< 21 October	23 October >

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

The result was redirect to Mercer_Mayer_bibliography#Little_Monster_series. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Monster[edit]

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

WP:NN fictional character. Would have been CSD#A7 if it extended to fictional characters. Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Critter Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Decent article, but no references and barely makes the cut. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mercer Mayer, its creator. Mercer Mayer bibliography already contains a list of books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Mercer_Mayer_bibliography#Little_Monster_series. One could make an argument of inheritance but there is not enough content to justify a spin off article. And there are no sources to justify a standalone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went ahead with a bold move and copied part of the content to here. If there is disagreement will undo it or we can discuss on the talk page of Bibliography_of_Mercer_Mayer. (note to self: create anchor, del old fu rationale)-- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per WP:EDITATAFD, merging before consensus closure is not best practice. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mercer Mayer. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bibliography_of_Mercer_Mayer#Little_Critter_related_books. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Critter[edit]

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

WP:NN fictional character. Would have been CSD#A7 if it extended to fictional characters. Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Monster Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Good article, but needs references and work. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Bibliography_of_Mercer_Mayer#Little_Critter_related_books. One could make an argument of inheritance but there is not enough content to justify a spin off article. And there are no sources to justify a standalone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went ahead with a bold move and copied part of the content to here. If there is disagreement will undo it or we can discuss on the talk page of Bibliography_of_Mercer_Mayer. (note to self: redirect Just Grandma and Me, create anchor, del old fu rationale) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bibliography_of_Mercer_Mayer as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it passes WP:GNG, though I would rename it to the "Little Critter series" and focus it on the book series. The books get much coverage in Reliable Sources both individually and as a series. Here are some of the many news articles (at least some of which are Rliable Sources) covering the series in depth: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Redirecting to the bibliography does not seem ideal becuase the series passes WP:GNG on its own. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that "Little Critter Series" probably passes GNG, but this article isn't about the series - it's about the character which doesn't appear to be notable. Toddst1 (talk)

Commenting - So why not move it leaving a redirect? The text would hardly change at all for the move, but could use work for other reasons. And the character himself also gets coverage as a character: [5], [6], [7], [8] ("Mayer's Little Critter is a popular figure among primary schoolchildren, who have bought 50 million books starring the furry creature"). Hoppingalong (talk) 03:34, 29 October 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 Krabi Airport. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krabi Airline[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was a proposed airline was supposed to start operations in 2009, since then nothing has happened. No indication of meeting notability guidelines, Google searches not finding any significant coverage. JetBlast (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG:

Krabi Airline set to debut later this year
(in Norwegian) Krabi Airline på krabbegir
(in Norwegian) Ready for direct flights to Thailand
(in Norwegian) New player dumps price

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence it was any more than a proposed airline. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While acknowledging that notability isn't temporal, for a proposed airline that never flew (and possibly never even ended up applying for rights, etc.) there needs to be something much more substantial than a few articles which give relatively few details such as it plans to fly and fly cheaply, etc. Including every proposed airline, or any other business for that matter, simply because it received a few "puff" pieces in newspapers that need to fill up travel supplements is setting the bar way too low, and in my mind goes against the principle, if not the letter, of WP:MADEUP and WP:DIRECTORY. Ravendrop 00:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After considering the sources identified above and searching for further information about this airline, I have to agree with those in favour of deletion here. While the airline did receive some coverage, arguably sufficient for WP:GNG, it was all around the announced startup of its flights, which appears not to have ever actually happened. The latest (only) news item on the Krabi website is about the postponement of the first flight "due to lack of getting the official Air Operator Certificate (AOC) from the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA)" - if Krabi never had such a certificate, should it even be classed as an airline? Ventures that failed to materialize can be notable, but in this case, I don't think so.--Michig (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even though it is a non-existent entity, the reports of it are still recent and able to fulfill WP:GNG, for now. Fireflo (talk) 10:22, 22 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear notable and does not actually exist. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: passes WP:GNG, and WP:NTEMP applies. Alternatively, merge this content to Krabi Airport. Even if the airline doesn't deserve its own article, the well-sourced facts about a planned airline that was specifically intended to increase access to this airport are significant to the history of the airport.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Krabi Airport. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There appears to be enough source material from which to write about the topic under WP:GNG: Thai News Service June 21, 2007, Thai News Service September 19, 2007, Bangkok Post (Thailand) May 26, 2008 Krabi Air launch put on ice (beginning with "Krabi Airline, a proposed start-up Thai carrier, is stalling launch plans amid an uncertain economic outlook."), Bangkok Post (Thailand) October 1, 2009. There probably is Thai language source material as well. The issues of whether the airline was more than a proposal, lack of certificate, etc. are issues of how to present the article content, not whether the topic meets WP:GNG. Keeping the Wikipedia article should not hinge on the success of the airline. I added the above links to the article talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (based on the good work of Tokyogirl)Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's Teacher Trouble[edit]

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT. Has some passing mentions in children's literature/education but nothing that would satisfy WP:BKCRIT #4. Tagged ((Notability|Books)) since January 2009. Toddst1 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good article, but needs references and work. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was almost certain that I'd end up voting delete, but it looks like there is coverage of this book out there. I found one book that talks about ATT heavily and two in-depth articles about it, and I'm just getting started. I think it's that this was one of the first Living Books to come out is why it's gotten so much attention. I've noticed that it's also part of some teaching plans at schools as well: ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) I'll hold off on voting until I'm finished, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done some digging and found a plethora of sources, although I did have to really dig hard for them. I admit raising an eyebrow over some of the stuff discussed in some of the journals, but coverage in peer reviewed journals still counts as a RS. I also saw where this is used fairly regularly in classrooms, as shown above, and it's received a couple of reviews. I have to say that I was surprised at the amount of coverage it got.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:31, 23 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open Up (album)[edit]

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

Promo spam and possible conflict of interest, more from the same likely WP:SPA account that brought you promo spam article Mark Desvaux. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no references. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 15:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NALBUMS. Qworty (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources. 00:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete as above, fails WP:NALBUMS. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NALBUMS. not referencesRighteousskills (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NALBUMS. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:32, 29 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRL Music[edit]

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

Compare with promo spam possible conflict of interest at pages Mark Desvaux and Urban Myth Club. Poor sourcing, tagged for notability for over a year. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, not notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article created by a self-promoter whose claims of notability are dubious and not credible. -- Atama頭 19:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is nothing but the purest WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to showcase notability of the topic. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:32, 29 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeneXproTools[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable software. Refs are almost all to the company's web site, except a couple to a paper and book by the software's developer. Prodded and tagged but both were removed without addressing the concerns. A search turns up nothing indicating notability. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored my tag requesting third party references, as all that was added was the tutorial and book by again the same author (= first party). All that I could find in Google were the first author pages, and spammy "software download" sites, so I could not find a reliably third party source. There is a related page, Gene expression programming, which I tagged for copyright violation concerns (however, as I assume the author might be the author of the book, too, he could license it for Wikipedia - which he maybe did: Talk:Gene expression programming#Copyright_issue). Please have a look at the talk page of this: Talk:Gene expression programming#Dubious_claims_throughout, Talk:Gene expression programming#Critical_responses_from_researchers. These resources may help with notability of at least the GEP page, but they may also support the product GeneXproTools to some extend. --91.52.40.49 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me apologize for not commenting on this forum before, but I really thought it was a robot posting all those red flags, as they appeared immediately after the creation of the page.

As I said, the first red flag about deleting the article was posted soon after I created the page (see this version [here]), which contained almost nothing, as I was just setting the page up. I found that strange, for I thought the idea in Wikipedia was for people to create articles over time, making them better through the collaboration of different people. And this in my view implies being allowed to start an article in a simple way and then add to it over time. So I went on to add more information to the article, addressing the raised issues of notability and references (see comments to my [edits of 11 October 2012]). To my surprise the concerns remain, and I wonder what could be more notable than winning the Microsoft Portugal Science Award 2001 for a software package on version 1.0? So let me reiterate.

With my [edits of 11 October 2012] I addressed the notability problem by including the information about the [Microsoft Portugal Science Award 2001 for Automatic Problem Solver] (APS is the older name of GeneXproTools, as explained in the article). This award should also serve as a third party reference for the software, as the entire jury of the Microsoft Portugal Science Awards of 2001 vouched for the software.

Notwithstanding, I also added today another third party reference, [KDnuggets], with comments from two scientists from two prestigious institutions (GlaxoSmithKline and the University of Wales, UK) in support of the software.

I also addressed today the concern about the excess of lists in the article, which in my view is not well informed as most Wikipedia articles about software packages use different kinds of lists to list the different features and versions of the software (see for example Mathematica). Oritnk (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the "Microsoft Portugal Science Award" is that the source is the company's web site, like almost all the refs. I did actually search for it and found no other mention of it, suggesting it's not a significant award, or at least not significant enough for third parties to have reported on it. As for the KDnuggets report it's a recycled press release in a news feed, not an independent report.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should agree to disagree.Oritnk (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two third-party references in 11 (?) years is *not* a lot. And the KDNuggets cannot even be called a third-party reference, but apparently is a press release by the company itself. Sorry I still consider this product as non notable as of now. Oh and the Mathematica article needs cleanup, too. It's not at all encyclopedic style, listing all the revisions... unreadable and worthless. --91.52.17.69 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did a search and could only find promotional materials. I do not consider KDNuggets.com to be a reliable source under WP:RS, and it could be a press release as mentioned above (this is unclear). A claim about an award on the company's website does not significant independent coverage in reliable sources make. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. --Batard0 (talk) 15:47, 22 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Bad references, self promotion. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a bit of a heavy handed approach for a brand new page. After all there are several other equivalent software packages that have had Wikipedia entries for a long time. It would not be fair to delete this entry without reviewing the status of all the other equivalent software packages many of which have been tagged as non notable but have been allowed to remain. Finally, there are two references, one of which is quite old and offline - maybe someone from Microsoft Portugal would be able to chime in?Bartolrod (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a great argument for keeping this article. It must stand on it's own merits. Would strongly suggest you have a read of WP:SPA and WP:SOC. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Special:Contributions/Bartolrod seems to be an account associated with GeneXProTools and Gene expression programming. Apparently no article contributions, so this could be Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to avoid deletion. No need for investigation/action though. --91.52.32.135 (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious promo-spam with few reliable sources to verify notability. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the citations listed are either self-published or press releases, and neither are considered reliable. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything outside of press releases. The subject fails to meet the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 02:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me people are questioning the Microsoft Portugal Science Award of 2001 because they could not find any references. Perhaps if they spoke Portuguese they would have been luckier. A Google search for “concurso nacional de software Microsoft Portugal” returns 344,000 hits. Having said that, I’m including here 3 links for some news on Sapo News which is the equivalent to Google News in Portugal (Sapo is also the most important search engine in Portugal): The edition of the 2001 awards (4th edition); in which the software Automatic Problem Solver participated (unfortunately they didn’t bother to mention the third place in the Science section, but if anyone wishes to inquire further, they could find some useful references from there); the fifth edition of the Microsoft Portugal Software Awards; and an interview in 2001 with Rodolfo Oliveira, PR Manager of Microsoft Portugal about the Microsoft Portugal Software Awards. Oritnk (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see none of those mention GeneXproTools, so none is a suitable reference.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that we do not beliee the Microsoft Portugal Software Award. The only problem is that we would be looking for the original page, not a press release at the homepage of GXPT, as this is not third-party. A news article mentioning the Microsoft Portugal Science Awards, but not the software (which was 3rd in one of how many categories?) is not really backing the software itself! However, if the software were notable, there should be many other references (and even "awards", and better than 3rd in a rather obscure Microsoft-Portugal thing). After all, this software has been around since 2001. For a software that has been around this long, not receiving any other mentioning in mass media is an indicator of it being not relevant enough for Wikipedia, i.e. ~~delete~~ (now: merge into GEP, see below). --91.52.32.135 (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. If such sources get added, feel free to ping my talk page Stuartyeates (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Searching for this software in Google Scholar shows 72 results of scientific papers and other that mention GeneXProTools - [GeneXproTools in Google Scholar http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=genexprotools&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=]. This establishes notability since it includes publications from different universities and other institutions in several countries by different people. Bartolrod (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted "keep" above. The first: "much faster and more accurate than [...] GeneXproTools", the second in "Journal of Fujian College of Forestry" (probably not top ranked?). I believe these references are good for supporting Gene expression programming (the main articles seems to be cited 958 + 360 + 191 + 58 = approx. 1500 times), and GeneXproTools is better suited as a paragraph in this article as a reference implementation. Sorry. --91.52.32.135 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. A search shows nothing. It may help you find references but a link to a search engine is not a reference or proof of anything. And I've striken your second !vote as you only get to !vote once, unless you change it in which case the first !vote is normally stricken.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The search results are from Google Scholar, not Google. I published the link here to show that some of those results can be added to the original page to provide notability to the page, which is what has been discussed so far. Sorry about the second keep, I thought I was supposed to add "keeps" when adding reasons for the page to stay. Bartolrod (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then see also Wikipedia:Search engine test, which uses Google as an example but explains that the same applies to all search engines: a bare count of number of hits proves nothing (and may not even be accurate). You can use a search to find sources but a search is not a source, or a reference, or a proof of notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while we're here, it's worth considering whether Cândida Ferreira passes the WP:PROF test. I think they may do, but I don't speak Portuguese (and there are clearly multiple people of that name in google). If Cândida Ferreira passes the WP:PROF test, we can then merge and redirect all this to that biography and all go home happy. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about merging into Gene expression programming as I suggested above? Section Software. For all I can tell, that seems to be the core notability for both GeneXproTools and Candida Ferreira: 2 books and >1500 citations in Google Scholar. GEP seems to be both her main result and GXT seems to be the reference implementation (the other software mentioned in the article seem to be dead, not having commits for 2+ years). There seems to be some doubt on GEP: Talk:Gene_expression_programming#Dubious_claims_throughout also from science: Talk:Gene expression programming#Critical_responses_from_researchers but it clearly is notable. The copyvio should be easy to resolve by adding attribution to the BY-CC book (I'm not entirely sure how much it was actually copied, or rewritten with the book open, though), then the article needs to be reviewed and cleaned up because of WP:COI. --91.52.31.45 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right now Gene expression programming is not in a fit state to have anything merged to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly sourced piece of obvious WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name is confirmed as being spelled "GeneXproTools".[18] I didn't find any sources, not eve a press release. There does not appear to be any interaction between those behind GeneXproTools and the media, so there's really nothing to include in the Wikipedia article if we follow Wikipedia's policys and procedures. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:31, 29 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Myth Club[edit]

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

Same promo spam WP:SPA possible conflict of interest account that recently contributed to this page, Wikiralphster (talk · contribs), created Mark Desvaux article page. No references or sources cited in article for 2 years. — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and as pure WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article created by a self-promoter whose claims of notability are dubious and not credible. -- Atama頭 19:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:33, 29 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Desvaux[edit]

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

Dubious notability, comes off as spam and self-promotion, most likely conflict of interest WP:SPA account involved in edit history. — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see also q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Mark Desvaux. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:ADVERT lacking in sufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N per WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I visited Mark's site which indicates that he has been "featured" in some notable places (BBC, The Guardian, London Times, and so on) yet aside from the passing mention in the Guardian article already used as a reference in this article, I can't find anything. It seems like these claims are from a self-promoter and aren't credible. The creator of this article also created TRL Music, which is also nominated for deletion. -- Atama頭 19:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It lacks the coverage enough to meet the inclusion guidelines. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:34, 29 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Kay Turner[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Has appeared in various Vegas shows, sometimes in a lead role. IMDb shows a walk-on in one TV movie. Not enough to meet WP:NACTOR, and I couldn't find a thing at Google News Archive. Unreferenced since 2008. MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that the subject satisfies WP:ENT, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 05:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable independent sources. If such sources get added, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, only weasel words. --Kurepalaku (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, no assertion of notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:35, 29 October 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 as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KFC bring your own chicken[edit]

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

Yes, I could PROD this, but I think an AfD is quicker. This is obviously original research. AutomaticStrikeout 21:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Correct; definetely original research and doesn't serve a purpose on an encyclopedia. Vacation9 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. "Original research" is not the problem here. I realize that there's sometimes debate about what constitutes a "blatant" hoax for G3 purposes, but surely this (which began, I believe, as a joke on Twitter) crosses the bright line. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I have tagged it as such. AutomaticStrikeout 21:36, 22 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eurofins Scientific[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Article is unsourced and main author (Eurofins Lux) has an obvious conflict of interest by their name. If even the PR agent cannot come up with any independent sources, then it must be un-notable indeed. Spar-stangled (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a grossly inflated view of the ability of PR agents. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be properly cited, but the company employs 10,000 people and there exist many third party sources. - Mr X 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of employees is not a criterion for notability. If sources exist, by all means cite them. Without independent reliable sources, no article can exist. Spar-stangled (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not a criterion for notability, but certainly a strong indicator of notability. I get 1270 news references when I click on the news link above and 343 newspaper articles from NewsBank. It is definitely a notable company. Whether anyone cares enough to add any of these references is another matter. - Mr X 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references. Not notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No references ≢ not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 10K employees, $1B revenues, and publicly listed makes it notable. Independent coverage is aplenty and easy to find in goog news, although most is not in English (as expected). [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] etc. Nominator is suspect to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, with a reputation for trolling. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm finding 6,000+ news articles with 1,500 having Eurofins Scientific in the title alone. However, as I scroll through them, I'm seeing press release after press release. There also are many that have Eurofins Scientific among a string of names and many that merely report on the stock status. I'm not going to look through them all. Between that much press coverage, 10K employees, $1B revenues, there probably is enough independent reliable source information for a stand alone article. I think it would be hard to wade through all the non independent/non reliable sources to find WP:GNG sources to properly cite the article and achieve a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily, I've done that work already. You can just look at the further reading section in the article. There's actually a lot more independent coverage than that, I've just selected those articles that had most background info and/or analysis. Both Capital (French magazine) and L'Usine nouvelle have a lot of short stories about Eurofins buying this or that company (and so does the Reuters feed on them). I've not included any interviews because I found them rather superficial. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which I appreciate. I've no interest in sifting through the PRs and I don't read French, so I don't think I can post an iVote on the matter. I'm on the fence as to whether the AfD nomination was legitimate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This company passes WP:CORPDEPTH per the independent sources comprised of significant coverage about it that were added to the article by User:Tijfo098. Regarding the nomination for deletion being partially based upon the article being unsourced at the time of its nomination, please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not correlated with whether or not articles have sources in them: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." See WP:N and WP:GNG for further information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Actors in Negative Roles[edit]

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

PROD was contested. This is an ultimate example of an indiscriminate list. While the terminology of "negative role" is frequently tossed around in the Bollywood press (as are terms such as "mega-hit" or "super flop", it is a very subjective categorization for which there is no chance of obtaining any objective criteria for which encyclopedic content could be developed for an encyclopedic article for our readers -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopedic article, it does not have a valid subject for an encyclopedia. Most of the list is not supported by sources, but original research. And I don't see good chances that this may be changed in the future, especially as the creator of the article has been blocked indefinitely. --RJFF (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not exactly indiscriminate, but it's rather subjective and unencyclopedic. It's hard to imagine such a list being built without frequent original research or synthesis. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of Indian film awards include specific awards for actors in negative roles (that is, playing villainous characters). So it would be possible to produce a sourced list of Indian actors who had notable performances in negative roles ... and that still wouldn't have any notability as a list in and of itself, any more than a List of American actors who have played villains would. We just don't do that sort of actor/role-type cross categorization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian actors who have received an award for their negative role might be an appropriate article, or maybe better yet category. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Academy Awards, we have categories such as Category:Best Supporting Actor Academy Award winners. The Golden Globes also have winner-by-award categories. Most other film award categories, at current, do not specify the award won, if they have a category at all. Category:Filmfare Awards winners, for example, but no categorization for the winners of other Indian awards. I'm not sure which awards are prestigious enough to have winner-by-award categories vs. generic winner categories vs. no categorization, but it's probably a discussion that people more familiar with the topic should undertake somewhere (although, obviously, not at AFD). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons mentioned above Danielj2705 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Subjective, especially because the numbering implies rank. Unencyclopedic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and lacking references. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undefined and undefinable inclusion criteria, unsourced, unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Too subjective to construct an encyclopedic list. Are antiheroes negative or positive or neither or both?--xanchester (t) 23:46, 23 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Pelosi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having not played in a fully pro league match and also fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and he has not received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. - Mr X 22:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:36, 29 October 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. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability, specifically, "The nominator... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." If you'd like to propose a merge, see Wikipedia:Merging and Help:Merging. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of $h*! My Dad Says episodes[edit]

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

As there was only one season, it should be merged into the main show article. TBr and ley 19:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I concur with the main poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Lakshadweep[edit]

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

The article seems to consist of original research based purely on a census. Also lacking in notability. - Mr X 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the assertion of MrX — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not original research if it's based on a census, but it is too trivial to merit a separate article. The second sentence could possibly be added to the second paragraph of Lakshadweep#Demographics, where it talks about the Muslim 93%+. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough here to merit an individual article. AutomaticStrikeout 01:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: similar articles have been discussed before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity in Andhra Pradesh (merge),Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity in West Bengal (no consensus) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity in Goa (keep). But this one doesn't have the context necessary for an article St Anselm (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is roughly the equivalent of Buddhism in Texas. Go Phightins! 02:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:36, 29 October 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Fahed[edit]

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

Other than student films, has done one short film that was a 4th place film out of 11 films in the short film category at the Baghdad Film Festival. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. No independent, reliable refs about him to be found. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 18 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Sideways713 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Elliot the Musical casts[edit]

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

This is a discussion that has taken place on multiple occasions in relation to similar lists, all of which have resulted in deletion. (That I have found that is) Other discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legally Blonde (musical) cast lists, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked cast lists. Also per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Aaron Booth (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable musical and the list is well sourced. Fireflo (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The musical is notable, that's why there is an article for the musical itself, and an original cast list on the page of the musical. The vast majority is unsourced, and the only information there that is not in the main article for the musical is no more than WP:FANCRUFT. Why is this list necessarily when similar lists of other shows not necessarily. -Aaron Booth (talk) 15:43, 22 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial content that is fairly well-sourced and too extensive to be included in the main article. Now let's have look at reality TV fancruft... - Mr X 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my last comment, I did not propose that the two be merged. What is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia on Billy Elliot the Musical casts is already present on Billy Elliot the Musical. The vast majority of the content on the page is not notable for inclusion. The consensus is to list the original Broadway, west end, and maybe a large touring or an otherwise notable production of the show, and any notable replacements. The list includes all original cast members of every production of the show ever staged, as well as all replacements including replacement of chorus members. The article also includes fan tidbits such as performing at a particular show, injuries, audition process, reasons for declining a role, and other such indiscriminate inclusions. The article is much better than it was just a few months ago, however such lists have been determined per consensus to be deleted per AFD discussions. (See cited cases in nomination comment) -Aaron Booth (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see your point. Even if the article is not deleted, and unsourced sections should be removed. I wonder if this discussion will get enough involvement from other editors. It may require a RfC to properly gauge consensus. - Mr X 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi we talk a while back about this page, I just notice that u are deciding to delete page. Why will u delete a page that has been organize well enough more than any musical page i seen on here. I been keeping updates on cast and all, and also making sure I source people that aren't cast yet, by articles of it not fan sites, which i stop doing. If anything all I seen on other cast pages on here is like 11-12 cast or just original. I will like to keep this page and just try to keep everyone updated on who is in who cast. I do see your point. This is just my oppinion what i've seen on here of musicals. I think this is more organize page over any cast page. If anything from a fan of theatre, I will like to know who playing who right now. Not just original cast mates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciasigmond (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Annoying People of 2011[edit]

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

This programme is clearly not notable, it's just one of those programs on repeats all the time when they have nothing else to play. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 18 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weak references, not notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Most Annoying People, the overview of all the years. Doesn't seem independently notable: lack of press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:41, 23 October 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Khan (beauty pageant contestant)[edit]

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

Not a notable figure. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Bharathiya (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very notable. She is a part of some popular indian serials. Strong keep.--I'm Titan nium^chat 15:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are several Sana Khans out there - I wondered for a while whether this might be the same as one of the others, or whether Imitanium is thinking of Sana Khan (Television Actress). This needs clarification/verifying. Mabalu (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:00, 15 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence that such a person won the claimed Miss India titles. Google search gives lot of sources about Sana Khan (Television Actress), but none about this person. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:47, 27 October 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul (Prem) Sobel[edit]

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

bio lacking notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, mostly by Sobel, primary sources or passing mentions. original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:45, 10 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:16, 15 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find anything to back up notability of Sobel. I've seen many of his works on PubMed and Google Books, but that is not enough for notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Killing Tree. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Sing Sin[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Did not chart. No charting singles. Not a representative of the genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Killing_Tree#Albums.2FEPs - As a result of Walter's comment below, a redirect would be better. However, considering The Killing Tree has few sources, I may see if that article meets AfD criteria soon. Delete - I haven't found any evidence of significant third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the final decision is delete, perhaps a merge of the content into the band's article would be of use. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 16 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Killing Tree. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bury Me At Make-Out Creek[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Did not chart. No charting singles. Not a representative of the genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News provided nothing and Google Books provided one result here but the preview won't appear properly, however, it is probably insignificant. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This album (it's a demo actually) was recently reissued in here, and also it's on iTunes - here. Not very significant, still, it did exist and I think that at least iT is a reliable source.Filas312 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment source is not the issue. Notability is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the final decision is delete, perhaps a merge of the content into the band's article would be of use. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 16 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. "It exists" is not a valid reason to keep. Sideways713 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Brubaker[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) because Jason Brubaker hasn't been the subject of sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails all criteria at WP:FILMMAKER. This is another promotional biography of an aspiring celebrity written in the same unique style and idiosyncratic formatting as Vbabey (talk · contribs). As with the previous one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaVerne Y. Adekunle, quality sources are non-existent. Instead we have blogs, social media, press releases, and other user generated sources. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:FILMMAKER, etc. We have a person who's using WP:SOCK to create articles on multiple non-notable people, so we'll have to keep an eye on her. Qworty (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - He certainly has potential but I haven't found sufficient sources to support the article. Google Books provided one minor mention here but Google News found several links here, here, here (claims the film Earl's Your Uncle won "Best Non-Traditional Short Movie" at the 2004 Century City Film Festival) and here. I also found what appear to be relevant results for high school honor rolls and one for skateboarding. While at the sixth page of Google News archives results, I found this press release. I vote delete with absolutely no prejudice for a future recreation when he is notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for now, as SwisterTwister suggested. He is close, but doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines yet. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:47, 29 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alonzo Martinez[edit]

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

Delete, appears to fail WP:NMMA. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:NMMA. Prong 1 of WP:NMMA states "[h]ave fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization...see WP:MMANOT...)" WP:MMANOT lists Bellator Fighting Championships and Strikeforce as top-tier organizations. The article in question clearly establishes with citation that Martinez has fought 2 times in Bellator and once in Strikeforce for a total of three professional fights in top-tier MMA. Thus, WP:NMMA is met and no evidence is provided that this is an exception where WP:NMMA is met yet WP:GNG is not. RonSigPi (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake you know I thought that was another link like the one linked to not a different page entirely. Apologies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Detective RonSigPi's explanation is why. AutomaticStrikeout 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per RonSigPi.--LlamaAl (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks RonSigPi; good work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:48, 29 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daredevils (role-playing game)[edit]

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

~~Fails GNG and WP:RPG notability. No RS available (no independent notability). Consider merging into parent. PROD removed. czar · · 16:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw based on similar Aftermath! and Bushido snow keep AfDs and corresponding community interest in/support for the article. Despite some sources that I still deem to be of questionable notability, I think the article's sourcing has been satisfactorily improved to pass GNG. Thanks to all for their civility, patience, and effort. czar · · 17:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Withdraw and for the additional edits you have made to the article. Web Warlock (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews in White Dwarf #55, Page 13. Dragon Magazine #70, page 73. I'll ignore the ones online written in the past 10 years. Please take into account this game predates the internet by about 20 years. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar conversations in Aftermath's and Bushido's AfDs. My case is that two reviews are not enough to establish notability. czar · · 20:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Given the reviews I supplied above, article meets all the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. I am not sure why you are having a problem with that. I am supplying exact magazine names, issues, and page numbers of review. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews isn't enough to establish notability for this topic. There's no evidence that this topic will ever have broader coverage than a summary (WP:IINFO). I already made my point on this and the other AfDs so I'll bow out now and let it take its course. czar · · 21:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known RPG from the early years of RPGs, predating the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are being added, Nominator violated community standards by not attempting to discuss potential changes after tagging the articles for improvement. Plenty of independent sources. Web Warlock (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, there is only one ref in the article. Where are the independent sources? Is there currently anything in the article that attempts to assert notability? Also please link to the community standards that you've accused me of violating. czar · · 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real research takes time. I have a lot of magazines to go through. It takes no effort to tag an article. Web Warlock (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note Nom fails to take into account both lack of online sources when dealing with RPGs and the nature of the hobby in the early 1980s. There were a handful of major magazines (Dragon and White Dwarf have already been mentioned) doing reviews, and NO internet resources. Copyright keeps most of those early reviews off the internet today. Other review magazines may have been short-lived. As Webwarlock notes, it's easy to tag. Intothat darkness 14:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based in part on discussion above, and in part on the SnowKeep given to the other two games in this series. Intothat darkness 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note White Dwarf review added to article. Still looking for what box my Dragon mag is in. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon #70? I will check when I get home tonight. Web Warlock (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Dragon #70 and Imagine #9. There might be more in Imagine #4, but that is one of the issues I don't have. Web Warlock (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are now at five completely independent, third party sources that establish the notability of this topic. Web Warlock (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six. And I have more magazines to go through. Web Warlock (talk) 03:13, 26 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Charrette[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and WP:RPG notability. No reliable RS available. Any notability is inherited. czar · · 16:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interview in Wunderwelten, Issue 13, takes up half the issue. Interview in Imagination, Nov/Dec 1991 issue. Article needs major cleanup. Quick review of his Bibliography - it looks like it is missing quite a few of his novels. I think he is bigger in Europe (Germany specfically) than in the US. Several sites about him appear to be German. Please review WP:BEFORE. This stuff isn't hard to find. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASSUMECLUE. Per the other AfDs, we disagree on standards of RPG notability. czar · · 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology - You are right. I apologize. It is apparent we are interpreting things a bit differently. That doesn't make either of us wrong, just having different opinions. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known author and RPG designer. I fail to see how his notability is "inherited". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Intothat darkness 14:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This[29] is Robert's self-published biographical information. It can't be used in the article but it might help in finding other reliable secondary sources. I've added a couple secondary sources to the article, two professional book reviews of one of his books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually, it can be used under the crtieria specified in WP:RS. It just can't be used to establish notability. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability, inherited or otherwise. Go Phightins! 02:27, 29 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11 with additional comment "no evidence of notability". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luli and the innocents[edit]

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

The band doesn't appear to be notable. No claim to fame other than a winning a radio contest Akamad (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any of the 12 criteria of WP:BAND. Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:37, 22 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhasa Andolan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for Notability Zayeem ^(talk) 15:47, 22 October 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 October 22. Snotbot t • c » 15:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Article has an historical importance and national impact. It was the reason for formation of a new district and to protect the Bengali Language from forcible imposition of Hindi Language over the Bengali Speaking people. It clearly passes WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE. Strong Keep. -- Som999 (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change the title (Nominator's vote): Bhasa Andolan generally refers to the Bengali Language Movement. Besides, the article suggests that the main catalyst behind the movement was the inclusion of Manbhum District into Bihar-Orisa and the demand of merging the district with West Bengal, so the title should be according to this, for example "Formation of Purulia". The article can also be merged with Purulia district. Zayeem ^(talk) 06:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focus will be lost: Although Bhasa Andolon mainly refers to the Bengali Language Movement, this agitation is also popularly known as Bhasa Andolon. Even Goverment of Purulia Website also refers it as Bhasa Andolon. More importantly,the main reason of this agitation was to protect Bengali Language and Bengali Speaking People.Throughout the article it is clearly mentioned.Inclusion is one reason but the plight of the Bengali Speaking people was the main catalyst. Even the agitation started when then government restricted the use of Bengali language in education. This article cannot be merged with Purulia district since it is an event which has its own significance and historical importance. And changing the name will lost the main motive of the article. Even if the title change is required to remove the confusion with Bengali Language Movement,it can be made,for example Manbhum Bhasa Andolon. But removing the term Bhasa Andolon will lost the main focus of this article. Som999 (talk) 5:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't really agree, the initial reason of the agitation and the outcome of the agitation both indicate the fact that title like "Formation of Purulia" would sound more specific. Besides, I tried searching Bhasa Andolan in Google and most of the results refer to the Bengali Language Movement and there was also a similar kind of agitation in Assam which also deepens the confusion. Zayeem ^(talk) 13:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Language movement is not something that occurred only in Bangladesh. There has been many language movements in India, notably in Silchar and Purulia. With proper disambiguation links, this article is absolutely fine. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the article justifies its existence but the title should be changed. Its not about only language movement, "Bhasa Andolon" generally refers to the Bengali language movement. Besides, Bhasa Andolon may also refer to other language movements as you mentioned, hence the title is definitely not appropriate. As I said earlier, the initial reason of the agitation and the outcome of the agitation both indicate the fact that title like "Formation of Purulia" would sound more specific. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Formation of Purulia may not be correct, because in administrative terms it was mostly a change of name. Bengali language movement (Purulia) could be better option. BengaliHindu (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was not just a change of name. The most significant effect of the agitation was splitting Manbhum District (which was 4,112 square miles previously) and creating a new district of Purulia (2007 sq miles) with the inclusion of Purulia district into West Bengal from Bihar-Orissa. Hence, "Formation of Purulia" sounds more appropriate. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kmzayeem "Formation of purulia" will not be the appropriate title. As you told the effect of the agitation was splitting Manbhum district and formation of purulia. It was an effect,this article mainly describes the cause and the timeline of that incident. As an example, International Mother Language Day is announced for the recognition of Bengali Language Movement. Renaming Bhasa Andolon to "Formation of Purulia" will be like renaming Bengali Language Movement as "Origination of International Mother Language Day", which ignores the main fact and reason of the incident. Its unfortunate that with a such historical importance and notable effect , this article has been nominated for deletion!Som999 (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Change the title (Nominator's vote) Well, apologies for nominating it for deletion but we are now discussing for an appropriate title. As the article reads here, in 1905 when the new state of Bihar-Orissa was formed, Manbhum District was included in Bihar-Orissa and that's when the agitation started demanding the inclusion of the district in Bengal. So it's quite clear that the initial and primary reason of the agitation was the demand of inclusion of the district into Bengal or West Bengal. As mentioned in my last comment, the most significant effect of the agitation was also the same, inclusion of the district into West Bengal. The title "Formation of Purulia" sounds more appropriate since it emphasizes both the cause and the effect of the agitation. As for the Bengali language movement, the main and only cause of the movement was the demand of recognizing Bengali as an official language of Pakistan, which justifies the title. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really agree for the above mentioned title. Inclusion was the initial reason but the main catalyst was the Bengali Language and its sentiment. Although there was a demand of inclusion of Manbhum district to Bengal but that is also by the Bengali speaking people as they wanted a separate district for them. So here also the main reason was "Bengali Language". This was the background of this agitation. But when the agitation starts, the primary reason was harassment of the Bengali speaking people and restriction on use of Bengali language,which is here. The primary source of this article,which is a governmental website, also uses the term "Bhasa Andolon". As i mentioned previously , making the title "Formation of Purulia" will simply demonstrate the effect of this event,thus omitting the main and important reason and the significance of this article will be simply lost. I strongly disagree with the above mentioned title. It could be renamed to "Manbhum Bhasa Andolon" , which actually it is. @Kmzayeem Inclusion to Bengal was one demand and formation of present day purulia district was the fulfillment of that demand. But the driving force behind all these things are Bengali language and its people. Simply presenting the event in the above way ignores the the main reason. Som999 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Nominator's vote) Got the last comment of Som999 and I think the article is valid along with its current title. But I think more citations and references need to be added to keep it away from further AfDs or WP:PRODs. Currently it only has 4 references, 2 of which links to wikilinks. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does seem to be notable.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Emad Abdullah Ayasrah. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of reverse roles[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about a claimed "political theory" that has no secondary sources (and none that I can find), is all sourced to the same individual (Emad Abdullah Ayasrah) who claims to have "founded" (an individual whom I'm not even sure passes notability himself). The editor's only edits was creating this article, the article about the individual (Emad Abdullah Ayasrah), and the one about his father (Abdullah Ayasrah) (none of which seem to pass notability, mind you). I'm very suspicious about a COI, but have no proof. Yazan (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yazan (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable, I would like to note that any new theory starts with one single person who will try to publish it and open a debate about it waiting for general approval or consensus about it. If it found approval from the scholars of that field of matter it will be come more popular theory. It is not a drawback from the founder of the articles that there are not so much sources yet. If he claimed someone's else theory to be his theory and so you found sources of that theory under someone's else name then maybe it should be deleted.--94.249.65.141 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC

It is a new theory so there supposed to be a little sources except articles published from the founder. And as it notable it deserved to be in wikipedia as a stub and will be upgraded as long as it mentioned time by time in other sources.

That is irrelevant. Wikipedia acknowledges notability, it doesn't confer it. There is no "deserve" involved here. If it's a new theory and all the sources are the developer of that theory, it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of things fall under WP:NOT here. Whether or not the theory is justifiable or not is irrelevant. The issue is if the theory is notable and it is not. It may be the most brilliant research ever, but Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for people to get their theories seen by a wider audience.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge --92.253.82.152 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: 92.253.82.152 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete, fails the notability guidelines for neologisms. Hairhorn (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good sources. and notable topic --46.185.170.27 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 46.185.170.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

merge to the founder page until more sources can be found --DaniTarty (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as a horrible example of WP:OR. Also, there appears to be significant sock involvement in this discussion. Qworty (talk) 23:59, 28 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:24, 29 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power Continuity[edit]

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

Although phrased like an (appallingly written) advert, this doesn't appear to be advertising any particular company or product, and so doesn't fall under G11. However, it does appear largely redundant to the various articles it links to, such as Uninterruptible power supply, Generator and Static Transfer Switch. It's also effectively an unsourced essay, laden with original research. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing new. Nothing notable. Nothing sourced. That it reads like something translated into a foreign language by a computer program and then back into English is just the icing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a brochure; no citations--E8 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:10, 29 October 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 commentary by probable sockpuppets always has the reverse effect. However, I have gone over the supposed references, and agree without a doubt that there is nothing here that suggests the subject is Wikipedia-ready (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yotta Kasai[edit]

This AfD is involved in an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation. Closing admin: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Film1024 before closing this AfD. If the SPI has not concluded, you may wish to wait for it to do so.

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

Completing nomination on behalf of 222.152.182.43, who posted an AFD tag on the article's talk page. Their rationale is included verbatim below. The relevant notability criteria would appear to be WP:FILMMAKER. I will note, however, that foreign language sources are acceptable, subject to verification - but that they must still be of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of WP:RS; I cannot tell whether or not that is the case here. Overall, On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this page for deletion. The person isnt noteworthy, the article is terribly written by the guy himself, he has listed all his films on IMDB and used bots to rate them, none have any reviews,plot outlines or anything to independantly verify they even exist. The links shown on this article are all dead/lead to foreign language sites/his myspace page. Basically its a worthless page that contributes nothing. 222.152.182.43 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User : 222.152.182.43 must be proved with evidence. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG, and enough content to establish a good section. It's been officially announced, has a name ; I see no valid reason to apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promper29 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Promper29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I would like to hear which of these sources Promper29 thinks are RS. From what I see, most are IMDb links (which is not an RS on Wikipedia), film distributor listings (not independent), or minor festival listings (neither independent nor significant). There are a few interviews on blog-like horror film fan sites which are of dubious status. Other citations that look like they may be RS (like to TimeOut Tokyo or Cinema Today) are all dead. The problem is, since I cannot find the Japanese for Kasai's name (and I've tried a bunch of searches), I cannot find any coverage whatsoever on him or his films in Japan. If any one can provide the kanji, that might help. Michitaro (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 222.152.182.43 125.239.241.238 both using proxy IP editing from jetstream.xtra.co.nz which untrustworthy and potential of Wikipedia:Vandalism WP:VANDTYPES WP:UNBAN. As currently Yotta Kasai has over 5000 fans on facebook, also need to see rank of IMdb pro. Most Popular People Born In "Japan" to show his notability. Gropen (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)— Gropen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source on Wikipedia (and that list has a bad smell), and neither is Facebook. Michitaro (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search fails to find enough reliable, significant results. Only unreliable blogs, mentions, or listings. Having thousands of fans on Facebook is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some news articles about Yotta Kasai 's video on Gurin Co. and other press. Hole in the Wall (2012) (V) - News Gurin Co. Teams With Fuji TV For Formats - Deadline.com. User 222.152.182.43 Statement with no evidence. It seems like vandalism violations because of editing with Proxy Domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aticeyound (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Aticeyound (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While Deadline.com is reliable, hate to break it to you, but it doesn't mention Kasai anywhere in the article. And again, IMDb is not a reliable source. The Deadline article could establish notability for Gurin Co., but not for Kasai since notability isn't inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the Deadline article is just linking to the wrong production (which is IMDb's fault). It is referring to the game show, as described here, not the horror production Kasai is credited for. Michitaro (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While some have raised questions about the IP that nominated this for deletion, I believe that is irrelevant if the AfD has some merit. And this does. None of those who have voted "keep" have provided significant and reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER--instead, a few have only given mistaken or unreliable evidence. So we must look at the article. It has a seemingly amazing 37 sources at this time, but almost all are irrelevant for judging notability. 10 are from IMDb, which is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. 10 are distributor sites that merely list one or more of his films: they are neither independent sources nor offer significant coverage. 6 are just listings of films shown at minor or non-notable film festivals, and thus which also don't provide significant coverage. 5 are to Japanese websites, but only link to the top page of the site, not the specific article, with no indication of whether Kasai is actually treated on that site or not (again, I have tried multiple searches and found nothing on him in Japanese). Most of the rest are dead links, links to lists, or to personal MySpace pages--nothing significant or independent. The ONLY sources among the 37 that are even close to being significant and independent RS are these two: [30] and [31]. Others can judge these, but to me they look like fan blogs which are in general not RS on Wikipedia (the fact the second says "my friend Kasai" also implies it is not independent). Other web searches find nothing. I can find no evidence that any of his films have received a single review from a reputable publication and none are available on DVD from regular commercial sources (they only seem to be available on bittorrent or through other dubious means). None of his films, then, would pass GNG. I might also note that people at IMDb have also noticed that his high ratings (none of which include a written review, only number ratings) on that database stink: note discussions here and here. There seems to be something wrong here and Wikipedia appears to be the victim of it as well. Michitaro (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Michitaro's reasoning. Please also note that the three Keep !voters are SPAs with extremely similar editing styles (including both writing style and phrasing, and self-awarding of multiple barnstars and copying of content from other editors' user pages/talk pages). --bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is verging on a hoax article, as there is very little solid coverage of this person outside self-penned promotion and IMDB. --DAJF (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Im the person who nominated the article for deletion, I have a fairly extensive knowledge of modern film and Im yet to find a single film of his online in any form whatsoever. He has no coverage from any reliable sources, and isnt that what wikipedia is supposed to be all about. This is some kind of hoax and I just wish to save other film enthusiasts the bother of trying to track down films that dont exist.(also someone mentioned something about my ip showing Im a vandal, Ive no idea but Im just using whats provided to me by telecom nz, which is the largest telecommunications company in the country, its not an attempt to decieve)122.58.124.6 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kasai is one of independent film makers. Opinions of various people that have been written here is libel. It will probably be a problem if the production company was sued for defamation. Horrorian (talk • contribs) 09:07, 28 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Star Most Entertaining Television Actor (Female)[edit]

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

Award with no independent notability. Psychonaut (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating following articles for same reason.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or new list article. In addition to the article of this AfD and the two added by Dharmadhyaksha, the other linked awards at BIG_Star_Entertainment_Awards#Awards are in similar shape. Maybe all awards could go together on a list of Big Star Awards article? Or directly in original article, unless the tables of winners would cause clutter. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 07:18, 28 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ServeStream[edit]

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

Non-notable app. This looks like a great app, it appears to work well for the many people who use it and they like it. It does, however, not appear to have received the level of in-depth coverage in reliable sources required by WP:GNG. It may be there are sources out there in non-English languages or maybe under a different name, but I'm not seeing them. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and the world will recognize the genius of the app shortly; if that's the case I'd encourage the creator to ask for a WP:REFUND. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be a fine app but it isn't notable, though. CeesBakker (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the WP:NSOFT guidelines, I believe this is notable as it is significant to the field as evidenced by having >50,000 users in the last month (on the google play store which is a non-primary source). If you do not see this as sufficient for notability, remember that the WP:NSOFT guidelines specify that "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown". It is also discussed in the following "reliable sources" that discuss various android programs. Teeks99 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the WP:NSOFT is an essay (=personal opinion of the author) and not a guideline (=en wikipedia policy). An attempt was made to write a notability guideline for software, but it failed to reach consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, WP:NSOFT is an opinion, not a guideline and citing a WP:BIGNUMBER would not necessarily confer "significance" anyway. Of the four sources above, most could not be considered "significant coverage" of the subject. Regardless, a couple of them are user generated by a "William Seemann" and the others note "William Seemann" is actually the developer of the software in question. The article in question here was written by User:Wseemann. I don't think I need to get my +2 goggles of x-ray seeing out to connect the WP:COI dots. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The four sources above all seem to meet the standard set in WP:GNG. Significant: "address the subject in detail", they all have lots of details about how the software works; "more than a trivial mention" those are pages dedicated to this subject. Reliable: These are all popular sources for news/software/info about the category (android apps). Sources: They are all secondary sources (as is google). Independent: they work with many apps and aren't tied to any particular app, nor the author. Teeks99 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree and I think that is a flawed interpretation of WP:GNG. They (all of them) include exactly the same text - probably release notes distributed with the software. If not, three of them have copied the first which means, editorially, they are not independent. I would be inclined to think the notes were developed by the company / creator. Either way, they are clearly not reliable sources at all. They certainly couldn't be considered "significant coverage". Besides which, they are all the same text, so could only ever be considered "one source" as per WP:N, even if we could get past all the other issues. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you are correct, the article was written by me, William Seemann. None of the cited pages in this thread or the main article were authored by me. I have no account or control over the content published on those sites. What "constitutes" notable software? The arguments behind marking this page for deletion seem arbitrary. Wseemann (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes notable software? See General Notability Guideline. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first "reference" in the list above says "ServeStream" / "by William Seemann" though I accept that might be in reference to the software itself, rather than the written text, as is the case with the others. It's a moot point, really - the download points all basically carry the same description, couldn't be considered editorially independent and (if they were a "source" at all) should probably be considered one source as per WP:N. These are basically descriptions of the product on sites where you can download it, not "significant coverage" in "reliable sources". The comment above also confirms Wikipedia is being used for WP:PROMO. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "by" portion is the author of the software. The software is written by me, hence "by William Seemann". The article(s) name me as the author of the software, not the article. Also, my comment in no way implies I'm using Wikipedia for anything other than it's intended purpose, to inform people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wseemann (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as I said - happy to accept they were posted by someone else and that the software is written by you. But they are still ostensibly the same text which must have come from someone along with the software itself. Four independent websites did not list the software and come up with exactly the same text independently. Would strongly suggest you have a read of WP:PROMO #4 before telling others to "do more research". Stalwart111 (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth bearing in mind that the WP:COI is not actually relevant in a AfD; we're judging the article solely against WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 October 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, Wily D 09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally with a balanced headcount and mediocre sources, I'd be inclined to close as "no consenses", but the sources are more like lousy than mediocre to me, and the headcount suffers from small number statistics, so another go-round seems worthwhile to me. Wily D 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references above all seem to be review sites, which list many other app. There are 200 audio and music apps reviewed on AppBrain, so listing there does not give an indication of notability to me.--Salix (talk): 15:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no independent significant coverage about this app. The AppBrain link just shows me a link to a directory entry and no actual editorial review. Ditto for Androidzoom, Androidpit, and Android.informer which are all essentially software directory listings providing a download link and a way for users to submit reviews. Those are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - And there was an additional review listed in the article which was not mentioned, but the blog for a 2nd year comp sci major is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colt Lyerla[edit]

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

This page about a one-year college football player does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge. This seems to be barely notable, but if this player's team has an article on Wikipedia, it's possible he could be merged into it. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While we have a comically low bar for professional athletes of all sports, it is presumed that there is no path in for those playing at other levels. This is inaccurate. Having seen multiple feature stories on this University of Oregon football player in the state's newspaper of record, I feel confident that this is a simple GNG pass. See, for example Colt Lyerla makes big impact in Oregon Ducks' backfield," (Oregonian, Sept. 22, 2012); "Oregon Ducks tight end Colt Lyerla embraces new backfield role" (Oregonian, Sept. 24, 2012); "Oregon's Colt Lyerla, with help of Hillsboro Spartans family, overcomes childhood trials," (Oregonian, Sept. 29, 2012). That's three features in the main regional newspaper — multiple instances of substantial, independent published coverage. The Eugene Register-Guard, one of the three biggest newspapers in the state is archived by Questia and a simple search there generates a passel of hits, including "Lyerla Catches Attention All Around," (RG, May 1, 2011); "Lyerla Asked to Develop Quickly," (RG, Aug. 23, 2011); "Camp Starts Without Lyerla," (RG, Aug. 7, 2012); and "Colt Revs Up the Horsepower," (RG, Sept. 24 2012) (Subscription required.). It seems I saw something in Sports Illustrated recently as well, but that's already more than enough to clear any reasonable interpretation of GNG, I believe. I live in the Ducks' rival college town, for what it's worth, but I know a simple GNG pass when I see one. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Oregon Ducks are one of the top 5 collegiate American football teams of the 2012 season. The hype machine will only spin louder as the national championship approaches. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, I just looked at the article for a first time. It is footnoted to the hilt with reliable material from an array of publications. Why is this challenge even happening?!? Carrite (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BTW: here's the money section of WP:ATHLETE for collegiate level athletes: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage...." Carrite (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Carrite, you are only citing the beginning of the policy for college-level athletes. The full paragraph reads:
- College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:
- Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
- Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
- Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.
- As a player, Colt Lyerla has done none of the above. Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, what part of "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." does he not meet? The other bullet points you add are the OR part. As in how we usually interpret the word or in the English language. As in pass the first point, or pass the second list of criteria. Not both, as that would necessitate the use of "and" or a synonym to and. When I wrote the article I tried to avoid the trivial mentions in game coverage for this very reason, because after writing 400+ articles I sort of have the notability thing down. Now, that leads us to a side discussion, can you explain to us the reasoning behind Wikipedia's guidelines? Given the rationale in your nom and the content of the article, I have doubts. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same policy? The word "or" is part of the first sentence. The second sentence explains and embellishes the first. If the athlete is not the subject of routine coverage, then it means that he worn a national award, was inducted into a hall of fame, or gained national media attention. The only national coverage in the article is a list of ESPN news briefs. Aboutmovies, I respect your record on page creation, but I really don't think someone who's played college football for one year can be said to be notable. Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the GNG, enough said (and a quick look for more sources turns up many more). Also, dear nominator, did you (per the deletion policy) make a good faith attempt to locate sources that would help it meet notability? Aboutmovies (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a snowball. Subject has serious nationwide coverage and clearly passes WP:GNG. Has shown playing time as a freshman and sophomore in college and that play time has resulted in significant coverage in reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What nationwide coverage are you referring to? All the sources save the ESPN news briefs are Oregon papers. Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The specific notability guideline (SNG) of WP:NCOLLATH is irrelevant when the subject clearly satisfies the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Player has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, non-routine feature articles of which he was the primary topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources cited above by Carrite and in article are plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. These are non-trivial article about Lyerta in mainstream media outlets, and there are plenty more. Cbl62 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty more ... where? If you click on the "news" tab, you get his write-up on the Ducks page. If you click on "books", you get nothing. If you click on "scholar", you get nothing. Yoninah (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have to click the "NEXT" link at the bottom of the page. Google News reports around 265 articles alone. Yes, many are from Oregon, but I'm seeing USA Today, ESPN, etc. Take off the "Google News" restriction and search just the web, and it reports more than 56,800 results.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG as documented by Carrite. Well-cited articles like this should not be deleted. --Esprqii (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Thanks, Paul McDonald, I was able to expand the search and locate a few national cites such as CBS Sports and Sports Illustrated (which was cited in the article under SI.com). I think that the article now meets the third qualification under WP:NCOLLATH: "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". I herewith withdraw this deletion request. Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 23 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Bromley[edit]

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

Bio of businessman that doesn't credibly claim notability; sources are trivial mentions or not about him. His sporting achievements might possibly meet WP:ATHLETE but it's doubtful whether the competitions qualify for that (and I find no working sources that verify it). bonadea contributions talk 05:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and no real newsworthy articles and/or news sources. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What exactly is the claimed notability for this guy? The fact that he's worked non-notably at half a dozen different places? Sounds like he can't keep a job. I just don't see what the big deal is about him. This chair I'm sitting in is more notable than he is. Qworty (talk) 10:51, 26 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained_Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Unexplained Research

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

The context of the subject is ambiguous. Chad Lewis' article is completely unrelated. Mere promotion/advert article. Harsh (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally fails WP:GNG. Is pure WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. None of the sources can sustain notability, but this, this, this and this would seem to show a bit of coverage in reliable sources. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is supposedly about a series of notable "properties" but I can find no secondary WP:RS to show they are actually notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is reached if its been in 2 or more independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. IMO "trivial" means they are not the focus of the article but are merely mentioned in it. Non-trivial is when the article is devoted to the subject in a way that is more than just an announcement or passing along information, rather something that is genuine journalism reporting. The links by Ritchie333 above and the Leader-Telegram I posted below seem to meet that requirement (actually I didn't look carefully at all Ritchie333's links but saw one or two which is enough including the Leader-Telegram below, but we can go through them one by one if needed.) Green Cardamom (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent in-depth coverage from reliable sources (per links Ritchie333). Additional feature article Leader-Telegram -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources aren't independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again, new sources added. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked again, and stand by my !vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like a PR release, and is also one huge WP:COPYVIO cut and pasted from here and here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So delete the copyvio and make it a single-sentence article with 12 sources to establish notability. The point of AfD is to determine if there is a place on Wikipedia for this subject. The article content is beside the point in AfD, the only thing that matters is sourcing. There are now five sources independent of the subject. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not clear what the article is about exactly, but it would seem it's about the kind-of-organization Unexplained Research WP:ORG or maybe WP:AUTHOR it's not clear, needs to be fufilled. Currently the sourcing is inadequate; it's mostly primary with some slow news coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Only need two sources to meet Notability requirements.~~ There are now five sources that are independent of the subject. On the topic of paranormal, it's going to be slow news day. But these articles are dedicated to the subject, they are not trivial mentions in an article about something else. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "TV appearances" turn out to be local public-access, the "radio shows" turn out to be local community stations, the "public appearances" turn out to be free lectures at local libraries...er, have these guys gotten any media coverage outside of a small corner of north western Minnesota? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 5 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources:

Herald & Review (Illinois)
The Times (Illinois)
The State Journal-Register (Illinois)
Crookston Times, (Minnesota)
"Wisconsin phenomena featured in free lecture." Leader-Telegram, 4 Oct. 2010. (Wisconsin)

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First link doesn't work for me. [32] One line mention. [33] one line mention. [34] is the website itself so I'm not sure why you are adding that. [35] passing mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 23 October 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:10, 14 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and has no real, valid resources. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Sources used do not qualify by a longshot, and are deceptively used to create a false sense of notability, to boot. Fails all of our notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Dominus; No significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 23 October 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 List of writing systems. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of writing systems by adoption[edit]

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

I think this list might fail WP:GNG, but I could be wrong. The entire article is original research, too. SarahStierch (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the list isn't rewritten from scratch (with actual references rather than original research), I would favor deleting it. Kaldari (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of writing systems. The information on number of users should be included in the other article. Borock (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has sources. Why does it fail GNG and OR? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:00, 2 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title is very odd: surely this is a "List of writing systems by number of users". --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of writing systems. Seems to be a lot of original research, other than the reliable information that already appears at another list. If someone wants to add information about users to the writing systems list, that would work just fine. Vcessayist (talk) 00:56, 7 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:00, 14 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of writing systems per Borock. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. WP:LISTN requires that the subject of the list be covered as a group in reliable sources, and I can't myself find anything that treats writing systems by adoption as a group of things. --Batard0 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of writing systems if there's anything of value to merge, redirect if there isn't.--xanchester (t) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of writing systems. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:12, 29 October 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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Reddy[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement, no WP:RS Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 22:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep links actually show several Reliable Sources. Yes, it is written like an advertisement - so it should be rewritten, not deleted. -Drdisque (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the previous comment is correct: this does have quite a few sources which means it qualifies under the criteria. However, it is poorly written and unbalanced. Is there another sign that can be placed on this page, asking for further revision (once it's kept)? Hairy poker monster (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Successful businessperson and philanthropist, but does not meet WP:BIO. The only independent source in the article appears to be this one; all the others are links to his website. I don't know about the other awards, but the inclusion of the "Rotary International Paul Harris Award" gives the list a strong smell of resumé padding; this "award" is basically purchased by the recipient, or his club, by making a specified donation to the Rotary International Foundation. IMO the problem is not with the way the article is written; it is with the notability of the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 6 October 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the links to his website are reprints of articles from other original sources with the original sources shown. -Drdisque (talk) 17:28, 9 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 14 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable person and has no real, credible references. LogicalCreator (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't see where this falls short of the WP:GNG. There is coverage:
- In the Independent in September
- In the Witness in February
- In the Mail & Guardian in 2009
- Again in the Mail & Guardian in 2009

Etc. etc. There are more sources that go deeper into his links with Zuma. This demonstrates significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Hence keep and rewrite, since the article's poorly put together. --Batard0 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Significant coverage by secondary sources. (Mail & Guardian, The Witness, The Independent) Most of the coverage isn't flattering, but it does demonstrate that the subject is notable. The subject does meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 09:41, 25 October 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. one good source is sometimes held to be enough, sometimes not, and very few people seem to really care, given the three relistings. Wily D 08:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Su Dabao[edit]

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

Unverifiable (only link cited is a dead link, and a Google search by me doesn't really yield much in terms of usable information), and possibly not notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 29 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The Star mentions him as a "renowned artist"; China Central Television did a short piece about him; the Global Times published a three-page story about him, calling him China's "leading performance sand artist" (unfortunately, the link is dead and the Wayback Machine only archived the first page); China.org.cn (the "authorized government portal site to China") calls him the "founder of Chinese sand painting", and gave him a couple paragraphs in an article (in German) about the art. I think this is enough to (barely) satisfy #1 and #2 of WP:CREATIVE. There may also be Chinese sources that I can't find/don't know how to look for. I was thinking about !voting for a merge, but to where? While there is an article on sandpainting, there doesn't seem to be any coverage on the performance-art sandpainting done by Su and his ilk. Maybe it's not notable, or maybe this is an opportunity to write a new article. Braincricket (talk) 04:32, 5 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:37, 12 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Hardly notable and the article needs a lot of work, but the person does appear to have one partially viable news article. LogicalCreator (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to R. L. Stine. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bananas (magazine)[edit]

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

There is no indication that this magazine is notable. I could only find some trivial mentions about the magazine in articles and books about Stine. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs references and whatnot. Does not appear to be notable. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R. L. Stine. There just isn't anything out there specifically about this magazine. It is mentioned several times, but always in passing in the various Stine related articles. I know that any article about the magazine will also mention Stine, but to show notability it would have to also focus on the magazine at some point in time which doesn't seem to be the case with any of the mentions out there. I would recommend redirecting to a bibliography for Stine, but it doesn't look like one exists at this point in time and for the most part this should just be a redirect with some of the information here merged into the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stine per Tokyogirl. I remember this. i think these were mostly for the school market, so a somewhat insular product. I see they are collectable now, but aside from that, very little coverage to date. no prejudice against recreation if its later discovered to be the literary magazine of its day:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to R. L. Stine. The magazine seems to be primarily of historical interest due to Stine's association. It's where he spent the first 10 years of his career and launched what he is better known for, children's horror. Any book/article biography of Stine or Scholastic will mention/discuss the magazine. And there are at least half a dozen articles I could find that mention the magazine in the context of Stine. One might be able to make a case of inherited notability, since all the sources discuss the magazine in terms of Stine. However the article is so short and there are no apparent sources to expand it, might as well merge to Stine, until the history of Stine and Scholastic are published in a generation or two. For example it's easier to show notability for some obscure Victorian-era magazines I've worked on than more contemporary magazines because time has elapsed for sources to appear. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to R. L. Stine, the editor and primary contributor. Magazine isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article.--xanchester (t) 23:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to R. L. Stine per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:58, 25 October 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 per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Hamlets Defence[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and apparently unverifiable, neologism. Fails WP:V criterion. The Anome (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I.E., Anome. No references whatsoever and I have never heard this term used. LogicalCreator (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage to be notable; appears only to be jargon in a small clique. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because you call it something different, doesn't change it from Troll (internet). Not notable enough to even warrent a redirect. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term invented on an internet forum; may be notable among members of that forum, but it hasn't attracted any coverage in reliable sources per a search. Effectively WP:NEO and doesn't meet WP:GNG by a mile. --Batard0 (talk) 06:19, 25 October 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 per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Defense[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and apparently unverifiable, neologism. Fails WP:V criterion. The Anome (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the least bit notable. It's even hard to find a public reference from even a non-reputable source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on Google, "Edinburgh defense/defence" is something sports teams from Edinburgh have, it's not a phrase used in this context. Non-notable neologism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because you call it something different, doesn't change it from Troll (internet). Not notable enough to even warrent a redirect. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term invented on an internet forum; may be notable among members of that forum, but it hasn't attracted any coverage in reliable sources per a search. Effectively WP:NEO and doesn't meet WP:GNG by a mile. Recommend quick close and delete. --Batard0 (talk) 06:23, 25 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Media[edit]

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

A combination of original research and off-topic material with a hint of WP:SPAM. The first sentence is the only material directly relevant to the topic; the rest is about a line of successors who, if notable, should have their own articles. This topic is not notable; there are no sources available on a search and none are present. Three of the links are useless and the fourth is to the reason, I suggest, that this is all here; someone is trying to drive traffic to a successor's successor. Ubelowme _U ^Me 03:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADVERT for sure, and judging from a view of the site's lack of traffic, solely created to bring it up. Another in a long line of radio message boards that always seem to die because moderators get sick of dealing with fighting users (or don't bother with it at all) and libel concerns, nothing special about this one and the 'history' is completely unsourced. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an advertisement and does not appear to be notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LogicalCreator with no reliable sources. Royal broil 03:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Catholic Church, Şimleu Silvaniei[edit]

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

I see no evidence this church is architecturally, historically or organizationally significant. Being just eight years old, it's likely to fail on the first two counts, unless evidence is shown confirming that. As for the third, we do have a claim that it's the headquarters of an archpriest's district, which might sound impressive until you realize the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church has some 69 of these (or roughly one per 2200 adherents), including ten in the Oradea Diocese of which Şimleu is a part. Some of these may incidentally be notable as historic monuments, but that is not the case here. Barring any sources showing some significance, we may consider this just another parish church, and delete accordingly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What project guideline says about its maintenance? Per chance does every single Church as a safe-conduct, I remember about train stations, every single train station in the world is relevant enough to have its own article on wiki. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I can tell you is that articles on churches have been deleted here, here, here, here and here, so it appears the normal WP:N requirements are in place, and we do not consider every church to be inherently notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct. We generally only assume that very large, significant (e.g. cathedrals, papal basilicas) or historic churches have inherent notability. This appears to be none of those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Church was recently built and it's too soon for it to be either culturally or historically significant. There are no reliable secondary sources demonstrating its notability, and a search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The subject does not meet the general notability guidelines.--xanchester (t) 20:11, 24 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Kare!![edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Search for reliable sources could only fine one review at animepro.de, most of which is a plot summary.[36] This does not meet the inclusion requirements "significant coverage" by reliable, third-party sources as required by WP:NOTE nor is there any evidence that the manga meets any of the other inclusion criteria of WP:BK. The article has been previously deleted after an AfD for almost the exact same reasons and there is no indication the situation has changed since its previous deletion discussion. —Farix (t | c) 14:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, this manga is not the subject of enough reliable coverage. No reviews were found. If this version is substantially the same as the previous one, then it can be speedied as G4. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:09, 10 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:26, 14 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Delete. I do however find a notable source [37] but it was not referenced. The creator of the article had been inactive on Wikipedia for over a year and this article has been abandoned. This article has been standing for a year, so why not help work on the Article or leave it as a stub for now rather than delete it?--Bumblezellio (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network's encyclopedia is not a reliable source because its content is user generated without any editorial oversight and it is a directory listing nearly all anime or manga series or film. Moreover, even if ANN's encyclopedia was a reliable source, WP:NOTE specifically excludes such directories and databases when determining notability. The reason the article hasn't been improved is because there are no reliable sources to use to improve it. —Farix (t | c) 02:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage (reviews, interviews etc.). Ryoga Godai (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails per WP:N per above, when there are no reliable sources we cant make anything out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Brandon[edit]

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

Cannot find enough evidence of notability, even as a kidnapped journalist. Abductions of foreign journalists occur on a regular basis and this one only lasted one day, where as many others lasted months, even years. Searching his name on Google, Yahoo, etc. only pops up a few random local news articles about the kidnapping. Everything is about other people who have the same name. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:09, 9 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete A WP:ONEEVENT guy who is pretty much the only source about the kidnapping. I don't see the independent notability; might be merged to an article on such kidnappings if we had it. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:40, 22 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FrenchPod[edit]

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

Raising AfD as prod was removed in 2008. Concern is this podcast does not meed WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. Does not have third party references to establish notability. Breno ^talk 12:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:10, 9 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per General Notability. A press release and mention on two blogs do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. By the way, SpanishPod and EnglishPod probably should have been nominated along with FrenchPod. I will prod those two pages, and point to this AfD. Cnilep (talk) 00:12, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, delete - Although this is a useful tool for French enthusiasts, there hasn't been sufficient coverage. I received the same press release as above but I found a different result here, a brief mention through a blog. Google Books found results here (simply suggests the program for college students), here (brief mentions), here (another educational suggestion) and here (third result from the top, the preview won't show the relevant content). However, I revisited Google News and added the tool's parent company, Praxis Language Ltd. and received additional results here (brief mention) and here (Taiwanese tech blog). This product is not notable to Wikipedia standards at this time. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SpanishPod and EnglishPod have been deleted via PROD, due to notability concerns similar to those expressed here for FrenchPod. Cnilep (talk) 02:30, 25 October 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. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shapes (US band)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. I am unable to find significant, secondary and reliable coverage of this group. Till 11:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 9 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely zero evidence of significant sources. Although it appears that they gained attention with the Dallas SWAT theme song, I haven't found any significant sources with this either. They appeared to have maintained a (now abandoned) MySpace page here and the official website listed appears to have also been abandoned and is now a Chinese-language blog. There is an entry at their MySpace blog from May 2008 suggesting they received minor coverage from a local TV station before disbanding. Additionally, considering that they only released one EP, it's not surprising there is little to no sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything about the band. Corn cheese (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:12, 22 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aventine Press[edit]

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

self publishing company that gives no indication of notability. this is a print on demand service, which are essentially nonnotable in and of themselves, as their works are rarely notable and they have no input into the editing process, thus no judgement as to what is inherently worthwhile to publish Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Self-publishing can be notable: Category:Self-publishing companies, Category:Self-published authors. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found some sources that Obama's half-brother published a book through Aventine. Added two sources (Post and LA Times) but there are many more, it received national coverage in top papers. Also NY Times mentioned it in a profile of DIY publishing houses. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's cares about Obama's half-brother, or even Obama come to think of it? Notability is not inherited. - Sitush (talk) 03:46, 10 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the consensus is that an author doesn't necessarily inherit notability from his/her books, it's unlikely that a publishing company would. Even if the books in question were considered notable, and were in turn considered a product of the subject company, "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable". I think the standard to apply here is WP:CORPDEPTH - the type of products they produce is irrelevant, really. I don't see "significant coverage" of the company itself so I'm not convinced it could be considered notable. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:43, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. They do not inherit notability from a guy who might or might not inherit notability from a guy who is his half-brother, never mind that the half-brother just happens to be the most powerful man in the world. Qworty (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable at all and the references do not directly discuss this publisher, but only one book published by them. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:26, 22 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Honig[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously nominated for deletion in 2009, closed as no consensus. User:Jake Honig nominated the article for deletion again, with the following information: "This was a page I created for myself when I was young and is of no current significance to my career or the internet. w0n6h5c2t5 00:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)" I'm just fixing the nomination here, no vote from me. JIP | Talk 05:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and no legitimate references. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were just this editor's work, I'd say Speedy Delete G7. But it's been years, and IPs have added their bits as well. With no offense intended to the subject, I don't see any notability here. If he ends up making it as a filmmaker, an article might end up being warranted, but we're clearly not there (yet). Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poke (Pokeware)[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY - A WP:PROMO article on a product-specific term that is not mentioned or mentioned only in passing in most of the listed sources. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 9 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Pokeware" platform is barely notable enough to have a page. The entire product has just 226 Facebook likes and 239 Twitter followers. Since there is nothing new or innovative about this product at all, strongly recommend deletion. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not able to judge the notability of Pokeware but would suggest that the external links are not necessary and do make the page seem promotional Fireflo (talk) 09:42, 18 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The big thing about this is that it's about a function within an existing software and this is akin to having an article on the action of pushing the "like" button on Facebook. The big difference here is that while Facebook's like button is notable, this specific feature of this product lacks notability outside of the software. Whether or not the software is ultimately notable isn't really the focus of this AfD. What is up for notability concern is whether one specific and minute detail about the product is notable outside of the notability of the product and that answer is no. There's nothing out there to show that clicking your mouse over a video product and "poking" the product is notable outside of the general notability of the product software. I don't even really think that this merits a redirect, as this is such a general term that I don't really see it being a viable redirect. Any pertinent data should be merged into the pre-existing article for pokeware, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I agree with my friend, Tokyogirl79. I was originally going to say that this was a "weak keep," but noticed what Tokyogirl said; this article is about one specific and un-notable aspect of a, again, barely notable software program. So, ultimately this just doesn't seem to fit into Wikipedia's guidelines, but could possibly be merged into Pokeware's article, if there is one currently. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the article for pokeware is so small as it is that merging would probably help flesh out the article overall.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be basically promotional, and as we have no reliable sources as to this software function's notability, it is very probably completely un-notable.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in South America. Wifione ^Message 10:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Financiero Latino[edit]

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

No indication of notability; being sixth tallest in a country is not WP-notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Spanish wikipedia version says it was the tallest building in Venezuela from 1978-79; am looking for a good source to confirm.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 9 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would opine that being the sixth tallest building in a largish country is indeed sufficiently notable. If it was indeed briefly the country's tallest building then this is even more notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify how this is related to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies? I don't believe we have a specific guideline on buildings that allows an exception to WP:GNG, nor precedent as there is with high schools and human habitations. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake. Once again, ad infinitem, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. My opinion in an AfD discussion is not required to be backed up with any quoting of policies or guidelines. Any claim it does need to be shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:03, 19 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original creator of this article seems to like tall buildings, but that does not make them notable. Also, no references and not notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After my comment above, I did look for sources, am having a hell of a time (not shocking to me because of the country involved and the lack of online archives). This keep is somewhat WP:IAR perhaps, but since the building seems to have been the tallest building in Venezuela for a time, I think it should be kept. If we cannot stand having it, perhaps we can redirect it to List of tallest buildings in South America (leaving the history) in the hope it might be sourced better and recreated in the future.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was going to say that leaving a redirect is fine...but I don't see this building on that list, Milowent. Am I just missing it? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its on there, it took me a few scans to find it also.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:52, 23 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humboldt Tower[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Being #14 on the list of tallest buildings in Venezuela is not a claim of notbaility as far as WP is concerned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even for a small city, 26 stories is not especially tall. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 9 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 14 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No references. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:04, 22 October 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. If anyone wishes material from the deleted article for merging with Peyton Place, please just ask Wifione ^Message 10:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Harrington[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources to WP:verify notability, as per the general notability guideline. Nomination three years ago ended in no consensus, due to some limited belief that such sources existed if only someone would find them. Based on three years with no improvement, and my own searches, I have concluded that a continued search WP:WONTWORK. There are no sources that can turn up more than a single sentence mention here or there (which are not enough to establish notability). Articles that cannot meet this minimum coverage cannot meet basic policy, and should be deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia guidelines. Sections are well referenced. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well referenced?! Which sections? If I removed all the unreferenced material, we'd be left with two sentences, the first of which is that she exists. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 18 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is any unique content put it in Peyton place. If. Greglocock (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear notable and lacks references. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge if anything valuable is there to Peyton Place. SarahStierch (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Wombats. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel (Dan) Haggis[edit]

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

Haggis is part of the notable band, The Wombats, but does not seem to be independently notable as an individual. Though he has allegedly released his own album for download, I can't find any evidence it (or his solo career) has been widely noticed. Sionk (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wombats. I don't see any notability for him independent of the band: nothing in reliable sources about his solo career. Could add something to The Wombats about him, a very selective merge, since the band's page doesn't describe its members. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the above. If by any chance the article is kept, it should be re-named to "Dan Haggis", as I doubt the name by which he is most commonly known is "Daniel (Dan) Haggis".......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Not notable and bad references. If this person's primary band is notable, he could possibly be merged into its article. LogicalCreator (talk) 09:01, 22 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TC Music[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. I can't find any significant, independent coverage about this record label whatsoever. SmartSE (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...WP:N is the function of the topic, not the article. Till 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur. Doing a search, I can't find anything about this specific label. There's nothing notable about them. Zac (talk · contribs) 03:26, 28 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Drury[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Based on the creator's userid, I would guess that this is an autobiography. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the one offered reference using Highbeam, and it is a passing quotation of the subject as well as various others in an area survey. Not enough to sustain an article on the subject or his firm. AllyD (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment started researching an found [| This]... Jury's still out for me, but it is another mention in a respectable-looking pub. Celtechm (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references. The only one listed not only states that it is from the Washington Post (and isn't), but is directly linked to a non-notable site that does not even mention the person's name. Appears to be a self-published page. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RS is paltry, insufficient to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 01:44, 26 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdisalan Taqabalahullaah[edit]

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

I think this individual fails WP:GNG and only meets WP:ONEEVENT. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Perhaps it's a little cruel to say "what if you blew yourself up, and nobody cared?" but that seems to be where we are with this. A recording made before suicide isn't a guaranteed ticket to notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and no references. (The only reference was a dead link.) LogicalCreator (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and lacking in references, plus it is only a one line article anyway lacking in any information. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pliché[edit]

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

Delete This Article is a Stub about A Knock-off of the Apple IMac Simalar pages such as ePower were deleted per The Wikipedia:G8 speedy delete criteria. --Rancalred (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find anything in google books or google news to keep this. SalHamton (talk) 02:29, 21 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. This does not appear to be notable at all. However, if this is a real piece of hardware it could possibly be merged with some sort of list of failed hardware or something similar. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:LogicalCreator, They were Previously De-merged And e Power Was Deleted. Just Sayin,--Rancalred (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering it was pulled from the market immediately due to legal action, this is probably to blame for the lack of news sources. I would suggest a merge and redirect to Fujitsu but I haven't found any significant sources to support the information. I found a 1999 news article here that links to a Fujitsu press releases (Japanese) which is a dead link, I attempted to retrieve it using web.archive.org but received an "access denied" notice. My next resort was searching the Japanese name for Fujitsu (富士通株式会社) and "Pliché" at Google News Japan where I found this link that provides little use. It is possible additional sources may be Japanese but, from what I see, there isn't anything to improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 22 October 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. Wifione ^Message 10:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Douglass[edit]

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

This is a strange one - please consider before opining. This nomination is about verifiability not notability. I've no doubt that the website was probably notable, and the creator probably and sadly prematurely died (or at least not much doubt). There's stacks of it on forums. However, I can't verify this for any reliable sources. The links are dead - but other than the FHM one wouldn't be reliable even if they weren't and the FHM one doesn't appear to have been about the creator at all. Happy to be proved wrong here, but we need verifiability not probable truth. Scott Mac 12:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree this is a very strange case. Douglass was certainly notable and verifiable at the time the article was created (I seem to remember it passed a speedy delete at the time) but with the original supporting references now deadlinks and nothing current coming up in any searches I am not sure where that leaves us. Does an article that is verifiable at the time of creation simply become unverifiable (and therefore deletable) if/when all the valid references become deadlinks? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the links were live, two are self-references anyway, so all you'd have is one FHM source, that isn't apparently about Douglas at all. That doesn't meet the "multiple secondary sources" threshold for notability, nevermind being verification. Unless someone can find some reliable sourcing here, this looks like a delete.--Scott Mac 13:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda sad, but true ... looks like a delete. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 15:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 15 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly notable and lacking references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:50, 22 October 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psybient[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements. I've watched this article for over a year, and nothing has improved. I have even tried to look for sources periodically, but I have never found anything. The only two sources in this article do not actually deal with psybient, but the history of the Goa trance scene. A search reveals that the term is in usage, but I can't find enough info to actually justify a whole article.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept because I was specifically searching for this term having found a lot of this music on You Tube. However it could be just a section on Ambient music Kildwyke (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. A section in the ambient or psytrance articles might be better than deletion.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as someone who would probably say that psybient is their favourite type of music, I can assure you that it's very much an important part of music that deserves its own page. It's quite different from ambient, much more psychedelic as the name suggests. Ambient music is far too generic a term, and I find a lot of ambient music boring. However, I go to a lot of psybient gigs, and most parties I go to have a psybient room. I was going to suggest that you could merge it with psychill which is very similar, but have just realised that there is no page on psychill, which means that there is an even more urgent need for psybient to exist as a separate page. --Tris2000 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:56, 9 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per ¿3fam I am never too fond of deleting content. But here, I can't see notability (i.e. reliable references) to justify an article of its own. CeesBakker (talk) 10:06, 14 October 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, KTC (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad references. One link is dead and the others do not seem noteworthy at all. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there are clearly sourcing issues, might be best reducing the content and moving to psytrance. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have deleted most new genres as not notable; see Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Music for examples. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 29 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Yellin[edit]

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

WP:Notability, unreferenced BLP. Written by the subject about himself. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Yellin. Notability is not inherited from the famous people one works for. The article claims he co-produced Debravation, but AllMusic and Discogs say otherwise (engineer only). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references whatsoever. Does not appear notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has no sources at all, fails WP:Notability by miles. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a minor news article here where he waited three hours for an iPhone but that, of course, is irrelevant to his music career. The other results were irrelevant and I found nothing when I added "Ozzy Osbourne" to the search. Honestly, sound engineers rarely receive attention about themselves but rather minor coverage for their work. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 23 October 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.