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) 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jabir Hasan Mohamed Al Qahtani[edit]

Jabir Hasan Mohamed Al Qahtani (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)

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports). has 2 google book hits both mirror of wiki articles. A list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay already exists. DBigXray 23:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani, and please take steps to establish this as the second nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the infobox, page was moved by the creator Geo Swan after AfD 1, not sure if anything else needs to be done--DBigXray 12:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Name changes to the same article do not preclude the previous name's inclusion in the "AfDs for this article:" listing. I do not know how it should be done, or I would do it myself, but it needs to be done, and you should not have nominated this article if you did not know how. WP:BEFORE, WP:COMPETENCE. Anarchangel (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already included the links for AfD1 as soon as it was brought to my notice, may I ask what else does his majesty wants from the slave ? --DBigXray 10:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is an offer I do not get every day. I will be a merciful monarch, and you do not have to do anything I say; just what every nominator of the second of two nominations is expected to do. But if you feel like it, you can retract the nomination, if you find your labors are too many. Or, since there is still not a link to each of the two AfDs for this article as there should be, too complicated. Perhaps Nick D will do it, as he finds it such a simple procedure. Anarchangel (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel, your comments are needlessly rude. If you don't know how to fix this common problem, you sure shouldn't go around abusing other editors and pointing to irrelevant guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring that other editors follow WP rules may or may not be in error, but it is never rude. WP:COMPETENCE requires that we not allow other editors' incompetence to mess up WP. DBigXray was required to list this properly, and to know that requirement and WP:BEFORE. As of the time of my writing, he continues to fail in that regard, and continues to act as though he can not even tell he has made mistakes. And if you cannot understand the relevance of those guidelines, and will not fix the mistakes yourself, then you are also sailing a little too close to the wind. Anarchangel (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm a little surprised I could not find any sources. I agree with nom that the article lacks reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and other sections of the guidelines. Poking through the various Google searches, I couldn't find a thing. Perhaps more will be written about this individual and his case that might satisfy the notability guidelines in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any source for this. Also, it lacks WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. A person held for extrajudicial detention and it is not so notable. →TSU ^tp* 14:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability guidelines. I see no reason to keep. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources, from the article itself, none of which are even remotely PRIMARY, let alone unusable primary:
  • Andy Worthington (2007-11-11). "Innocents and Foot Soldiers: The Stories of the 14 Saudis Just Released From Guantánamo". Archived from the original on 2010-02-02. Al-Wafa litters the story of 23-year old Jabir al-Qahtani, but none of the allegations come close to any evidence of militant activity. By the time of his last administrative review, in April 2006, all the authorities had managed to come up with were allegations that he traveled to Lahore in March 2001, "with his travel partly financed by the head of al-Wafa," that he worked in a warehouse in Lahore for six months, and that he then moved to a warehouse in Kabul...
  • Andy Worthington. "The Guantánamo Files: Website Extras (11) – The Last of the Afghans (Part One) and Six "Ghost Prisoners"". Archived from the original on 2010-02-02. Unlike Zaban al-Shammari, Jabir al-Qahtani, who was released in November 2007, appears to have had no connections whatsoever with militancy or the training camp system, and was, instead, a humanitarian aid worker who traveled to Lahore in March 2001 to work for al-Wafa, the Saudi-based charity that was regarded by the US authorities as a front for terrorist activities....
  • Raid Qusti (2007-11-11). "14 More Return From Guantanamo Camp". Arab News. Archived from the original on 2010-02-02. The father of detainee Jaber Al-Qahtani said he had received a call from an official in the Interior Ministry that his son would soon arrive from the US detention center. 'We are thankful to the Interior Ministry for all their efforts to bring the detainees home. And above all, we are thankful to Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah and Interior Minister Prince Naif,' said Hassan Al-Qahtani.

Anarchangel (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy's Blog entry 1 and Andy's Blog entry 2 are blogs from author who has written a book on the Guantanamo prisoners WP:COI ?. arab news does not cover the subject but only gives a passing reference by mentioning name in an article about the release of Prisoners. fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E --DBigXray 07:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources above, while establishing that he exists and was detained, do not establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Malu Shia al Ghatani[edit]

Khalid Malu Shia al Ghatani (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)

On a living Guantanamo prisoner (now Repatriated) with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports). A list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay already exists. DBigXray 23:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims of notability whatsoever other than being a former Gitmo prisoner, which doesn't cut it.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A person who was a prisoner doesn't at all establish notability. Nothing notable in the article, not done anything notable nor can find any sources to support the subject. →TSU ^tp* 14:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given that the sources are primary, the article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep and rename (without redirect) to Sunbelt Publications. Largely a SNOW result, with indirect references being made to notability via GNG. j⚛e decker^talk 03:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunbelt books[edit]

Sunbelt books (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 publishing house. No independent coverage to be found. Some of the books they have published have won some minor awards, but none sufficient to even raise the titles to notability according to WP:NB. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but cut down, clean up, and rename to Sunbelt Publications. The current version of the article is bloated and promotional in tone (and I note that a prior article about Sunbelt Publications was speedied in 2007 because of its advert content), but buried in the dross there appears to be a legitimately notable small publisher. The article already contains a few legitmate sources, and a GNews search [1] shows a number of articles about the company (such as this [2]), and a large number of articles with substantial coverage of books they publish. If the promotional stuff can be deleted and the basic facts kept, then the encyclopedia will be better for keeping this information about what appears to be a reasonably prolific local publisher. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Sunbelt Publications and delete the redirect  As per the first reference in the article, Sunbelt is one of 9,000 "serious" independent publishers in the U.S.  Arxiloxos has it straight, this article is incorrectly named.  With the new name, a volunteer will have the opportunity to make dozens of Wikilinks.  As per the Google Scholar search for "Sunbelt Books", there may be publishers with that name in Moore, SC and Basking Ridge, NJ, thus the need to delete the redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, why do you suggest deleting the redirect? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave evidence that there are two other publishers by that name, why complicate things if someone in the future has a use for "Sunbelt books"?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, their titles are referenced numerous times here on WP. not much press coverage, of course. basically agree with Arxiloxox, including renaming and cutting down, esp list of awards and large bibliography (i believe such bibliographies should only be for books or authors who have articles). (mercurywoodrose)99.39.148.212 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually, I'm inclined to keep it, as many of the books that they have published are online on Google Books and have their own pages here. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that Google Books lists some of their titles in a search does not establish notability, nor does the fact that there are articles on Wikipedia (a non-reliable source) have any bearing on notability.

• Keep - The Union-Tribune article is substantial coverage about the company. Other material is behind pay walls but the summaries suggest that additional coverage exists to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Sunbelt Publications and delete the redirect per above. Should be at the proper title. Seems to be minorly notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per above. Personally I would delete the entire sections on "bibliography" and "(non-notable) awards" but that is an issue for the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, also WP:OR concerns j⚛e decker^talk 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Work Ethic[edit]

The Open Work Ethic (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)

Appears to be a non-notable neologism, at least in the definition that is presented here. I found some very brief mentions of the concept in relation to the Native American origin that is claimed to be the origin of this concept, but that's it. However, this article is not even about the Native American tradition, but is instead more or less a How-To Guide for making a happier work place. No sources are present in the article, and upon searching, the only things I found were the mentioned hits that were not only not about the concept as presented in this article, but were extremely minor mentions of the term. PROD was declined with no explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This doesn't merit its own wikipedia article without WP:RS sources. --Artene50 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Essay, original research, unsourced. POV from the very first sentence ("The Open Work Ethic (TOWE) is a practice that has been misrepresented by a few."), also per use of first-person in the text. Nothing here to salvage. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability established under WP:NB #3, concerns about reliable sourcing were addressed without rebuttal j⚛e decker^talk 03:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Sucessora[edit]

A Sucessora (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:NB. Couldn't find any significant coverage of the book. Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This has been here since 2006 with no reliable sources. Best to delete. --Artene50 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have the time or the inclination to look through them yet, but there would appear to be loads of reliable sources among these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A lack of sources in an article is not a valid reason to delete an article. (Unless you've searched and can find none, then it would be a valid reason to delete, but there's a ton of results coming back on Google so I find it hard to believe that there's absolutely none.) I'm finding sources, although it's somewhat slow going because there's a huge language barrier here. (Everything is in Spanish and I'm having to use Google translate due to my comprehension being at beginner level.) However, what I'm finding shows that this is indeed notable. It is a bestseller in Brazil, spawned an incredibly popular telenovela series, and even got some controversy because of the incredibly close similarities between A Sucessora and Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca. (A Sucessora was published earlier and the general consensus in Brazil seems to say that du Maurier plagiarized the work.) The article is slow going, but it does seem to pass WP:NBOOK via it being the focus of a notable telenovela and being the focus of several news articles. (Most of them are from the 40s, but coverage is coverage.) Since it was published in the 1930s it's going to take some time to find all of the sources (some of which are undoubtedly lost to the sands of time or aren't on the internet) but this does appear to be notable. My school has a copy of the Auerbach book, so I'll check to see if I can verify that claim in the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability of the subject is out of question (take a look also to the articles on fr.Wiki, es.Wiki, and pt.Wiki). After the huge improvements made by Tokyogirl179, we could probably suspend the proposed delation. --Checco (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Book has been made into TV series, satisfying WP:NB criteria 3. Criteria 1 can also be argued due to the coverage that both works received. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 05:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence presented of meeting WP:GNG nor WP:PORNBIO j⚛e decker^talk 03:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Ray[edit]

Crystal Ray (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:PORNBIO because her award is a group scene award. Fails the general notability guidelines also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG as the 3 sources listed are considered unreliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG without non-trivial reliable source coverage. Single Best New Starlet nomination is not sufficient to pass WP:PORNBIO. Scene award and nomination don't count. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. IMDB etc are not WP:RS. THey are crowd sourced like wikipedia. Thus WP:N has not been demonstrated adequately. BO | Talk 07:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks WP:RS. The refs in the article are not good enough to make the article pass WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 11:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG j⚛e decker^talk 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul-Henri DuBerger[edit]

Paul-Henri DuBerger (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:GNG. Only "source" is his own website. I found nothing in a news search on him. Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources about him. His website lists some press, but it is unclear what that coverage represents. The only coverage I can find are gallery bios like this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no evidence of notability. Vertium (talk to me) 01:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage whatsoever in WP:RS and nor can I find them online. →TSU ^tp* 11:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or other relevant subject notability guidelines j⚛e decker^talk 03:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikeoha I. Iwuh[edit]

Ikeoha I. Iwuh (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:GNG. Almost requested speedy deletion as a hoax as I could find nothing that indicates this person even exists. Note that the ISBNs for the two books don't work in any catalog or commercial source. Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "II Iwuh" scholar search returns one of the books. [3] Acebulf (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't have occurred to me to use that search term. That's the third book without the ISBN. What is "Magnet Business Publishing Coy"? And what is "Enugu"?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enugu is the capital of Enugu State in Nigeria. I assume that's where Magnet Business Publishing is based. Qwfp (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find no evidence that this page meets WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. The two references in the article are books by him, so are not independent sources. Qwfp (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I worry about systemic bias in cases like this but we really have nothing on which to base an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 29 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 Phantasy Star (video game).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phantasy Star Generation 1[edit]

Phantasy Star Generation 1 (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 general notability guidelines.Lucia Black (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess merge or redirect to Phantasy Star (video game). Although there's a review at 1up.com and a preview at IGN. --Mika1h (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That really isn't enough to make this article a start-class.Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Redirects and enhanced redirects are, as far as my experience goes, always a subsection of the original game's article. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont you mean remakes?Lucia Black (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it to Phantasy Star (video game), and I would suggest doing the same for Phantasy Star Generation 2 into Phantasy Star II.--十八 02:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to a subsection in the original game's article. (Removing any of the "Well there's no news on it so I guess it's a Japanese exclusive now guys" type of informal speculation, of course.) I agree with the User above who suggests doing the same to PSG2 as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Phantasy Star (video game). Not seeing that much reliable coverage, probably doesn't deserve its own article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:05, 29 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 under WP:GNG, WP:POLITICAN j⚛e decker^talk 03:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Sharma[edit]

Rajendra Sharma (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)

A civil engineer and Indian Legislative Assembly candidate. He was one of 20 candidates in his district of 100,000 voters. Only on ref showing he was a candidate. Unable to find any other refs, but has a common name. Prod was contested with, "Removing Proposed deletion Tag, I believe in spite of not having sufficient references on Google, the person has maintained a state level image in philanthropy , social works, infrastructure development etc, please consider, Thank You" Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG for the biography. --DBigXray 21:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He was a candidate who didn't succeed and this doesn't establish notability. →TSU ^tp* 10:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of sources which would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG j⚛e decker^talk 03:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sicmed[edit]

Sicmed (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 about a research project for which no independent sources can be found. Article itself is too full of bureaucracy speak to ascertain what the actual goal of the project is, or who might benefit from it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unfortunately. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:N and WP:RS This is a bureaucratic article. --Artene50 (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage to establish notability. Note that I removed some content from the article as it was copied from the SICMED site which does not have a compatible CC license. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, there are no sources to support the content and to built notability. →TSU ^tp* 11:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. I found many mentions of the project but no results, no reliable sources to establish notability. If the project produces results later, it can be recreated but its not suitable as an article now per WP:CRYSTAL. DocTree (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A rough consensus of participants argued this article qualifies as a policy-compliant spinout. j⚛e decker^talk 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Christianity from atheism[edit]

List of converts to Christianity from atheism (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)

There are several problems with this list. First, it is a content fork of List of converts to Christianity, which already covers converts from other religions and no religion. Second, it is an overly specific cross-categorization, which is in violation of WP:NOTDIR. -Scottywong| gab _ 21:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings either way, although I've struggled to find a way to consolidate all the articles that fall into the same basic category: Former Foo, Converts to Bar, Converts to Bar from Foo, etc. I tried and have miserably failed and I'm sorry. Do forgive me. Ncboy2010 (talk)

It is not a content fork. List of converts to Christianity links to it - it does not have a separate list of such converts. WP:OC#EGRS implies such a categorization is appropriate. This instance of an intersection is not trivial but rather encyclopedic. Hugetim (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this is part of a serious of such lists: Template:Lists_of_converts Hugetim (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: in no way, shape or form is this a content fork. "List of converts to Christianity" is essentially a main article with few list entries. Furthermore there are no ex-atheists in "List of converts to Christianity"! Invocation of NOTDIR doesn't hold water as the intersection of Christians/atheists is in fact "culturally significant." Nomination rationale is unfounded. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the name is problematic, however, because it implies atheism is a religion. This is a favorite talking point among some Christians, but factually, that really can't be said to be true. I can't come up with a nice, concise alternative though. Maybe... Formerly atheist Christians? --BDD (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is certainly a belief system. One can convert to or from it. -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Atheism is something from which one can convert. Vertium (talk to me) 01:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article does not seem to be a content fork, but rather a spinout to prevent excessive length of the parent. BDD's comment about the sometimes dubious nature of atheism as a religion is a good one, but I think the US government as defined atheism as a religion for their purposes, and that might be enough to call atheism a religion in some instances. I don't think it is necessarily ennough for this article, but, hey, I'm wrong about various things several times a day. List of atheists who converted to Christianity might be a bit better as a title, because that doesn't necessarily imply atheism is a religion. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I reserve judgement about this article being kept, because at the moment I'm rather intrigued to know why you guys think any of these "converting" articles are notable. They all seem rather POV/trivial/non-completable IMO....--Coin945 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of your reservations aren't particularly relevant to policies and guidelines. Indicating a person changed their religious beliefs is in many cases rather clearly non-trivial, but in some cases even vital to their notability. There might be a bit of POV in terms of which articles get created, but that is a problem all content in wikipedia faces. The fact that a list cannot be completed is also basically irrelevant to policies and guidelines. As long as people continue to exist, most lists of people will remain at least potentially incomplete, but such lists exist anyway. There might be a decent point about whether this specific list as a separate article individually meets notability guidelines, however. Regarding your own opinions, well, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but we tend to put policies and guidelines above them. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• These issues are sufficiently contentious or difficult-to-categorize I could see getting rid of all of them, as well as the categories, but I think that could be a massive undertaking and likely not worth the effort.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In order for a list to be notable per WP:LISTN, it must have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". So, can you show multiple, independent, reliable sources which specifically discuss the topic of atheists converting to Christianity (as distinct from other non-atheist converts to Christianity, and not sources which simply discuss one particular person or group of people and their conversion to Christianity). For that matter, are there sources which specifically discuss the topic of Confucianists to Christianity? How about converts to Islam from Zoroastrianism? If there are not such sources, then these standalone lists should not exist. That's not to say that there can't be a section at List of converts to Christianity#Atheism, but there should not be a standalone list for every possible combination of religions and non-religions. The length of List of converts to Christianity is nowhere near long enough that it needs to be split into multiple lists. -Scottywong| express _ 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of the books here, Who's Who in Hell and Famous Conversions, might serve as the required sources for this list. And I do note that I myself said that the lists required specific sources above. I'm not saying that these sources necessarily qualify, particular the latter one, which includes other conversions, but the first one might, particularly if Antonio Casao Ibanez, who is said to have gathered such material, published it separately in multiple sources. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I lean toward upmerging this, plus the ones on Judaism and Islam, back to List of former atheists and agnostics. However I'm not making any kind of verdict or anything on that.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nom makes no sense, as this listis a sublist of List of converts to Christianity (a possible merge back to the parent list is not a matter for AfD). This list is well-referenced and satisfies list criteria, including WP:LISTN (there's plenty of sources on converts as a group). I would oppose T. Anthony's suggestion of merging into List of former atheists and agnostics, because that makes it harder to find people who converted to a specific religion (Christianity, in this case). -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Deletion is therefore not an appropriate action and our editing policy is to handle such issues via ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would certainly support keeping this list. It is serving an extremely useful and informative purpose. As for the suggestion that this is just a fork of converts to Christianity in general, that does not really register that to have a generic list like that would not tell us the religious affiliation (if any) of the people before they converted to Christianity. So, my vote would be a very strong yes, we should quite emphatically keep this list. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The nom is wrong on both counts: it is not a fork in the sense of a duplicate, but a properly constructed child article. Secondly, the list is quite long enough to justify its retention. If there is duplication, the right course is to purge the general article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has value. Vertium (talk to me) 01:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uni roller hockey[edit]

Uni roller hockey (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 sport. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search hits and no Google News Archive search hits. I also see no way that the sport satisfies WP:NSPORT.

All reference and external links in the article are primary references to a company that seems to have made up the sport, making this article an advertisement.

I think the best option for this article will be to redirect it to Roller hockey. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT FROM AUTHOR: It is true that uni roller hockey is not a generally recognised sport, but I wonder how it is determined by wikipedia what is considered a valid sport? Uni roller hockey is a family activity run at many venues across the UK, where two teams compete against one another in an attempt to score the most goals (just like in football, rugby and many "sports"). In every case the players use uni hockey sticks and pucks and wear roller skates, so the method of play seems consistent throughout the country. It is a spin-off of roller skating that uses uni hockey equipment (an established sport played at many schools). It exists, it has existed for many years, many people do it, many venues run it, so I do not understand how it is a "made up" sport. Normally, it is run before, after, or as part of family roller skating sessions. I have played uni roller hockey with my kids in Peterborough, Letchworth and Royston.

What company links are you referring to? The proposed league is to be run as a non-profit making community activity. It does feature Google ads on the site, but does the fact that a couple of ads appear on the page make it a company?

"Made up the sport"? - I first played uni roller hockey with my oldest kids in Peterough (Market Deeping) almost 10 years ago. I don't know how many years uni roller hockey has been played at Letchworth, but I've been attending with my youngest son at weekends for at least 5 years.

The centre in Royston running uni roller hockey is a community centre. The article is not primarily about the proposed regional league, but about the activity of uni roller hockey. I'm sure it is true that the rules proposed for the league are not adopted at all venues that run uni roller hockey, but they are the only published rules that I am aware of. Most venues just hand out sticks and allow participants to try to score without any real structure.

If you like I can ask the many people I know who have played uni roller hockey to reply to this deletion topic and validate that it is played at many different locations (and has been for many years). I am close friends with the woman that runs the sessions in Letchworth and also close friends with the man who runs roller skating at Market Deeping (and used to play uni roller hockey with me there 10 years ago). The son of the man who runs the Market Deeping sessions now plays for the national Roller Hockey team, but first got involved in Roller Hockey through playing uni roller hockey at Market Deeping with his father and I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr brian osborne (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The issue at this point is the notability of the subject. Wikipedia defines notability with this guideline. It essentially governs what will be included in the encyclopedia. WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT are the areas of the guideline that would apply to this subject. As I covered in the nomination, the subject of this article doesn't appear to satisfy those guidelines. More exactly, it doesn't appear to have any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources and it doesn't appear to be played on a professional level in a notable league (it would only need coverage or to be used in a pro league for it to be considered notable..

In hindsight, "Made up" was a poor choice of words. My intent was to point out that the name "uni roller hockey" is a phrase that is rarely used (it has no Google News Search hits and no Google News Archive search hits. Also, using the word "company", to me, is interchangeable with "organization". I didn't mean to imply anything about its for-profit or non-profit status.

Unfortunately, asking people to add their opinions won't be necessary as it won't change the outcome of this discussion. WP:AFD discussion aren't ballots so the number of people who feel a certain way isn't necessarily important. It's more important that Wikipedia policies and guidelines be cited with regard to the subject's notability. In this case, if you want to prove notability, providing news articles that cover the sport itself would be an easy way. Preferably, at least one of those would be coverage on a national scale. Outside of that, the subject may just not be notable by Wikipedia's standards at this point but that's something that others can comment on. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no problem if it redirects to roller hockey (or is deleted for a valid reason). My issue was the statement that it was "made up" and being used by "a company for advertising purposes". Both these statements were lies and I wonder what the motive were of the person who made them?

Just to clarify, Roller Hockey is a variation of Hockey that is played on roller skates but with completely different sticks. Uni roller hockey is a variation of Unihockey that is played on roller skates and uses very similar sticks. There is Uni Roller Hockey equipment (which is identical to the standard school uni hockey equipment) sold at most large sports stores (such as http://www.acasports.co.uk/index.php?cPath=129_126). I know it was played at Market Deeping, Royston and Letchworth but none of these venus would have it included on searchable web-site. I believe Market Deeping is about 60 miles from Royston, so although the examples are regional, I'm not sure it is a "very small area of the UK". Maybe I should phone some national roller skating venues and ask how many play uni roller hockey and then list every UK venue on the article to show that it is not only played in a "very small area"?

Also, the only league for the sport (that I am aware of) is currently being established. However, like Uni Hockey (played in many schools without a league existing), Uni Roller Hockey is played at many skating venues (without a league existing). If wikipedia decides that "uni roller hockey" is an invalid entry then that is up to wikipedia. It has been running for many years at many locations and just because it is not found in Google searches and has not previously had a competitive league surely does not make it invalid to be mentioned (and defined) in wikipedia? I thought the purpose of wikipedia was to inform. Sports shops sell uni hockey equipment (as I have linked to), sports centres own uni roller hockey equipment and play the sport, and attempts are at hand to set up a leagues (although I accept this has to start in a "very small area"). Does a sport need to have a nationally established league and many hits in Google before wikipedia decides it is a valid entry? — Precedingunsigned comment added by Mr brian osborne (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Roller hockey, with a couple of explanatory sentences inserted there. I can find nothing that suggests that this sport is played in any location other than a very small area of the UK and apparently has achieved no notability that has been demonstrated in arm's-length third-party reliable sources. Ubelowme (talk) 14:58, 13 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) 00:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  I'm leaning delete on this one.  Certainly an interesting topic, and I don't doubt that it will become wp:notable.  But as per the nutshell of WP:N, notability requires that a topic be noticed "over a period of time", and I don't find any Google books that have discovered the topic, and I think that a topic like this would have been quickly discovered.  It is part of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT to WP:Promote new ideas.  The fact that the Royston City Council has an webpage on the topic might be enough to recreate the redirect after deletion, and redirect to Royston or some list of games topic.  The article also appears to have WP:OR problems, and as per our WP:Deletion policy, WP:OR is a reason for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I suggested above that this should be redirected but I'd also find deletion appropriate. But let's get 'er done. Ubelowme (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of WP:SPORT notability, not even sure if there's anything to merge. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 29 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 per MelanieN's rewrite, which included full sourcing and content expansion (also known as WP:HEY). Should anyone object, feel free to either contact me for a relisting or bring this to DRV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects[edit]

Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects (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 tagged for notability and sourcing problems for several years. This architecture practice may have won a minor award, but does not seem to have made an impact in the architectural press, let alone the general news coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per this. Sufficient coverage. -- Dewritech (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the coverage be about the COMPANY rather than about the works that it did? Now, suppose that the works would make the company notable: Wouldn't the works receive MAJOR AWARDS rather than just brief mentions? I lean towards Delete on this one BUT I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and leave it open for discussion. I just don't think the coverage section that the company itself aggregated(possible WP:COI ?) is significant ground for establishing notability and making it encyclopedic. -- Loukinho (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loukinho: did you check these awards?-- Dewritech (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Loukinho that these do not seem to be major awards, generally given by the local state or city chapter of AIA. In any case, citing the company website is hardly going to pass Wikipedia's notabilty requirements. Sionk (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good point. I haven't even addressed the issue of notability and sources. I would have to say Delete for this one. As it is, it is not encyclopedic and doesn't meet notability guidelines. -- Loukinho (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dewritech, that was exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned "Major awards". Most of these awards are about the works that the company made (which would, if anything, make its WORK notable), however the company itself does not seem to pass WP:N. Now, again, suppose that the "award winning" works that the company received are being claimed as grounds for its notability: Shouldn't the awards be major? Now, switching topics a little, regardless of the situation, notability requires "significant coverage from reliable sources" and the information has be be verifiable. See WP:NRVE. I know this is not respected de facto on wikipedia nowadays, but it is still part of the guidelines that some of us try to follow. -- Loukinho (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You would never have known it from the article as written, but the company does appear to be notable. It has branches in Nevada, California and China, and it gets frequent news coverage. I just did a complete rewrite, so please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Munmun Dutta[edit]

Munmun Dutta (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)

Indian TV actress who has worked in one TV show. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - as per above --Bharathiya (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one TV show reference on IMDB. Not notable at present to merit a wikipedia article. Perhaps in future. --Artene50 (talk) 07:51, 28 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) 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Notability not established under WP:NEO j⚛e decker^talk 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laggardship[edit]

Laggardship (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)

Neologism which is hardly in wide-spread use, as far as I can see. (Note that the word was purportedly invented by the CEO of Comeback America, and the username of the page's creator is ComebackAmerica.) JoelWhy?(talk) 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - was deleted before and should be deleted again as a non-notable neologism that is using Wikipedia in an attempt to promote itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bushranger. It's also a clumsy buzzword. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the previous two posters. Undeserving of an article. --Drm310 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Bushranger. →TSU ^tp* 11:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator doesn't make a policy-based argument for deletion, and appears to have nominated somewhat WP:POINTily. Also, WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social (disambiguation)[edit]

Social_(disambiguation) (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)

already another disambig page at social Bhny (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and revert Social: the only reason there are duplicate disambiguation pages is because you copied and pasted from Social (disambiguation) into Social. The correct way of handling this would have been to request a move. Plus, at least three different editors have undone your changes to Social, and you have reverted each of their changes, which strongly suggests that there is no consensus for your preferred version of these pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and revert per Russ. bd2412 T 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason not to keep social as it was before you changed it. In addition, the change to a disambig broke hundreds of inbound links that you didn't bother fixing, hence why I reverted. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 27. Snotbot  t • c »  18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This was just wrongheaded. social is the article with the severe problems, as some editors have pointed out on its talk page during the almost nine years of its existence. This article is not the problem. (I was going to say "perfectly fine", but it does seem to be disambiguating amongst things that apparently aren't called "a social"/"the social". AFD is not Wikipedia:Cleanup, of course; or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.) Don't go nominating social for deletion (for the second time in its history) just because I said it had severe problems, by the way. Talk:social does give an interesting pointer, if one reads it beyond the first section. Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and come to consensus on the talk page of what should be done with these two; nominating this for deletion now seems a bit early, especially in the midst of edit-warring. --KarlB (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 27 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* 10:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping in Hong Kong[edit]

Shopping in Hong Kong (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)

This article has been around for awhile but doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. I find it more or an advertisement or promotion but I'm putting it out for AFD to seek other opinions. Eeekster (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 27. Snotbot  t • c »  18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article, while it may be written like an advertisement or promotion, is still for a perfectly valid topic - Shopping in Hong Kong - and there are other similar articles, for example Shopping in Leeds. Therefore, keep. Theopolisme _TALK 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Born to Shop Hong Kong. In any case, our editing policy would be to merge into the main article Hong Kong, rather than deleting. Warden (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic has the references to support it as a stand alone article. Its major problems, as pointed out by the nom, is that certain portions of the article are unreferenced and sound promotional (such as a lot of the "Highlights" section), but that material can either be removed or referenced through a standard cleanup. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up.--Charles (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rorshacma. KTC (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PRESERVE, the topic itself is notable and covered in independent WP:RS sources, the Lonely Planet guide and Consuming Hong Kong book show the topic meets notability requirements. The article has problems but fix rather than delete. Zad68 15:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Shopping is a major pastime, industry and tourist attraction for Hong Kong. Vertium (talk to me) 01:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adelphikos[edit]

Adelphikos (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 single chapter club. No third party sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG requirements. Having notable members is not enough: notability is not inherited from related notable subjects.GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 27. Snotbot  t • c »  18:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Grove City College#Groups and organizations. I really tried to find sources for this 100-year-old fraternity but was unsuccessful. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep based on the improvements to the article by PhantomSteve. It's still a stub, but a referenced stub; and I think the great age of the organization (by American standards) pushes it over the line to "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I have found some sources (although I acknowledge they are not the best, and the biog one for the "notable alumni" is a self-written blog), which I think just meets the criteria for inclusion. Not very notable, but I feel notable enough for inclusion. It would be good if more (probably off-line) sources could be found PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management and Development, New Delhi[edit]

Institute of Management and Development, New Delhi (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)

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

Reason Agmat2 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Disinformation of the Institute hence Deleting[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 27. Snotbot  t • c »  18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator didn't give much of a deletion rationale, but I don't think that that should be a reason for speedy keeping, because I can't find any verification that this is an accredited college or is otherwise notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete because it is an unremarkable company, group or organisation. See CSD A7. Adjkasi (discuss me | changes) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The official website of the Post graduate college is here, It claims to be recognized by Joint Committee of AICTE, UGC, DEC, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. And has an A+ rating in BSchool Survey - 2010. The sources prove existence and notability for keeping the article. --DBigXray 22:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school or college whose existence is verified. In addition to the accreditation mentioned, it receives some mentions in news articles.[4] --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - single reference confirms existence, nothing more. From that just another business school. Only coverage I found [5] was coverage incidental or secondary to the topic. Does not appear notable. If is notable needs some evidence.Oranjblud (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, Oranjblud, according to Common Outcomes, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Secondary schools and beyond don't have to meet WP:ORG notability standards as long as their existence is confirmed. This is not an official policy, but it has become the usual result at AfD discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found several references to the school to demonstrate existence (and I have added 2 of the first ones I found). It may not be the most well-known of schools, but it meets the criteria for inclusion, partly as an institution of higher education which exists, and secondly for having some references at reliable independent sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of sources which would establish notability via WP:GNG j⚛e decker^talk 03:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Dubovsky[edit]

Artyom Dubovsky (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 is about a reserve goalkeeper who has made a total of 9 appearances in the Russian Second League (third-tier) during his career. I searched for sources (English- and Russian-language) and found nothing except a few statistics databases (sportbox.ru and sport-express.ru). There doesn't appear to be even one secondary reliable source that covers his career in any detail. I realize that there is a view that the Russian Second is fully-pro and therefore this article meets NFOOTBALL, but let's apply some common sense here to an article that cannot possibly say more than what is in those statistics databases. Jogurney (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, which supercedes WP:NFOOTBALL - and even if it didn't, a handful of appearances in a league of questionable notability is not enough. GiantSnowman 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, fails WP:GNG Theopolisme _TALK 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually, I tend to disagree as the one source can be considered reliable, so it can pass WP: GNG, and he also passes WP: ATHLETE and is notable even for his 9 games played, as they were played in a fully-professional league. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know if sportbox.ru or sport-express.ru are reliable sources, but they only provide an entry for Dubovsky in their statistics database (rather than detailed coverage of his exploits). It is only routine, trivial coverage. Jogurney (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He still meets WP: ATHLETE, as he played in a pro league. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Nine appearances at the third level of Russian football are simply not enough – the article fails WP:GNG as it is and should be deleted. – Kosm1fent 10:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not played in a full pro league and not enough done at 3rd level game. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 11:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Leach[edit]

Randy Leach (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)

Being a missing person is not inherently notable; coverage of such an event in local press is run of the mill and does not affirm notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. A nicely written article, but regrettably the subject does not appear to meet inclusion guidelines. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a bizarre case, but unfortunately hasn't generated the significant coverage required for Wikipedia. There is apparently a play about it, Leaves of Words, but that hasn't got anything but local coverage either. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the author, I took the time to look at other missing person articles on Wikipedia to see if this was something that could be included here. There are many articles as part of the category that don't seem to make notability standards including Tara Grinstead, who has just local sources and a Find A Grave memorial as references; Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley who has one CNN article as a reference; Ann Gotlib, who also only has local sources as references and the only major difference is that her kidnapper was possibly found dead. There is actually a similar case to Randy Leach on Wikipedia: Disappearance of Robin Graham who disappeared in 1970. All of her references are from local sources all before 1990.

Based on at least two dozen articles I read from the Missing Persons category, I felt the Randy Leach case met the guidelines at least on a small scale based on how long he's been missing, how law enforcement has handled the case and the bizarre circumstances. Bhall87^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 03:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX explains why your comparison against other articles is an invalid way of making a case. I would say that making the comparison actually supports the deletion argument:800,000 children go missing in the US each year, and Wikipedia has articles on virtually none of them. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Bhall87 and it seems to have coverage, as a simple Google search showed. Leaves of Words further demonstrates this notability. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-coverage, notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A search of Google News Archives turns up a number of articles in the Lawrence Journal-World and a few in the Kansas City Star, but nothing suggesting wider coverage. Complicating the search, I found another mysteriously-disappeared Randy Leach, who was last seen in Idaho Falls in 1980 (source). Any missing person who isn't quickly found is going to generate lots of local coverage; to me, the lack of wider coverage makes for WP:GNG failure. Ammodramus (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a horrible case, but an all too common circumstance. This does not appear to have gotten any National coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unfortunate, but not notable. Specifically, does not meet WP:NNEWS or WP:BLP1E. If BLP does not apply, then would likely need to deal with as WP:CRIME - which the article and sources also do not meet. The overall failing is that the sources are local routine coverage without large geographic scope or reliable in-depth reporting. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:CRIME and WP:N. - DonCalo (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Comment It is likely that most (if not all) the articles mentioned by the author (specifically Tara Grinstead, Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley, Ann Gotlib and Disappearance of Robin Graham should be deleted as well. None of these seem to pass WP:N in general and while all are indeed tragic, they would otherwise be low profile individuals and would unlikely have been covered at all if not for their disappearance. The three conditions of WP:BLP1E all apply here and therefore the article(s) should be deleted. Vertium (talk to me) 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beate Bille[edit]

Beate Bille (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)

This article seems to partially meet CSD G6 for a disambiguation page. However a speedy was declined. If you go to the page, you will only see that one of the two links work. Until there is a notable presences, I feel that this disambiguation page is not needed keystoneridin! (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't "partially meet" speedy deletion criteria, but either meet or don't meet them, and this one does not. And both of the links work, i.e. the links to Tycho Brahe, where there is coverage of the more famous Beate Bille, and to Beate Bille (actress). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I nominated this article because the two articles on the page should be separate. Tycho Brahe should have his own page only being born to a person named Beate Bille who does not have an active page.

• Sorry, but I find that statement totally incomprehensible. Please could you try again in clearer English? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please define the English standard that you are looking for and I will try to be clearer.keystoneridin! (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The standard of comprehensible English. I can just about see some meaning in your first sentence, although that apparent meaning doesn't make sense as the two disambiguated articles already are separate, but the second sentence is total gobbledygook. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, please define the standard. I searched for a "standard of comprehensible English", but found nothing. If you can define, in detail, what you want I will be glad to address your concern(s).keystoneridin! (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I give up. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Delete, move Beate Bille (actress) to Beate Bille, and add a hatnote to Tycho Brahe. Two entries, especially when one is a redlink, don't require a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: dab page at base name for two people neither of whom is obviously the primary usage. All in order. PamD 18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, move Beate Bille (actress) to Beate Bille and hatnote. Being Tycho Brahe's mom must have been a position to be proud of, but notability is not inherited, so the actress is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The Tycho article does not need a disambig from his mother's name, and the actress article is in no way going to pass AfD. If the page is kept at all, then simply redirect to the actress as the PrimaryTopic until the PROD or AfD (if needed) plays out. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete Beate Bille and move Beate Bille (actress) to Beate Bille's spot. There's no indication here that Beate Clausdatter Bille is notable and I'd rather not see an AfD for one article turn into an AfD for another subject for which an article doesn't even exist yet. If an article is created, move Beate Bille (actress) back to its current location and recreate the disambiguation page. No use is creating such a stir over a subject that doesn't even have an article let alone established notability. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:40, 27 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.  Sandstein  05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash[edit]

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash (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:AIRCRASH for military accidents. No one notable on board. ...William 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - tragic but regrettably non-notable military aircraft crash. Military aircraft crash more often overall, and have more fatal crashes, than civilian aircraft; with no Wikinotable people killed, no WP:PERSISTENCE, and no "superlatives" (most fatalities, etc.), this doesn't rise to the level of where it needs to be included in Wikipedia as anything more than a line in the type or service article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this was discussed already long time ago and the consensus was 'keep'. The article is a properly referenced B-class article in good overall shape and I see no reason why to delete it now. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because even properly referenced B-class articles in good overall shape can fail Wikipedia's notability standards? Which this one does. Also, consensus can change. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Alternatively, follow the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 Fort Benning Mid-Air Helicopter Collision, which described a more deadly crash, and merge to RoAF 90th Airlift Base. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That merge could certainly work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have no problem with a merge....William 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bushranger, no reason why it cant be mentioned in related list articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, The Bushranger and BDD. Two other discussions about very similar events are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Israeli Air Force Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AH.9 Lynx crash. The former was in Romania and the latter in the Czech Republic, both articles were deleted; both events (and this crash) have mentions in the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present), which is full of similar crashes around the world and which is IMO a sufficient record for Wikipedia, so no merging required. YSSYguy (talk) 06:52, 30 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. Topic fails to reach WP:CRIME j⚛e decker^talk 03:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Furino[edit]

Anthony Furino (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)

I'm not sure that the subject meets our notability criteria. There seems to be an element of recentism in the article. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass WP:CRIME --Vic49 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also agree, does not pass WP:CRIME -- Rogermx (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not pass WP:CRIME, not a notable criminal. - DonCalo (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Looks like just another run-of-the-mill low level mobster. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:CRIME. →TSU ^tp* 11:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black holes may have no hair, but this one has snow. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum spacetime mechanics[edit]

Quantum spacetime mechanics (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)

per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplification of the spacetime continuum Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOR|Original research, and rather incoherent. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete OR Anir1uph (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Original research and nonsense. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please familiarize yourself with our criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is poorly executed crank physics. The "I will be the first." admission by the editor is by itself, even if one doesn't know enough physics to know that this is rubbish, an indicator that this is a novel hypothesis from one person's head, without expertise or formal peer review (or even publication!), in violation of our no original research policy. Being original research is not a speedy deletion criterion, by the way. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at a "voracity" approaching that of light. OR that should be dropped into a black hole. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Reid[edit]

Riley Reid (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 porn star. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. The only substantial RS coverage I can find is an article in XBIZ. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at the best WP:TOOSOON. Cavarrone (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO and is just a pretext for promoting a sex blog per WP:Linkspam BO | Talk 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. →TSU ^tp* 11:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Finn[edit]

Matt Finn (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)

• Delete Not notable per WP:NHOCKEY Львівське (говорити) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Junior player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he meets nhockey or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Right now, he doesn't seem to be notable and fails WP:NHOCKEY, but in future he may get notable. For now, delete. →TSU ^tp* 11:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. G12. Bad science bad enough to make Phil Plait run screaming, and a copyvio to boot. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification of the spacetime continuum[edit]

Simplification of the spacetime continuum (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)

This article will need review from someone knowledgeable in the field, but it appears to be original research, is probably more appropriately added to an existing article, and lacks any sources. Does Wikipedia need this article? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update -There is a related article at Quantum spacetime mechanics which is already nominated for deletion in its own discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nope, it's complete OR, and not even good OR. For example: "The electron reaches the speed of light". Electrons have mass, they can't reach the speed of light. I'd be tempted to db-hoax it, really (although it doesn't actually qualify for db-hoax). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense OR. I especially like the part about "the 13 dimensional sphere of electrons orbiting the singularity at the speed of light". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, I kinda like the line: "This could be balanced even with all the mass in the universe as long as the electrons maintain voracity..." Look out, all the mass in the universe, the electrons are starving and trying to eat you! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could be mistaken- I'm not really following the logic- but I think he says that time has mass. So either I understand less science than I thought I did, or the universe is way more awesome than I realized. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete More original research nonsense. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please familiarize yourself with our criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is poorly executed crank physics. The "I will be the first." admission by the editor in another, largely identical, article is by itself, even if one doesn't know enough physics to know that this is rubbish, an indicator that this is a novel hypothesis from one person's head, without expertise or formal peer review (or even publication!), in violation of our no original research policy. Being original research is not a speedy deletion criterion, by the way. And common sense tells me that this isn't a copyright violation because there's just one person writing this stuff, on both Facebook and Wikipedia. They are, after all, signed "Ryan Reschke", written in the first person, and the product of a Wikipedia account with the name Ryanr666 (talk · contribs). Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as G10 attack page Jac16888 ^Talk 14:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Law[edit]

Elisabeth Law (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 created by Americasucks100 (Talk) • (Contribution History)

Check username for vandalism at other articles, unsourced and in violation of guidelines of BLP Allamericanbear (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This persons contributions seem to all have been reverted. This person just created their account today and is being tagged for vandal. Also this Elisabeth Law isn't notable at all. Obtund^Talk 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have G10'd this as a wholly negative unsourced BLP. The use of "fascist" throughout the article suggests this is a deliberate attack on a member of school staff by a disaffected student. QU ^TalkQu 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I was beginning to see that to. She attacked the school district, a Governor, and made a page about a teacher. I will now give this user a final warning on vandal. Obtund^Talk 14:46, 27 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 under WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL. j⚛e decker^talk 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tykwani Dublin[edit]

Tykwani Dublin (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)

Contested PROD, no reason given. Fails criteria at WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional or international level of football. Could not find any sources to prove he's played for Montserrat national football team either. --Jimbo^[online] 13:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 13:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I prod'd this for lack of sources, and it doesn't look like any reliable sources have turned up since. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not able to verify notability (e.g., playing in a FIFA "A" international for Monserrat). Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Again, a article which fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 11:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:CORP j⚛e decker^talk 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SubscriptionBridge[edit]

SubscriptionBridge (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)

There are notable sources, such as Chrunchbase SubscriptionBridge[6] and Chrunchbase Early Impact[7]. A press release from Comodo [8]. SubscriptionBridge is also listed in the following matrix of recurring billing applications{http://saasy.com/matrix.php}. Early Impact is also listed directly on PayPal's partner page{https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/bizui/IntegrationThirdParty-outside}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, no reliable or verifiable sources. Of listed refs, Bloomberg comes up blank (search page), the other two are press release/self-published. No GNews/archives hits that I could find (although they might be buried in the card game hits). CSD declined by IP with reason of other stuff. GregJackP Boomer! 12:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Review Again - Article Bloomberg link was fixed. Techcrunch base is a valid reference for Early Impact. Early Impact is listed as a PCI compliant product [9], which is only granted to valid companies. Early Impact has dozens of excellent reviews on Hotscripts [10]. The co-founder did not "spam" an article with comments. In the comments he actually listed several other competitors. He is a member on Quora and frequently answers questions with over 50 followers. Early Impact is also listed on PayPal's Partner page. There is also a separate Crunchbase listing for SubscriptionBridge here [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is not about the company, but about a service it provides. No one is saying that either it or the company does not exist - we're questioning its notability, which has still not been shown PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for clarifying Steve. I was puzzled as to why so many were trying to delete a valid company that services thousands of merchants. You see I was just trying to add this company to the wiki as a payment provider... because people looking at the list of payment providers expect to see a full list. This company is a legitimate payment provider. It seems you are looking for companies that have made a ton of news. That's the part that still confuses me though. There really is not much difference between this listing and the other payment providers listed. Some of the other payment providers did private funding or offered a beta and that generated news, but that did not make them more important in my view. So am I correct that this article would become notable is there was more news? Is that basically what I should focus on when contributing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article should have been speedily deleted per WP:A7. SD tag could have been reapplied since it was removed by WP:SPA IP with two edits. Since we're here, company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. A Google News search produces one article with a large list of companies (no significant coverage) that includes this company. The other article makes no mention of this company but a co-founder spammed the comment section with SubscriptionBridge info. A Google News Archive search produces no independent and significant coverage from a reliable source. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence that this company meets the general notability criteria or the company criteria. None of the provided references are adequate (the Bloomsberg one doesn't appear to show them on the list of companies; the PRWeb one is a press release from the company - so not independent - and the Practical Ecommerce one is not significant coverage, and appears to be wholly based on information provided by the company). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks anything to substantiate notability. Eeekster (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 27 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. Fails WP:V, possible hoax. j⚛e decker^talk 14:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra-TremeRAMA![edit]

Extra-TremeRAMA! (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)

Likely hoax. Search returns only one link, which is another WP article. Text is copied from Total Drama with only title changes. Certainly nothing more than speculation if not a hoax. | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax or not, there's zero indication of notability. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No mention of it on pro.imdb.com, and they'd have a listing for it if it were truly in production. Vertium (talk to me) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just gets away from getting G3ed. No trace of WP:N. →TSU ^tp* 11:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure.)  --Lambiam 14:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TUI Travel[edit]

TUI Travel (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 entire article is sourced only from the company's own website(s), thus it clearly fails Notability, Reliable Sources and probably also falls foul of Advertising. I'm surprised that an article about such a large company has managed to exist for so long without gathering any Independent Sources. Roger (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No evidence of WP:BEFORE. The Guardian has a lot of stories about it, e.g. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] - their site search indicates 168 stories mentioning the company[21]. Other papers also have extensive coverage e.g. Independent[22][23], Telegraph index[24]. It'll take work to look through all the results and create a good article, but TUI Travel is without a doubt notable. And it's not advertising, just dry business information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. This company has been reported as the world's largest tour operator: [25]. This topic fully passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Company is clearly notable and much discssed as per sources located above. Article can be improved by normal editing. AllyD (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a notable travel company, rubbish article but it should be improved not deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - company is patently highly notable, it is one of the largest travel companies in the world, in fact the largest by some measures.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Should add, I am sure, in this case, the AfD was well intentioned, and do recognise that the article has some major issues in terms of the failure to use third party citations in the text. There are actually a number linked at the bottom of the article, but they are not utilised within the article text. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As pointed out above, this is a very large and well established player in the tourism market, and notable by any reasonable standard. Factual information taken from company accounts, reports and websites is acceptable in WP because it is audited and subject to legal regulation ensuring accuracy. Paradoxically, independent sources are not reliable unless they can be verified against such sources for the very obvious reason that it cannot accurately be obtained in any other way. Where such information is not published, external estimates need to be qualified for that reason. --AJHingston (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily a large and well-known enough company for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw deletion nomination. Will somebody please use the independent sources in the article already. Comment: For such a huge and allegedly* notable company it's a really crappy article, not much more than a "directory" of corporate divisions and subsidiaries. (*IMNSHO notability is only "alleged" until such time as the independent sources are actually used in an article. Articles should not be allowed to exist indefinitely without the actual citation of independent sources. There should be a "use it or lose it" time limit for adding such sources.) Roger (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion regarding TUI Travel. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 28 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 Userfy. If someone needs help userfying contact me  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of RiverClan cats[edit]

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

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

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

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

List of cats in the Tribe of Rushing Water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

List of Warriors characters outside Clans (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)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ThunderClan cats; these articles are purely in-universe plot reiteration referenced exclusively to primary sources (the books). There is no realistic possibility of any of these being edited into a form which would alter that. There is a wikia:warriors which is ultimately a much better host for this sort of content; comments on the previous AfD suggest at least some of this content has already been transwikied there. As a followup, list of Warriors characters should be trimmed to only major characters in the series. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and userfy Userfy to my userspace, please. And the term "major characters" is going to need to be defined more clearly soon. Brambleclawx 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but... with an option to transwiki and/or selectively merge the important ones back into list of Warriors characters, which itself looks to have some problems. I'm a big fan of character lists for fiction and always have been, but this number and detail is excessive and it's extremely unlikely substantial coverage in reliable sources exist for, say, "Dapplenose" or "Grasskit". Simply put, this is something for a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and Userfy all since a primary content area editor has boldly accepted the nominator's suggestion above. I agree this material does belong on a fan site, which is why Wikia runs such content spaces. User:Brambleclawx is an experienced editor and has offered to do the work to improve this. No real argument here. Win and win. After userfication, I suggest redirecting all to List of Warriors characters. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (and redirected to The Voice (U.S. season 1)) Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Blake[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Jared Blake (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)

Unsigned artist, no sources found beyond PR and stuff related directly to his standing on The Voice. Merely placing in a TV contest isn't enough. He has a publishing contract, but hasn't done anything with it yet. Author declined BLP Prod in October 2011 without comment. This currently seems to be a WP:TOOSOON, as I can't find anything that isn't from a PR mill. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Jared Blake has charted over 50 times on Itunes and was on a popular television show. Jared has released a single titled 'Don't Mind' since The Voice and has released the video as well that has almost 70,000 views on YouTube. He is currently working with producer Skidd Mills of Skiddco Music on his new album. All copyright problems have been resolved and I say that there is no reason to delete Jared Blake's Wikipedia page. User:TheresaStach —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:NMUSIC. None of what you said is notable per the guidelines for music biographies. iTunes charts are not reliable. Being on the Voice is not sufficient if he hasn't done anything else. Getting views on YouTube is not a gauge of notability per our standards. If he's currently working on an album, then he might be notable later on, when the album's out. But right now, he's close but no cigar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It would be helpful if anyone supporting "keep" could refer to criteria under WP:NMUSIC. There are 12 ways to be notable. If anyone thinks the subject is notable, it would clarify the discussion to refer to one or more of the numbered criteria. Logical Cowboy (talk)

• Weak keep Meets criteria 1 at WP:NM. Found couple of Blake interviews that seem reliable and not from "PR mill". The problem for me here is missing inline citations. Needs to be improved, made more encyclopedic. --Sk4170 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you suggest something be "made more encyclopedic" from crap sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to specify that other than "crap" sources needs to be added. Here's a couple of interviews that I googled in less than five minutes. [26] [27] Can you shoot down both of them? They're no Rolling Stone, but still something and I'm sure there's more. Blake seems to be getting some exposure on country music radios and web publications after The Voice. --Sk4170 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it would be permissable to cite those two sources in the article, but as they are interviews they are not really independent secondary sources which are needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now this is interesting. I was reading WP:NM, criteria 1 and its note, especially this sentence: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.", not the general guidelines. Most material you get about musicians that is not strictly self-promotion, is interviews and reviews. There are no in-depth articles available that are not even in small part interviews, unless the band or the artist is well-established chart-topping award or song-contest winning act playing arenas and stadiums. In those cases the artist most probably meets several counts of the WP:NM criteria anyway. The guidelines are very strict, if interviews don't count in establishing notability in any case. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]