverage. Meanwhile, your NAME will still be here, and it will lead people to the election page. (That's what Redirect means.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and your item at the election page can include a link to your campaign site. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 24 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. Needs to meet both BLP and GNG guidelines, which it does not seem to be able to meet. Sockpuppets/involved people have done more to harm this process than to help (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jarred Land[edit]

Jarred Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article was dePRODded by an anonymous IP after the addition of several sources and some text. I just went through all references one by one and they either are primary, non-independent sources, non-RS sources (WP itself, imdb, blogs), don't mention the article's subject, or (in the case of Vogue) grossly exaggerated. I removed one section, which consisted only of name-dropping (all material can still be seen in the edit history and by using the diff link above). In the end, nothing much remains. In the absence of sources, this fails WP:BIO and WP:V, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. The sources presented in the article do not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither his creative work nor his role as company president appear to have received more than passing mention. Many of the sources here are not acceptable and don't support the content for which they're referenced, and reliable independent sources are lacking. Google and Google News searches aren't encouraging. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person is the president of the largest camera company in the united states. It looks like he is also currently on the panel of Vogue Magazine and published in Vogue print. Looks like a personal attack linked to other articles for deletion by user Guillaume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.190.189 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 76.79.190.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

•  Note: This anonymous comment is likely to have been made by the operator of an account which had already !voted. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jarred Land is an important person in the field of Digital Cameras and Hollywood Movie Making. This page provides necessary information about his work. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.19.0 (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 110.39.19.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

•  Note: This anonymous comment is likely to have been made by the operator of an account which had already !voted. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin Please review the edit history of this debate. One of the anonymous IPs changed the nom and Edison's !vote. I think I have restored everything as it should (while leaving the keep !votes of the two IPs), but it would be good to double-check. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. this person is important to everyone in the film industry he runs RED which you should do a search on. He is tied to peter Jackson, david fincher, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salworx (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Salworx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

•  Note: CheckUser data verifies that this editor has abused multiple accounts in order to subvert the proper operation of this dicussion. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep . Jarred Land is incredibly influential and a key people as noted on RED's own Wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company . If you follow Guillaume2303 recent admin activity he seems to be deleting other articles relating to Jarred land and RED as what seems to be personal attacks, or perhaps even of anti-competitive nature. One of his attacks on Bambi magazine in which he orchestrated other wiki editors and on it's talk page offered personal gifts to editors and favors for voting with him. this cannot be the way that Wikipedia is run. This has been logged with Ron Jones with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk) — Pigfish23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

•  Note: CheckUser data verifies that this editor has abused multiple accounts in order to subvert the proper operation of this dicussion. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There seems to be a WP:Walled garden or articles related to Land. Red Digital Cinema Camera Company seems to be another problematic article, replete with references that are to unreliable blogs or don't support the statements that they reference. As I don't know much about cameras and really are getting a bit tired of these meat/sockpuppets that don't know better than coming with ridiculous accusations instead of offering solid policy-based arguments, I don't intend to wade into that one, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There have been no personal attacks made against the subject of the article; there have been a plethora of meatpuppets, some of whom have been blocked, who have persistently made the same kind of accusations being made again here. As before, I welcome administrative oversight, and anticipate much the same result. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hate to do this, but look at Guillaume2303's history. This Editor must be stopped. Of note, he had a previous account that he freely admits which was deleted and removed for similar biased actions. Look at just this one which was raised to the highest level. Just one example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillaume2303#Bambi_Magazine. this clearly needs to goto admin. Members like this is what scares away support, financial and not, to Wikipedia. The comment above this is clearly them posting as someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk)

•  Note: CheckUser data verifies that this editor has abused multiple accounts in order to subvert the proper operation of this dicussion. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sources provided fall far short of establishing notability, and my own Google search turned up nothing promising. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Remember WP:BIO includes a classification of creative professionals where this individual belongs according to his invention, business, and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.99.2 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

•  Note: This anonymous comment is likely to have been made by the operator of an account which had already !voted. AGK [•] 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Despite several claims by various IPs on this page of the notability of the subject, they have failed to provide any sources except a couple of Wikipedia articles (and remember Wikipedia isn't a WP:RS). --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and verifiability concerns. Also, a whole bunch of IP sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts showing up out of the blue to vote on an AFD is nearly always a sign of spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: User:Pigfish23 and User:Salworx have been indefinitely blocked per CU (socks of each other) and behavioral evidence (SPAs created explicitly to disrupt this AfD). The IPs struck above have been blocked for one week as WP:SOCKs/WP:MEATpuppets and for vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was going to suggest a Redirect to Red Digital Cinema Camera Company, the company of which he says he is CEO, but I could not find any independent confirmation of that - not at Google News Archive, not at Google, not even at the company's own website. That's about as unverified/non-notable as you can get. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to above comment. Wow. Wikipedia editors are sure getting lazy. Come on guys lets do proper due diligence before throwing this guy under the bus and not make false accusations like the above which could be libel. This person states he is the president, not the CEO like MelanieN states. And it is very clear he is the president, every news article on the company website states so, for example http://www.red.com/news/la-jolla-fasion-film-festival-submission-extension-for-red. As editors and admins you have a responsibility to accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6F00:877:0:0:0:6C59:452C (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete for non-notable ( although subjective ) but i am posting this logged out as I don't want to be tied to this one... it is an embarrassment for WIKI how this talk played out with the editors G and Melanie. Melanie, for a veteran editor your complete lack of fact checking is shocking. Lets delete this one and pretend it never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.170.110.24 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to MelanieN Melanie, you are usually on ball but you messed this one up, even the links on this talk page at the top for "search for news" shows numerous sources verifying his occupation. I suggest you edit your note, and i will delete this add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.192.27 (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So now you've got a new editor to attack? MelanieN's rationale re: mention by reliable sources is valid, and the above smears and attempts to pressure an editor into changing or deleting their comments are a continuation of user harassment, as enacted by previously blocked accounts. More sock/meat puppets.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 10:33, 24 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. Community is too small to guarantee notability for a mayor  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary C. Matzner[edit]

Gary C. Matzner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Minor league lawyer and one-time mayor of a small Florida settlement. Does not meet general notability guidelines. Biker Biker (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Person in question is not notable for being a lawyer, but because he is the co-founder of a significant city in South Florida and is integral to the community's history. (http://www.pinecrest-fl.gov/index.aspx?page=66) Gary Matzner also spearheaded the committee that saved Parrot Jungle, which is a world famous (and notable) landmark.
  GROUP TO EVALUATE PARROT JUNGLE SITE The Village of Pinecrest has agreed to create a Parrot Jungle committee that will evaluate the use of the property in the event the village can purchase it. A private group, Preserve the Jungle, headed by Gary Matzner had been the lone fund-raising voice for the village in its bid to come up with between $9 million and $12 million to purchase the property at 11000 SW 57th Ave. Pinecrest Mayor Evelyn Greer said she was waiting for Parrot Jungle to sign a lease with the city of Miami... >> Purchase complete article, of 236 words Miami Herald - April 18, 1996 - 3 NEIGHBORS KE
  Many of the sources that quote him are in the Miami Herald and their archive is behind a paywall. Example of an article about how his ideas for incorporation led to many cities in South Florida making similar changes.
  "METRO TO ALLOW PINECREST TO VOTE ON WHETHER IT WILL BECOME A CITY Yet another pocket of Dade County took a significant step toward cityhood Thursday when the aspiring Village of Pinecrest was given the green light to take a vote on its future. Metro commissioners, some still complaining the incorporation process was moving too fast, agreed to set aside Sept. 19 for Pinecrest voters to cast ballots on forming their own government. It's the same date commissioners set aside for people residing in the North Central Dade community some want to..."
  He meets all of the following critera: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJason (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but he simply does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN, or anywhere else on WP:PEOPLE. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article seems to rely mainly on the village website and his biog on a company website. Neither of these are what could be called independent reliable sources. I can't see any significant news coverage online, apart from the couple of quotes in the Miami herald. Sionk (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm sorry you've been treated so poorly in your short time with Wikipedia, EricJason. Template:uw-delete1: The birth_date parameter about this about living person was unsourced did not have a reference. If someone disagreed with your birth_date parameter change,[20] they could have merely changed it back. Your removing the birth year was not likely to be controversial, so I don't see any justification for posting Template:uw-delete1 on your user talk page and threatening you with blocking. Template:uw-copyright: Also, the statement that you linked to copyvio works wasn't true. The commons uploaded image included the CC-by-SA-3.0 license. Another editor removing that image from the article was wrong because the image only was tagged as possible copyvio and could stay in the article until that issue was resolved, particularly since you included the CC-by-SA-3.0 license in the commons uploaded image and that is what it was licensed as.[21] I don't see any justification for posting Template:uw-copyright on your user talk page. Your adding that image back into the article via link to commons was fine and another user restored it after it was removed again. Template:uw-vandalism4: - The two external links you added to the article were to sites that contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources, so I'm not sure why those further reading links were removed when the article only was a start article level. In particular to your link to the "Matzner's Attorney Bio from Kopelowitz Ostrow," that was not a link to "a Law Firm website and qualifies as Spam."[22] If it's not his present Official Website, it certainly contains information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Adding those two external links to the article absolutely was not vandalism or even level 4 vandalism and there was no basis for posting a Template:uw-vandalism4 to your talk page. Thank for letting me know that no one contacted you to make things right with you.[23] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary C. Matzner: As though the above wasn't enough, the Gary C. Matzner then was nominated for deletion directly after all the Template:uw-delete1, Template:uw-copyright, and Template:uw-vandalism4 posts to your talk page based on the four edits you made to the Gary C. Matzner article. The Gary C. Matzner page has been in Wikipedia since August 2006‎ - for more than five years. Common sense would indicted that any U.S. mayor is going to generate enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article to meet WP:GNG. I've found plenty of online reliable source material for the biography and there likely is tons more in a library not online. Obviously, Keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unforunatly, no, the vast majority of U.S. mayors are not sufficently notable for inclusion, and the fact the article's been around for a WP:LONGTIME is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unfortunatly, the references proviced, while impressive at a glance, are either not independent of the subject or are passing, standardized mentions. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject does not meet the basic criteria given at Wikipedia:Notability (people), i.e., "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources cited that are independent are simple promotional blurbs, or merely give passing mentions of or quotes from the subject. -- Donald Albury 14:08, 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 Delete. This is a mixture of a SNOW delete and a G11 speedy delete (promotion of an opinion). (Note: Article was moved to Kundalini Awakening.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that A10: content fork of Kundalini. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini Awakening[edit]

Kundalini Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Promo and soapboxing in the form of an essay. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madam/sir,

I am the author of the article which has been published in Danesheyoga(yoga science)magazine, Tehran/I.R.Iran as I have declared in bibliography. You may take notice that kundalini itself is not a physical energy or material which can be handled or formulated through an article! Its a divine evolutionary energy in every mankind and there are many wrong beliefs about its awakening by physical techniques. I am ready to discuss the matter to anyone who nominates himself/herself an expert in kundalini to show him/her tons of mistaken knowledge about it. Anyhow I am going to change the name of the article to clarify the text.

best Wishes

S. Farahyar

17 June, 2012

• Delete as per Night of the Big Wind and the fact that many statements are in apparently direct contradiction with a whole lots of (apparently well sourced) wikipedia pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wait... is the above poster (Farahyar) basically stating that he cut and pasted a published magazine article onto a Wikipedia article? That's a copyvio and should be removed on that basis alone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I though it might be that so I tried (and failed) to find passages form the article elsewere on the internet. Another reading is that the author above is claiming the publication of the article as authority for writing about the subject in wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah... that's not really kosher either way, especially since it appears to be such a limited publication that it'd be near impossible for the average Wikipedian to locate. I'm going to go ahead and tag it with a copyvio tag or something similar, though. Since much of it does contradict the Kundalini article, we might could tag it as a G3 for misinformation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Stuartyeates. This is entirely a promotional essay by the original contributor and a potential copyvio, as he stated above that he published this same article in a magazine. Please be aware that even if you are the original writer and give permission, this might still violate WP:COPYVIO, as it could violate the copyright of the magazine it was published in. (And if you hold all copyrights, we still have to verify that you are who you claim to be- anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet. I can claim to be Mary, Queen of Scots, but that doesn't mean that I am!) Also, this is not a neutral or encyclopedic article and the research is all your own. Either way, this has no business being on Wikipedia. Assuming that this theory or magazine article is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, it'd need a complete rewrite from top to bottom.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:03, 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 Speedy Keep as withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DBigXray 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Hussain College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

Zakir Hussain College of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

remarkability is not established but I don't want to tag it for CSD because I believe if it is deleted it should be with consensus. »Petiatil ^{(† talk ‡ contribs)} 10:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and close Clearly notable College and among the top 100 in India as proved here [24] in references --DBigXray 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep upon further review I agree with DBigXray and rescind my earlier statement. »Petiatil ^{(† talk ‡ contribs)} 11:08, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Research Group[edit]

Los Angeles Research Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Declined speedy. Does not seem to be notable per WP:CORP, although there is a claim of importance.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I nominated this for CSD. I don't see this as being notable for itself. All the google stuff is either its own marketing or around their publications, but not about the group. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:45, 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 keep. And as far as renaming is concerned, a request can be made at the talk page. Thanks! (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 04:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors to Macedonia[edit]

List of ambassadors to Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Clearly not a viable standalone list with so many non-residents without articles this is unmaintainable for lack of sources and non-notable subjects. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Notable topic which would clearly meet list guidelines if the articles in Category:Ambassadors to the Republic of Macedonia were covered in it, which is an editing issue. Dru of Id (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep as notable topic. You can't seriously suggest there are not reliable sources for the content of this list. KTC (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above; the redlinks in this case are a to do list for biographies WP should have, not an indication of non-notability. Truly a perplexing nomination. The list should probably be renamed to List of ambassadors to the Republic of Macedonia, as that's how the country's article is titled, and there are and have been other entities named "Macedonia". postdlf (talk) 13:32, 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 Redirected by User:Infobesity. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in Kenyan football[edit]

2013 in Kenyan football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Clearly too early for creation. Suggest redirect to Football in Kenya until nearer the time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Then be bold and redirect it. Doesn't need an AfD for that. Lugnuts (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. GiantSnowman 21:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:33, 20 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 Consensus is that this article meets WP:GNG.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Andy Cook (footballer born 1990)[edit]

Andy Cook (footballer born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article was recently under AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer born 1990) and closed as keep. However, following concerns about participation in the original AfD and this conversation with the closing admin, it is suggested that the article is re-listed to gain an representative discussion. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1fent 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the keep !votes in the previous discussion weren't policy-based. The player hasn't played in a fully professional league, nor has he received significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP:Are we going to keep doing this until the article is deleted? The result was keep, down to the votes cast last time. I suggest you read the original deletion discussion and copy and paste them into this one. There were some valid points made to keep this article in the last discussion, I solely think because the user who sought deletion in the first place didn't succeed in getting the article removed he is going to keep nominating it until the article goes. Sounds a tad unfair to me seeing as we have already voted, however I am fully aware that the player currently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, however at the rate of growth of this article how long will it be before it passes WP:GNG. As another user mentioned in the previous discussion why should this article suffer when the likes of Richard Brodie are kept. Footballgy (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) I nominated it this time because I was unconvinced by the close - someone else nominated it last time. (2) The result was keep, but if you actually read the conversation with the closing admin you will see that they share some of my reservations about that result. (3) If you admit that the player currently fails NFOOTY and GNG why on earth are you !voting "Keep"? Wouldn't it be better to userfy the article until the player actually does pass those guidelines? (4) Mentioning other articles that may have the same problem is not a valid rationale; if those articles do fail GNG etc. then they should also be nominated. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do pass GNG now, as they were given sufficient time to expand. As I have also mentioned before, I have always felt a notability review should possibly come up for discussion amongst the relevant Wikipedians, as the fifth tier of English football is all but a professional league of mostly pro clubs, with 95% pro players on pro contracts. User's such as myself would have an absolute field day creating new article's which in the long run would easily pass GNG if allowed to. That's just my opinion, I'm not rebelling against the guidelines, I just feel too many article's are swiftly gunned down before they are given relevant time to grow into notability. It's unlikely that Cook will play in the Football League this year (despite being recently pro contracted to a FL team), however he is a pro at a pro club, and GNG notability will no doubt be reached if the article isn't hastily gunned down like a lot are. Footballgy (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For info, the overall proportion of full-time professionals in the Conference National is nowhere near 95% -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY could be a case of WP:TOOSOON the article can be recreated when he passes the guidelines which won't be anytime soon.Seasider91 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user Footballgy the BSB prem is a league full of former league teams with many a professional player and full time managers at pretty much every club.Seasider91 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I won't be voting to Keep or Delete this time, I spent probally 10 hours+ of my time looking for info and citations to expand this article, one thing I have learned is I will NEVER again contribute to any football articles again, until I am certain in my own mind it wont get deleted like this one and the others which will now be found. Nelly_1975 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like setting up self-fulfilling prophesies to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect- To Grimsby Town F.C.; since the title is unlikely to be preempted by anyone else, redirect until he meets guidelines, unless an involved editor requests userfication. Dru of Id (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as the original nominator. I agree entirely with the renomination. Given the level of participation and the arguments made by each side, it was procedurally incorrect to close. That being said. I am now satisfied that the article now meets the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: as per last conversation. FishyPhotos (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I must say I had a bad gutfeeling when I saw the previous AfD closed as keep, with 3 possible meatpuppets voting KEEP without any good reason to keep. But after reading through the article I'm confident that this article now passes WP:GNG, even though it fails WP:NFOOTY. I would encourage the closing admin to read through the previous AfD, as this is more or less just a relist of the previous discussion. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Sir Sputnik and Mentoz8; the article now appears to pass WP:GNG with sources like [25], [26] and [27]. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets and passes the WP:GNG. Let's not fall into the trap of saying 'it fails the specific guideline so let's not bother with the general one". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 25 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Halliwells LLP[edit]

Halliwells LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not a notable company. Only seeming claim to notability seems to be the assertion that it was the largest English law firm to go into administration, but otherwise it is just a small law firm that spent too much and went bust as a result. Biker Biker (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - multiple national and regional newspaper articles already cited in the article. Regardless of the reasons why they are notable, they are notable all the same. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biker - as the author I thought I should explain why I think it's notable. This isn't intended to be personal or defensive, just to explain to people who are perhaps not familiar with the issues why they're of interest. First, there's an issue of consistency. Have a look at List of largest UK law firms, and you'll see that Halliwells is number 46. Most of the top 100 have an entry on the basis that they are notable. A firm going bust in unusual circumstances is, in my view at least, more notable than one half its size just getting on with things. Second, there's the point about the pre-pack sale. Pre-packaged insolvency sales really are controversial (and in fact the article on them is a bit out of date and short, and needs updating - google "pre-packaged administration" for proof of this). This is a rare example of the High Court approving a sale which gave little or no benefit to the creditors, and that in itself is significant in the context of the pre-pack debate. Third, there's the litigation against the former partners. I think that probably speaks for itself - how often do you see corporate lawyers going bust and getting sued? It's unusual, and my own view is that this makes it notable. Finally, there is the size of the insolvency. The citation as evidence that it's the biggest law firm failure in British legal history comes from the Law Society's Gazette, ie the official publication of the professional licensing body for the solicitors profession, so, with very great respect, it's not simply an assertion. There has been another big failure of a US firm with a London office in the last few weeks, so the article makes it clear that the "biggest failure" description is limited to the date of Halliwells' failure. I hope that puts the article into context, and I appreciate that it's for others to determine if it's truly notable. And thanks to Biker and to Sionk for taking an interest, and I do hope I haven't broken any rules in this post - If I have, it's inadvertent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papinian123 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasoning above. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:43, 20 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary relativity[edit]

Imaginary relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable, unreliable sources, original research, fringe science. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Snow delete - not notable (has made zero impact on the scientific community), based on a single unreliable source (an obscure, poorly regarded journal), contains original research, is fringe science, is most likely wrong, the article may have been created by the author of the paper (possible conflict of interest) and the article also contains text copy-and-pasted from that paper. I had a quick look at the paper and wasn't very impressed; if it were true then the following theories would need to be heavily modified or scrapped: special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, QED, QCD, the conservation of energy etc. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A theory advanced by one person that's never been cited or picked up on. The term throws up some Google Books and Scholar results, but only fleeting mentions and in a totally different context. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG since there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the imaginary relativity subject for a stand-alone article. Also, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Perhaps post the content one of our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. New article by one person with only one relevant reference as a source, written by him. Not notable, conflict of interest, delete is the remedy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, OR, but mostly utter nonsense which flies in the face of relativity, perhaps the most understood and confirmed branch of modern physics.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. AstroCog (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hmmm... How to put this as gently as possible?... Why do math and physics attract so many crazy people? EEng (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this is not a stand alone subject derived from reliable sources and is therefore not notable. Also this appears to be fringe science and is not notable in that area either. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 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 merge to Drabble. The arguments for keep do not hold water. Three of the sources provided by Northamerica1000 do not meet the criteria of WP:RS. Many of the sources in the article also fail WP:RS or do not cover the subject. 55 Fiction appears to be a shorter variation of Drabble or Flash fiction. v/r - TP 20:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

55 Fiction[edit]

55 Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Lacks notability. Recently added sources show only minor local interest in this topic. At best they give justification for mention on a Wikipedia article about the general topic, certainly not a whole article about this specific topic. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Flash fiction, or some other page where it would fit. --—Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for passing, less or more weakly, GNG. In addition to cited sources, the subject received coverage in St. Paul Pioneer Press, Language Magazine and Orlando Sentinel. It is also mentioned in some books, such as Michael L. Wilson's Flash Writing and George J. Bryjak's The Power Of The Dark Goddess. Maybe it could be merged somewhere, but I'm not sure where... maybe to Flash fiction, maybe to Steve Moss, maybe somewhere else. But it is just an editorial issue and does not require deletion.Cavarrone (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - topic is meeting WP:GNG, per: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is notable and does pass WP:GNG as there are enough WP:RS on the article as well as available online. →TSU ^tp* 04:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps a Merge to Drabble might be in order, as this appears to be a shorter variation on it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is just enough coverage here to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:13, 25 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. Even after discounting the few SPA votes, there is still no strong agreement on whether this is a notable neologism, although the "keep" side of the argument seems to have ever so slightly stronger arguments. Would recommend taking some time to clean up the article, get rid of bad references, clarify the definition, and then take another look at what it has become. -Scottywong| comment _ 17:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum fiction[edit]

Quantum fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Recreation of a deleted article as a vanity sop to a notorious spammer. Still a neologism without any substantial presence outside her spamming. Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I saw the recreated article and undeleted the history so that editors can compare the current version to the version that was the discussion of the last AfD, and in fact the old version was userfied at User:Tlogmer/Quantum_fiction. Comparing the two shows that the result of the first AfD cannot apply to the current version which has been considerably enhanced. This article now has 51 references, and I would say that there is more than enough material to keep.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply - take a closer look at those "references", Ron: many of them never mention the phrase; some are blogs; and at least one of them is either a copyright violation of the recreated article, or the recreated article is a copyright violation of the blog post! This thing reeks of bad original research and synthesis plus "referencing" by Google results dump. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete every article that used blogs as references there wouldn't be much left. I just tend to browse the refs to make sure that are more reliable, and see if the ref includes the data - a quick re-look gives velocityebooks.com, www.publishersweekly.com, www.changingplanes.net and plenty of others to more than satisfy WP guidelines for inclusion. Some may be small sites, but they are not all blogs.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Tlogmer is now, sadly, deceased. Should this AfD result be keep, then I suggest a history merge with User:Tlogmer/Quantum_fiction to keep all the attributions together. I can do that if the community is in agreement.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep What's new here is the name, and the author's presumption that she's invented a new superset that includes science fiction. This (quantum effects in reality) is an old idea (cf. The Coming of the Quantum Cats; I'm not at all sure that was the first science fiction work to riff on this idea using this method.)htom (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Take out the blog references (which are not WP:RS) and the references not about the topic, and there's not much left. There's the novel by Vanna Bonta, and the use of the term by Charles Platt and a few others, but that's all. Furthermore, those things are not related, since Platt and the others write after Bonta, but never mention her novel. I can only conclude that the term is being used with different meanings, and therefore that there is no topic here and that the article is pure WP:SYNTH. -- 202.124.73.133 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This article shows a cultural emergence of 'quantum fiction' and documents and reflects the genre and its usage as a cultural evolution over more than a decade. Usage, interest and the cultural expansion of the subject 'quantum fiction' as a genre is evidenced by citations that include: major newspapers, academic institutions, various authors, art critics, and multiple publishers. Verifiable sources include Publishers Weekly, The St. Petersburg Times, The Alexandria Gazette, Panorama Magazine (Mondadori), Rodopi Publishers (Amsterdam - New York), NBC Television series, Scholarly Book Services, Avon Books, Cosmos Books, various University publications, as well as published books, both fiction and academic. Additional citations of the term's usage include numerous authors (Ranse Parker, Wilson Harris, Audrey Niffenegger, Charles Platt, Vanna Bonta, Laurie Brenner, Jean-Philippe Toussaint among others) citing their published books as quantum fiction, and critics and reviewers have described a new NBC network television series with the term, calling the genre 'quantum fiction.' Citations list book reviews that describe books and televisions as a 'quantum fiction' genre. A doctoral thesis was presented by a PhD on quantum fiction as a new genre and how it affects the marketplace. Several university dissertations on the term quantum fiction from various sectors, independently exploring an emerging genre; college courses. Numerous citations in this subject reflect the coining of the term and over a decade of cultural, professional and academic development. Tracking the usage of the term shows the development of usage and a genre that happened without the persons involved necessarily knowing or mentioning one another because a cohesive view of the emergence of the genre was not yet visible. This is an interesting social study in and of itself -- how various authors and academics within years and time-frames of one another, used the term and explored the genre as pioneers. Citations are provided evidencing the chronology of the emergence and cultural usage of the subject and genre 'quantum fiction' over more than a decade, a global occurrence, and the term appears globally in newspaper, books and other media (usage in US, Spain, Guyana, Caribbean, Italy etc). Since knowledge is the point of Wikipedia, this is a valuable resource. IMC.esq (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: IMC.esq (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that these unrelated uses of the term form a "genre" is classic WP:SYNTH. -- 202.124.73.13 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly all the usage, papers, books and discussion by sources are about 'quantum fiction' as a new literary genre.IMC.esq (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- The topic is clearly notable and this article itself is wonderfully researched. Marcus Qwertyus 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talk (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with considerable edits.

The Quantum Fiction article provides an overview of the use of the term “Quantum Fiction” as a developing classification for new works that explore unique narrative relationships with the reader as an observer. As written, the article attempts to prove that Quantum Fiction is a distinct genre. While this proposition is well supported by decent sourcing indicating that the term has been used in a variety of different places to mean a number of different things, nothing is presented which distinctly codifies Quantum Fiction as a distinct school.

According to the List of Literary Genres page, “Literary genres are determined by literary technique, tone, content and by critic definitions of the genres.” While the specific technique, tone and content aspects of Quantum Fiction as presented by the article are nebulous and therefore hard to establish, the references in the article itself definitely indicate the existences of a body of critique recognizing the term as appropriate for describing the character particular works. For this reason alone, an article should exist; Wikipedia lists over 45 different genres in its section on christian writing alone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_genres .)

The ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the term is, perhaps, not a bad thing. The root definition of the word quantum, from the 1610s, is “one’s share or portion.” ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=quantum&searchmode=none ) Thus, the term Quantum Fiction could be understood to mean any fiction which presents the world through the unique share of the perceptive apparatus allotted to the individual narrator. This idea, however, is never fully presented in the article itself. Likewise, the article presents a litany of different physicists who typify the type of thought embodied in Quantum Fiction, but fails to make any mention of Max Planck, the physicist who introduced the term quantum into the lexicon of the physical sciences (in 1900.)

I would edit the article to remove length, to better summarize the unpredictable nature of the term & its application, and to provide proper recognition of Max Planck as the grandfather of quantum theory. Also, I would remove any occurrences of WP:SYNTH that came about from the original author’s attempt to prove the immutability of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen_a_ferguson (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Owen_a_ferguson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply: Good contribution on Planck and clarity. IMC.esq (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Quarantine (Greg Egan novel) is another example of this, predating the work pretending to the invention. Several of Egan's works probably would fall into this category (I'm not going to call it a genre.) Still keep, but weakest possible. Article needs lots of work. htom (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: Regarding title you suggest predates the one listed, verification shows the author of Quarantine would not agree; category is "hard science fiction" (premise is built on a physical device in people's brains). In fact Egan writes: "That Quarantine's central premise is far from any mainstream view of quantum mechanics is excusable; every science fiction novel is entitled to one outrageous hypothesis." IMC.esq (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]