< 28 October	30 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 delete. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theopolitical Capital of Sikhs and Sikhism[edit]

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

Dubious POV rant that largely duplicates Amritsar. Jpatokal (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FORKful of nastiness. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biased and insufficiently sourced article that doesn't even use the term "theopolitical" outside its own title, thus failing to explain its ostensible subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but merge parts complementing Amritsar and History of Sikhism (sans nastiness), which are not quite as detailed. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and I see no point in merging as there is no specific referencing for any of the material with only an indication that one book was used with no inline referencing, and no page numbers given. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - NPOV-violating fork; nothing there to salvage. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POV pushing, consider salting. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to invoke WP:SNOW and close this? Jpatokal (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balki Suman[edit]

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

This leader of the student wing of a regional party only gets a single passing mention in the article's references. Newspapers also reported his arrest, but not in any great detail.[1][2] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His arrest was covered as a news item, and that's all in terms of any significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as lacking in depth coverage, being aware that subsequent events may get them more coverage, which would make them notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. No in depth coverage. Vacation9 (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A news search turns up only a smattering of articles, most of which are not solely about him. I'd support the inclusion of some information about him in the Telangana movement, but a merge doesn't seem appropriate because the article doesn't contain anything about his arrests or involvement in that movement. Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG, but note that there is likely to be more coverage in the Telugu press; if this can be found and is significant, I'll change my stance. --Batard0 (talk) 06:30, 5 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Schwartz (actor)[edit]

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

Actor is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Archaios (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, doesn't have non-inherited N from TF2 role. Page creator is making many pages like this—worth taking a look czar · · 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NACTOR and lcaking indpeth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Let's do a source review:
- Quite a long article in the Seattle Times that is assuredly about him, not his roles. This is one example of significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject. Let's see what else there is.
- There's some discussion of Schwartz here, although it's in the context of a play and the source seems local in character.
- Some more coverage in the Seattle Times, but this amounts to several paragraphs, not a whole article.
- There are quite a few more articles, including reviews of performances in stage plays and so forth.

There is enough amount of coverage to concoct a short article with, but I'm not persuaded that we're quite at WP:GNG with this. There has been coverage in reliable secondary sources, but what I have found has tended to be either trivial in character or in the context of local events. He has not had major roles or made a significant impact on the industry; that much seems clear. In the sense that his contributions to larger productions have been trivial and the more extensive coverage comes in a local context, I don't think we're yet at coverage I'd call significant. This, I think, is the essence of the guidance provided by WP:NACTOR, a set of criteria he clearly falls short of. It's not a clear-cut case by any means, but I'm persuaded by the hyperlocal flavor of his most substantial coverage and the triviality of his other roles that delete is the correct course. --Batard0 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 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. A7 -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Artjunkie Company[edit]

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

Non-notable company; no hits for "saint artjunkie" on Google Books, News, or News archives. Also note that the article makes apparent legal jabs at various entities:

In Early 2000 Stolen Retail went into adminstration owing Anthony a lot money for his design in which todate he has not recieved
It has not been easy for Anthony Founder of Saint Artjunkie Label has had to defend his designs from larger companies Like Vivienne Westwood Ltd who took Anthony Knight in 2011 in which she won her case even though not providing any sort of evidence

CtP (t • c) 23:07, 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 G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picmonic[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable concept/product. See Google Books and News archives results, which all look like false positives. CtP (t • c) 23:01, 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. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dorlon[edit]

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

Not notable/hoax. Searches for "Bob Dorlon" in the usual venues only turn up some false positives in Google News archives. It doesn't look like he won the Grammy, either; see this search. CtP (t • c) 22:57, 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 Shelby Farms. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Farms Greenline[edit]

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

Insufficient claim of notability. No third party references support notability. Contested prod. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Understand entirely where the nom is coming from. I agree there are no sources now but a few exist. I question whether they are enough (quality, quantity and geographic scope) to be considered enough to pass WP:GNG but thought it would be worth "putting them on the table" for people to consider...

This article from The Commercial Appeal about the second birthday of the Greenline.
This editorial and this article, both from the same paper as the above.
This article and this one; both include passing mentions but they do verify claims in the article.
This entry from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.
This site which is obviously not independent but could serve to verify some of the claims in the article.

Would be interested in what others can find. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shelby Farms. I don't see a lot of coverage about the trail beyond some local papers. As Shelby Farms is a terminus of the trail and both are the trail and park are operated by the same organisation, a merge seems to be the best option. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shelby Farms. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shelby Farms. Not notable enough to justify a stand alone article. Vacation9 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 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 Vedera. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Broken City[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vedera as a reasonable search term. I'm not finding coverage in independent reliable sources for this EP; does not appear to warrant an individual article or satisfy the WP:GNG / WP:NALBUMS guidelines. Gongshow ^Talk 05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 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, Hue Sat Lum 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vedera#Discography. I don't see any significant coverage of this EP. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 1 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOCAL.PT[edit]

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

Article about a new online newspaper founded in 2012. No refs given. No other independend sources found. Article was written by one of the newspapers staff. [3]. Fails WP:SELFPUBLISHed and WP:GNG. Ben Ben (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found of notability, at best WP:TOOSOON. I notice the equivalent Portuguese Wikipedia page is also up for deletion. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Deleted 03.11.2012 [4]. Comment was without reliable sources .--Ben Ben (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In fact goodness knows why this is at AfD: it's a perfect candidate for a ((db-web)) speedy deletion, as nothing in the article gives any indication of importance or significance. I am bewildered by why Rich Farmbrough declined the speedy deletion nomination. Searching for coverage is difficult, because you get numerous hits for web pages where the word "local" just happens to be followed by the abbreviation "PT". However, checking the first 60 Google hits I found precisely four that referred to the web site "local.pt": the Wikipedia article, the website local.pt itself, local.pt's LinkedIn page, and local.pt's FaceBook page. I tried including one or two common Portuguese words to try to force Google to give priority to pages in Portuguese (e.g. aos "local.pt", and dos "local.pt", and de as "local.pt", and so on). The result was that I found precisely one more page relating to this web site: local.pt's Twitter account. In fact, all my searches suggest that there is zero coverage anywhere on any independent source, since the Wikipedia article was written by an editor with a clear conflict of interest.JamesBWatson (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks in depth coverage from independent sources and fails WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:GNG per nom. Vacation9 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. ~~An error appears to have occurred in which the incorrect article was nominated, per the nominator's withdrawing statement.~~ (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: struck part of this closure above per information received on my talk page from the nominator, which stated that the nomination was withdrawn due to significant improvements to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big.LITTLE[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as there are no independent sources available. The Banner _talk 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see independent sources. —Ruud 19:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Ruud. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! This is a completely other article then I nominated. So I have just one option left: Request speedy close as keep The Banner _talk 21:30, 31 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. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neotia Institute of Technolgy, Management and Science[edit]

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

Fork of Institute of Technology and Marine Engineering Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 30 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 Zach Ryder. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Champion[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 20:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete. It definitely fails notability. Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zach Ryder since he is the one that came up with the belt and it is mentioned in his article.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Nominator I would be ok with redirecting to Ryder's page over deletion.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Zach Ryder. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a merge is necessary since the main article appears to cover everything this one does. To be clear I am not arguing against the redirect which I think is a good idea.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Zack Ryder. Not official title. Deely talk 19:58, 5 November 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 G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teslaheat[edit]

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

Non-notable company - 21 ghits Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet the standards for notability for corporates. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 20:13, 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. There is consensus that the article is notable after the significant addition of reliable, independent secondary sources.(non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance[edit]

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

After pruning, it became clear to me that this does not appear to be a notable organization. Please view the history to see what I removed--you'll find that I did not prune a single, relevant, reliable source. The COI is evident from the history as well, by the way. A Google News search revealed very, very little--the most reliable thing I found was a mention in an article from the Huffington Post, but that says nothing of substance about the organization. All of the hits in a Google Book search that I looked at are duds (like this one)--which leaves this study guide and this mention in a note. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some of the concerns by the nom are valid, but there is indeed enough coverage in news as well as scholarly sources from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL to show secondary referenced discussion to retain and expand and improve the article going forwards. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add them and we'll talk, Cirt! I searched and found nothing. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Organization previously known as Woodhull Freedom Foundation, therefore additional sources may also be found at

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL in addition to
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, and there are a few more results without using the last word, so
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was easy to have missed, as it appears the organization only recently changed their name, naturally there would therefore be more references found under the previous name, see pagemove at diff link. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, the nominator does raise some valid points about the prior state of the article. I think the best thing to try going forwards is to essentially gut most of the prior versions of the article (already done quite a bit by nom, which is a good thing when looking at prior state of article) and start over sticking to factual presentation of material with some primary and hopefully mostly additional secondary sources. I'll get on doing some more in-depth research for this soon. :) Meanwhile, as far as retention, it does look like there's enough secondary source coverage when taking into account both versions of the name of the organization as noted, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Okay, please see this version of the article after some research and additional sourcing. I've gone ahead and removed basically most of the info text from the prior poor version of the article, and built back in with info text from referenced sources. It's a bit better now. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Cirt's edits. ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Cirt did an excellent job with the article and it definitely passes WP:ORG, but most of the links used mention the org in a peripheral way that wouldn't count for WP:N. This is more of an issue for later than for now, as the article has enough RS. Again, great work, Cirt. czar · · 08:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt's work. It sounds notable to me. Cavarrone (talk) 09:14, 1 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Bay Riders[edit]

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

I am a motorcyclist and would like to see every motorcycle-related article on Wikipedia improved to show off my favourite subject, but in this case the article is nothing but a puff piece / advert about a non-notable internet forum. It has long been tagged for improvement and as non-notable yet little has been done. Wikipedia would be best served by deleting this poor article. Biker Biker (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is a run of the mill motorcycle club. The article makes no claim to any notable accomplishments or events associated with this club, and it fails both criteria of WP:CLUB. It is not national or international in scope, and does not have significant coverage in multiple independent sources. There's not even really one good source for notability purposes, let alone multiples. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 4 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jacobs (writer)[edit]

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

Article doesn't incorporate text from Wipipedia (see [5]), it copies the entire entry word for word, from the get-go. The person isn't very notable either--there is brief mention of the book here and here--but I found nothing about the man himself. It is possible that the book is notable, but I don't see evidence of that yet. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless whether the book is notable or not, notability is not inherited and I haven't found any significant evidence of sources for Jon Jacobs. I began with searching "Different Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual Dominance and Submission Jon Jacobs" and found only two results. A search with both "Jon Jacobs sexuality writer" and "Jon Jacobs BDSM" through both Google News and Books provided the same results, Different Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual Dominance and Submission so this book was probably his only work or only significant and published work. As the two results provided by Drmies show, I found additional books that cited this book as a suggestion to readers. Although one of the links cited at Wipipedia here claims he coined a term, Total Power Exchange, but I haven't found any significant sources supporting this. Of course, considering this is a raunchy subject that wouldn't appear through your normal news sources, the book probably never received any other significant news coverage (probably mostly sex blogs) aside from the two news articles I provided at the beginning of my vote. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very thorough. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 4 November 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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Of Fireballs[edit]

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

Ridiculously non-notable comic book character which may not even exist. Searching for "Circle Of Fireballs" "s-men comics" on Google Books, News, and News archives turns up nothing. A general Google search for the term turns up only Wikipedia and Facebook. Admins, please consider closing early per WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, and WP:MADEUP. CtP (t • c) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and came up with nothing. I don't think that this is a hoax as much as it's a case of someone of a very young age coming up with their own comic book character via an online game and decided to add it to Wikipedia. While I commend the young man for his imagination, Wikipedia is not a place to showcase characters that you came up with one day, so as such it needs to be deleted. Sorry kiddo, but thems the rules. I recommend that you look into putting your stories on fanfiction.net instead. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched this and came up with nothing. It definitely fails notability, so I believe it should be deleted. Eire102 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, I too am voting delete because I haven't found anything substantial with Google News (as well as a desperate search through the main Google search engine) to support this aside from one Facebook page. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure it's a hoax, but there seems to be so few reliable sources to verify notability so as to suggest it barely exists or has only recently come into existence. Either way, nowhere near WP:N. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the text itself, this was an individual's self-written bio for a character in the (now defunct) City of Heroes MMORPG. It doesn't exist in any published form, as far as I can tell, much less one with substantial third-party coverage. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Found zero coverage in reliable sources after several cursory searches. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, well, WP:SNOW. The article's title pretty much says it all. An article about character made up by someone in one day with only a Facebook page as a source can't possibly survive through, well, a Circle Of Fireballs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:45, 3 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Ziliani[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPOSER. No online RS available (only his own sites). PROD was contested. czar · · 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are all either primary, or bare mentions of the subject such as soundtrack credits. I couldn't find anything better online.--Atlan (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His page on ASCAP and his credit on Resident Evil 6 are genuine and notable. Keep, or possibly merge with Pear Up Media 80.82.70.32 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, so merely being part of the game's team does not make team members notable. Otherwise, we would have articles for all the programmers, designers, artists, etc. As a common example, even a game company that makes a game is not by default notable just because their game is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - even a game company that makes a game is not by default notable just because their game is: I am sorry, not a fair argument. If a new company releases a huge game of the scale of Resident Evil 6, an article will be immediately and legitimately created about the company behind it. --Aaton77 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Product and company" are a typical WP:NOTINHERITED case. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a member of the SCL where his name appear with other notable composers [6]. The link indicated as "reference 9" is taken from his webpage [7], but he is featured in the French magazine Écran Fantastique, which is apparently a reference when it comes to sci-fi in France. Finally, he appears to work with Thomas Parisch, so I think if we keep that article we should keep this one, too. Tarokoike (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SCL is basically an entry in a list/directory, and that does not by itself make a person notable (unless there is consensus that membership at a certain group/list establishes notability). Re Thomas Parisch -- see common argument of "other articles exist". We do not judge an article's notability based on what other articles we have or do not, because we recognise they may not have been assessed/deleted/created yet. The magazine is an acceptable source though. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re:SCL, I agree that a membership with SCL does not make someone famous, you have a valid point. But the rest of your argument is untrue: SCL is a society based on membership rather than a simple list. Re: Thomas Parisch, I understand your point, but I guess the argument there was that they both work together, so you cannot really consider it any other article, therefore it is not a simple case of "other articles exist". --Aaton77 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Working together is the same WP:NOTINHERITED case. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, simply because he meets WP:COMPOSER: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", as co-composing the soundtrack of Resident Evil 6, which is notable enough. A valid reference would be the end credits roll of that game. If you absolutely need a link, it can be found for instance in this video from minute 07:07 [8]. --Aaton77 (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Resident Evil 6 is a video game, not a composition, to which WP:COMPOSER refers. The songs themselves are not notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a valid argument. Most video games and movies do not have songs or notable compositions per se, but the background music is still considered notable, as a key element of the game or the movie. It is in fact the case of almost every film score. Therefore, WP:COMPOSER met.--Aaton77 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not correct; see what WP:NOTABLE actually means in Wikipedia's terms; music by Ziliani from RE6 (or whole score of RE6 combined) are not notable on their own unless you can show otherwise via GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG -- no multiple reliable independent broad coverage sources on the subject. Écran Fantastique magazine article appears to be a suitable source for WP:GNG, however it is just one for now. All other sources given are primary or lack any depth of coverage (i.e credits). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Écran Fantastique article is a first-person Q&A interview. It may establish that he was worth interviewing, but it doesn't add fact-checking: it is a primary source of very low reliability. The fact that it is put forward in his website's "Press Book" page does nothing to improve that reliability, though it does establish that he is aware that Écran Fantastique published the piece. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The music for RE6 is most certainly a composition. The video game is merely what the music was composed for, same as a movie, opera, play, etc. Whether RE6's music by itself is notable is another question, but the video game certainly is. Background music is now an integral part of both movies and video games, and since the Academy Awards has had an entire section on score since 1934, it doesn't seem much of a stretch, especially now that video games have evolved to the point where famous actors are hired for their voices and video games have almost as many sound credits as movies. The Steve 21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show how RE6's music is notable on its own by providing us with WP:GNG suitable sources to establish its notability? If so, we can satisfy WP:COMPOSER#1; otherwise your argument does not address topic's notability at all. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Discography_of_the_Resident_Evil_video_game_series?--Aaton77 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm afraid that's not convincing. Ziliani composed the discography of the Resident Evil series? I don't even see his name mentioned in the article. That article is simply a WP:SPLIT due to size. Every individual soundtrack got merged from AfD (1 2 3 4 5 6 etc.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - ?? I never wrote he "composed the discography" of the Resident Evil series. You asked if RE6 music was notable, and I proposed a link to answer your question. I don't quite follow you.--Aaton77 (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I assumed because notability of discography is only relevant with WP:COMPOSER#1. There are no other places (that I know of) in the notability guidelines that link the work and author like that. In fact, WP:NOTINHERITED does the opposite. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So according to this source [9] the soundtrack will be released on November 14th — which would explain why his name is not in the Wikipedia article you just mentioned — yet. I suggest we wait until the release of the album on November 14th or so to determine so you can have the additional information that you demand. No doubt that there should be more info then, such as booklet, etc. As for notability, I found RE6 soundtracks sold on many websites including Amazon and are the subject of many many web results.Tarokoike (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless, no one has yet shown how the Ziliani's soundtrack or the composer pass WP:GNG, which is the actual criteria. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It may be miscommunication or misinterpretation of the rules from either side, the notability of RE6 soundtrack was easy to establish to me. Anyway, I think we are going in circles. @Hellknowz you have been heavily weighing in in this discussion. It is obvious you feel strongly against this, making a point to have the last word on every topic. You made your point clear. Now let's leave it for the administrator to decide. :) --19:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaton77 (talk • contribs)
        If it was easy to establish, please cite the sources that you found convincing so that others may be similarly convinced. All I'm finding are routine tabular directory listings and various versions of his bioblurb. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Right. But which are we talking about now? Notability of RE6 soundtrack or notable involvement of this composer in that soundtrack?207.233.120.5 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        This page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurent Ziliani. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for this dry answer, but if you actually take the time to read the top of this thread you will see Can you show how RE6's music is notable on its own. That's why I asked. So please before dismissing my question at least please assume I have a point.207.233.120.5 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, RE6 2012 soundtrack (where Ziliani was one of the 7 composers). So I asked for WP:GNG on that so we could apply WP:COMPOSER#1. Not the discography, as previous soundtracks are not notable on their own (I linked the AfDs). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Note that the AfDs you mentioned resulted in a merge, not a deletion. Do you mean that, on their own, the soundtracks are not notable, but they would be, taken collectively, as a whole series?--Aaton77 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Most likely. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of them could be notable on their won (though a series article is still more readable). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In general, there is a lack of significant coverage to establish notability. With respect to notability as a composer, he may be the composer of various music associated with RE6, but unless one can establish that as a notable composition, then criterion 1 is not met in WP:COMPOSER which seems to be the keep argument that is being pushed. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If not composer, Ziliani certainly satisfies Category:Video_game_composers. With his credit on Resident Evil 6, which is genuine, he qualifies for that just as e.g. Akihiko Narita who is a video game composer and whose credits are soundtracks to video games each of which is equally or less notable than RE6. Egonhirsch (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game composers is not a notability guideline. LK (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Granted, but then what is the notability of a video game composer, apart from composing the music for a video game?--Aaton77 (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Composing highly notable music makes a composer notable. If Ziliani's music is the subject of reviews and commentary in multiple reliable sources, that might make him notable. Composing music for a notable game does not make the composer notable. Not everyone who contributes to a notable work is notable. Notability is not inherited. To give an extreme example, is an artist who laid the tiles for a small mural in the Kuala Lumpur Twin Towers, notable solely because of that work? LK (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer of your specific example is most certainly no. But your example in no way applies to this. In the case of Resident Evil, (like it is the case of many major Japanese video games), every soundtrack is released independently, as a separate album, in this case with Sony music [10]). This is not at all the case of a small mural found only at a specific location. There would not be any such release if the music was not notable.--Aaton77 (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment' - Notability] as used on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning rather than the more general dictionary meaning. In the Wikipedia sense, what we are looking at is "inclusion criteria". So a work simply having been released is not notable in and of itself. -- Whpq (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I seem to remember that 'having an album released on a major or well known independant label was one of the criteria for notability. Did that change? If the OST is being released on Sony and has Zilani's music one it, that would surely qualify. Though through all this I've been wondering -- just how much music did he compose for the game anyway? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That criterion is from WP:BAND and does not apply to composers. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article says "90 minutes", for what it's worth. I have no idea if its true, how much of it may have just been ambience, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - He is one of the 7 composers for the 150-song a bit over 10 hours soundtrack, having composed around 1.5 hours. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Where did you get those figures?--98.148.14.77 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        [11][12][13] —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry, but 10 hours in 4 CD's just doesn't make sense, it's not technically possible. That figure of 10 hours is not reliable, it comes from some guy on a forum who has ripped the music directly from the game. The RE5 soundtrack was about 165 min long on 3 CD. If this one is 4 CDs, I would expect somewhere around 200-220 min.--98.148.14.77 (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You are right, the soundtrack release does not include all the game's music, including ambiance, intro, outros and all the miscellaneous cues. I got that torrent though and the total game's music does add up to 10+ hours. I have no way of telling which is composed by Ziliani though and how much of his material is included in the soundtrack's release version. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Torrent? >:( Is that legal? ;) --Aaton77 (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In any case, the release of the CD on Nov 14 (as noted above) will probably tell who composed what and in what amount.--Aaton77 (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually it IS possible for game music, depending on how the '10 hour' figure is calculated. If '10 hours' referrers to two loops of everything, and there's very few tracks with no looping, then when changed to one loop it can easily get down close to the five+ hours than can easily fit on 4 CDs. But that's just speculation, and pretty off topic for this page... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Now, if someone could show that he meets the WP:GNG, I'd probably revise my stance, but as it is right now, I'm not sure COMPOSER was meant to be applied in situations like this. WP:COMPOSER seems more applicable to notability when the music is the only, or main, area of focus. (Albums, Musicals, etc.) However, this is not the case with video games, where, unless we're talking about Guitar Hero or something, is not the major focus of the work. Again, if it can be shown that there's good plenty of third party coverage in reliable sources, then that would trump any delete argument, but if the only rationale to "Keep" is WP:COMPOSER, then I'd say delete. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:COMPOSER is a subset of notability guidelines for composers and is not meant to supercede WP:GNG, but to supplement it. Several voters here, in particular the single purpose accounts, seem to be under the impression that simply passing WP:COMPOSER is enough to satisfy WP:N. In my opinion, the subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.--Atlan (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral:It seems to have enough references,but seems to short for anyone to finish,but I would know.maybe keep or maybe delete.~Tailsman67~ 98.71.52.245 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "seems too short for anyone to finish" supposed to mean? I don't understand conceptually, or how that would factor for or against deletion... Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent references with in depth coverage OR merge and redriect to a passing mention in Resident Evil 6. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 4 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The revolution of farmers[edit]

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

Pure WP:ESSAY with minimal sourcing, using lots of WP:SYNTH Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep - Abusively~~ nominated for deletion 2 minutes after creation. It's not a finished piece, the question of sourcing remains open. I am going to put up a CONSTRUCTION banner on behalf of the creator, with my apologies to her or him. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a new editor this month. Trout to the nominator for biting the newcomer... Carrite (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The new content creator accidentally put up 3 versions of the same piece for 3 titles rather than using the proper method for creating redirects. I have BOLDly made two of these into redirects to this piece, removing speedy templates in the process. Feel free to check my work on this. I think this is the worst title of the three; in the event that this closes a Keep, which it should, a title change to 1970s Thailand peasant revolts or some such is in order, in my view. Carrite (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been in communication with the content creator off wiki. He is a serious person and this is a serious academic topic. Proper notability defense to follow if the nomination isn't withdrawn — which would be appreciated, of course. The title on the piece now is bad and needs to be changed for sure, the topic is the 1970s rural revolutionary movement in Thailand that paralleled similar events in Cambodia/Kampuchea, Laos, and Vietnam. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't read like an essay to me, but like an imperfect but sincere encyclopedia article in progress, about a genuinely notable topic, by a new editor whose only failing is not being familiar with some of the finer points of Wikipedia conventions (and since we were all newbies once, that isn't really a failing.) Additional sourcing is needed, but numerous valid sources are already present. The title isn't good, but that can be fixed. All in all, this isn't a deletion candidate -- it's an article that doesn't have anything wrong with it that can't be fixed through the normal Wikipedia processes of article improvement. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Striking my technical issue-based speedy recommendation and moving to a more typical defense. Multiple sources already showing. The content creator (newcomer) points in particular to these:

(1) Tyrell Haberkorn, Revolution Interrupted: Farmers, Students, Law, and Violence in Northern Thailand. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books, 2011.

(2) David Morell, Political Conflict in Thailand: Reform, Reaction, Revolution. Germany: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers, 1981.

(3) Hans U. Luther, December 1978). "Peasants and State in Contemporary Thailand." International Journal of Politics, vol. 8, no. 4 (December 1978), pp. 1–120. —JSTOR: Subscription required.

To repeat, this is a serious topic of scholarship among specialists in the history of Southeast Asia. A change of name will follow shortly after closure. A withdrawal of the nomination would be appreciated. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi Hi. Hope this is the correct way Y'All. Think theres a misunderstanding here. I deleted the previous versions cause i was surprised that the title was changed. I didnt know how to change the the title. Sorry. Still learning. This is part of my assignment for fulfillment of one of my modules for my grad studies. Am still in the process of doing up an article. Basically about the revolt in Thailand by the farmers during the 1970s. No harm intended here and hope you guys cut a newbie some slack. Am serious about my piece and any advice appreciated. User:ChristopherWB —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss the article title on its talk page. Why is it that so many people, when they encounter a well-written article, claim that it is an essay rather than an encyclopedia article? This is far better written as an encyclopedia article than the vast majority of our content. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely rename, and improve - An inherently notable topic that is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename. The article has enough sources to establish notability. However, it should be renamed to signify that it is about farmers in Thailand, such as "Revolution of Thai farmers." Ha dg er 17:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- It is bad form to nominate an article so quickly. The article in its presetn form is clearly on a notable subject. I note that the map highlights only one province. I am therefore not convinced that the present name is the best possible, but that is a matter of detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 5 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Bird[edit]

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

I've done some GNews searching and what I'm finding is blog mentions, announcements of places they will play and chatter at sites that likely won't pass RS, but what I'm not finding is the significant coverage from reliable, third parties that get's the groups past WP:BAND. They've never charted, they haven't been with a major label and the indie label they were with doesn't appear very notable. 3 of 5 albums were self-releases, 1 was released by a local record store and the last was the indie label as a re-release. They're probably fine people, but I can't see where they've achieved the notability needed for the article to be here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. There is enough coverage around, although mainly from sources in Colorado, but there is piece from NPR and a brief article on the AV Club, e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Probably enough, I think. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at these. Admittedly, I don't put much stock in local weekly papers like the first one, or in local websites like the other two. The Denver Post one doesn't really sway me much either. The NPR piece is a good one and helps its cause. The one paragraph AV Club one would hardly be "significant coverage", nor would the HuffPo piece about an individual after they left the group. The second Denver Post one is pretty good.....but really, we have two articles from the same paper, talking about the same thing (that there is a collaboration). Incidentally, the last Denver Post source you provided is the article that the first one (the Newsbank) references. So, instead of 3 from the Post, there are two. A couple of these are better, but I'm still thinking that with the limited coverage they are getting being so localized, leaning towards delete is still the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I found a couple more sources in Highbeam. Still local, but different locale:

"WILD BUT MUSICALLY ARTFUL; PAPER BIRD MAKES AN AUSPICIOUS RETURN TO TAOS". Taos News. August 19, 2010. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
De Vore, Alex (March 9, 2011). "REQUIRED LISTENING". Santa Fe Reporter. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"THE HUM: VARIETY IS THE SPICE; YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE DURING GRACE O'MALLEY NIGHT AT SECO PEARL". Taos News. March 26, 2009. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) The Steve 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you will improve it then?Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Give me a few days... The Steve 09:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG per the sources presented above by User:Michig and User:Thesteve. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Ok, I've added a musical style section and cites from NPR, the Denver Post, the Weekly Boulder, Huffpo, and Taos News. They are a successful indie folk band, *but* only locally successful... The Steve 08:37, 1 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Computer Contradictionary[edit]

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

Prod appeared disputed. No evidence of notability that I can find. Fails WP:GNG Nounique names 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep or Merge into author's page Stan Kelly-Bootle. No need to be so drastic. - Altenmann >t 15:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From [25]: Favorable reviews of The Computer Contradictionary (The MIT Press, 1995) have appeared in:

Nature, Vol 376, August 31st, 1995

UNIX Review - Editorial August 1995 (Andrew Binstock)

WORD - The Literary Magazine, Premier Edition, June 1995 (Nomi Eve)

The New York Times, July 18th, 1995 (L. R. Shannon)

Windows Developer's Journal, October 1995 (Ron Burk)

;login - The Usenix Association Newsletter, June 1995 (Peter H. Salus)

Reader's Digest, February 1996 (they quote a piece from the NY Times review)

ACM Book Reviews, March 1996

Keep I added 2 more references; it's got enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply because it passes the threshold for notability and is verified as such by its references. L A Times is good enough for anyone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Cavarrone (talk) 20:39, 3 November 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 someone would be kind enough to forward me a list of the other articles affected by this decision, I'll happily go through and remove them as well. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loon, Bohol Elected Barangay Officials (2010-2013)[edit]

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

This page is a reformatted copy of the list of winners of a local election. I am nominating per WP:IINFO. This information is readily available from the source listed in the article's External links section. If Wikipedia is to be a repository for worldwide local election results, it will be swamped. Note: there are 47 other such articles from this round of elections. This nomination of one, if approved, will be followed by a bulk nomination of the others. --Stfg (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete These appear to be the equivalent of city council members or, perhaps, county supervisors. At that level, it's likely that many of these elections don't have a single notable member, let alone the election being notable itself. As Stfg says, if elections at this level are included in Wikipedia, we'll be swamped. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ~~Delete~~ Disqualify. Consensus has determined that barangays are not inherently notable, and neither are barangay officials inherently notable. Thus, the elections themselves are not notable. This is also an indiscriminate list of information, something that we greatly frown upon. Better let the COMELEC disqualify this candidate from the elections. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per above. This article's subject matter is not notable. Paris1127 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was going to nom all of these myself. Wizardman 21:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for the lists. (Note: barangays are below city or municipal level in the Philippine, though barangays can represent up to several thousand citizens. I would put them on par with small city or town elections in the United States for significance.) --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what the barangay's website is for. MER-C 10:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. This could have been speedied, or prodded. -Splash - tk 23:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LoopFuse[edit]

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

Obscure marketing company. Ranked lower (at #20) than the equally obscure Officeautopilot in a market survey. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a self-published ad for the company. Not notable. No real references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Did you do WP:BEFORE or just base your decision on that market survey you quote? I'm seeing some Google News results.[26][27][28][29][30] [31][32][33] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of those only the IDG new story (reproduced in PC World, Infoworld etc.) is significant independent coverage. You obviously know next-to-nothing about start-ups if you think CrunchBase is an independent source. And Atlanta Business Chronicle is too local/obscure to impart much notability. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Notable. Article was created by user with no prior edits, and his/her only six(6) edits have been designed to promote this company and nothing else.OfficeGirl (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment.Should also consider speedy delete under G11. OfficeGirl (talk) 19:50, 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. -Splash - tk 23:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Net-results[edit]

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

Obscure marketing company. Ranked lower (at #17) than the equally obscure Officeautopilot in a market survey. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Appears to be a self-published company. Bad references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:26, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LeadFormix[edit]

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

Obscure marketing company. Ranked lower (at #18) than the equally obscure Officeautopilot in a market survey. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Appears to be a self-published company. Bad references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little coverage of the subject by secondary sources outside press releases, which are not reliable. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 15:02, 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben NanoNote[edit]

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

According to the notability requirements for companies, individual products should not have their own pages unless they are notable in their own right, or adding them to the page of the company's wiki entry would be impossible. This product does not meet either of those criteria and the article does not assert any claim to notability. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge. The argument above does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion (see WP:DEL-REASON), but does qualify for a merge with Qi hardware (See WP:ATD-M). Milkymist would also be a candidate for merging into Qi hardware. On reflection, I agree with xanchester below. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DEL-REASON - "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" and according to WP:COMPANY - WP:COMPANY#Products_and_services)"If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article or propose it for deletion." I don't really think that the company itself is notable, and if it were a full merge is not in order (I would think simply listing this product with a reference to a few of the articles or technical specifications would be appropriate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage by secondary sources: Engadget [34], PC Magazine [35], Linux Magazine [36], Linux.com [37], and The Register [38]. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find more coverage at [39] and at slashdot. Despite its name, slashdot is an RS for core technology news, and so are the publications previously mentioned. Churn and change (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good coverage by secondary sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I took the liberty of cleaning up the intro and adding a "Reception" section. It still needs some work but it's better now. There's clearly a lot of third-party sources out there on this. Faustus37 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per perfectly adequate secondary sourcing, and with particular props to Faustus' work cleaning things up. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading through some of the coverage found, I agree, it clearly passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 22:33, 2 November 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) 15:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sun-Mar[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: a representative of the company has requested deletion of the article due to the potential for vandalism. The company is small and may possibly not meet the requirements of WP:ORG.

The history of the article shows that it has quite probably been edited in a promotional manner by a representative of the company. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This search would appear to indicate that this company is probably notable, although I'm not interested enough to wade through the results to confirm it for certain. Did this request come via OTRS? Are you (Tom) at liberty to reveal any more about any reason given other than the potential for vandalism? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The request did not come via OTRS. The person who emailed me has not given any reason for deletion beyond their unhappiness over past vandalism and the future potential for vandalism. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the history it seems that the vandalism happened over a few days at the beginning of October and came from unregistered editors. If it continues then shouldn't it be dealt with by semi-protection, rather than deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, that's broadly my view. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism happened for a period from September through October and only stopped when the page was blocked and the unregistered user blocked. In addition vandalism was undertaken from more than one unregistered user (IP address) but never by registered users - clearly an attempt to be anonymous. The page was vandalised with false and misleading information and possible breach of confidential information of a private company. This misleading information now exists no where publicly other than in the Wikipedia page history. There is no value to this information and it may in fact be damaging were someone in fact to rely on it. It also breaches the neutrality guidelines for Wikipedia. the page is an orphan, has been edited in a very minor manner prior to this recent period (so question its value to the community) and the organisation does not have a significant amount of coverage in secondary sources - those that do exist are usually resellers of the organisation's products. It appears that the page was originally posted to be promotional rather than for another notable reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busynoise33 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't really establish notability and promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busynoise33 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 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) 00:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable and no references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:48, 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, Wifione ^Message 10:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm skipping the ususal WP:GNG review. For this topic, I think it reasonable to delete until an editor desires to develope an article on the topic using reliable sources. If the representative of the company would like me to write such an article, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - am inclined to agree with Uzma. Notability is questionable anyway as is general encyclopaedic value. Any kept page would probably require a history purge, lest the legal guys get a complaint (it sounds like the editor above is suggesting non-free-use information was posted by someone who confirmed, by posting, that they had a right to release the information which was not the case). Though not a BLP, the size of the company suggests WP:HARM might come into play given the close connection some "LP"s might have to the subject. On balance, there seems no reason to keep it for the sake of keeping it. Uzma's offer to produce a new article (post-deletion) seems eminently "good faith" in nature. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:58, 30 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 addition comment "pure spam irrespective of notability". (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ullens Center for Contemporary Art[edit]

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

Delete, fails WP:NONPROFIT can't find in news references, if someone fluent in chinese can help show other sources that'd be great but with the info I can find to show it operates on a national or international level that's related to the museum. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im very fluent in Chinese. Haha, Thats an overstatement, but i can help. Note, searching for sources by its Mandarin name will yield much more results. Im now searching for sources to assert notability. Chinese is hard, so do wait. Thanks. :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kind sir. I do like your story btw i found your userpage very funny. Alas I need to learn Cantonese or at least a little bit will be in Hong Kong before the end of the year hopefully! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

haha, you think so? Well thank you then! haha, anyway, after looking at sources both in English and Chinese, I feel that the centre is very notable, just needing cleanup, for its article. So, looking at the overwhelming sources, methinks notability is met, so I think we should Keep. It does need lots of broom power though. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: editors, do search for "尤伦斯当代艺术中心" too, as it yields more results. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks, any admin can consider this withdrawn. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Haha.now that was a fast closure at record timee. :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources: [40], [41], [42], [43] Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:19, 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Family Planning Association[edit]

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

Delete, it is a charity but it does not appear notable by itself. From what I understand when I read it there is one event that made it notable but that in and of itself doesn't make it a notable business.Specifically the only thing I see is the mention of reccomending people lie to their physician. Other then that it seems to be discussing the social aspect of contraception in Ireland. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC) it's also a WP:COATRACK article Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Google news provides a fair amount of 388 results, most of which are quite lengthy mentions of the organisation, meeting WP:GNG. They are not just notable for one event, they are notable by themselves, as a cursor search would show. :) Clearly you forgot about WP:BEFORE, "from what I understand". Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm well versed in it and if you actually read the article you'd see it's also a WP:COATRACK article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability, the reason for nomination. The quality of the article so far is another matter. RashersTierney (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability: the organization is culturally, historically and medically important in Ireland, and its existence has, and continues to, generate debate on a national scale. Please note that the article is still a stub, and will be expanded with further information in time, based on the current content. There are several articles of a similar nature on Wikipedia, such as Family Planning Association (UK), Japan Family Planning Association, The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong, Family Planning Association India, etc. Hohenloh⁺ 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I was off base on this one. Suggest WP:Snow here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has to pass the GNG. There must be books out there on this if there's not enough online. Very famous organisation. Very surprised to see this up for deletion. Nearly knocked the keyboard onto the floor in shock. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are a couple of good citations already in article, although the Irish Times article does not mention the group by name. Yes, I see that this could become a coatrack article, but it is not there yet. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of secondary source coverage, ample satisfaction of WP:NOTE, and then some. — Cirt (talk) 23:59, 31 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) 14:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Michael Jackson material[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not satisfied with the outcome of the previous discussion. (But please don't treat me like a trouble maker, and please don't mark this for speedy close, would ya.)

Now I'm arguing about WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. If a song has not been released, it cannot have gained notabillity, the main criterion being that of its position in the charts. The only exception would be bootleg recordings that have reached sufficient notoriety to have been extensively reported in the press. WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is another factor you should consider. Mostly sourced to one single source, which methinks is a breach of WP:POV, regardless of the source's trustability. WP:WAX aside, consensus is that most unreleased song lists should not stay, though it is a pity to see this go. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, way too soon to renominate too! There are other avenues you can go to if you want to argue this but this should be closed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how long must I wait to renominate? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's base this on I do not think you are a troublemaker. I think you are acting in the best interests as you see them for the encyclopedia, I would refer to this WP:TALKEDABOUTIT and really there isn't a set time but two weeks and a day is a bit soon. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure WP:CRYSTAL is really violated here. It's not an article about a possible future album that may or may not exist, it's an article about songs that actually exist. Now, that leaves other notability issues and while it's extremely rare for unreleased material to reach notability, I think this is one of those very unusual instances in which it is justifiable. There does appear to be quite a bit of coverage of Jackson's unreleased material as a group (obviously, individual songs would not reach that notability level) in the context of an important historical figure in music. Now, none of this is a slam-dunk, but given that this AFD was very recently discussed, I think if we err, it should be on the side of acknowledging the previous consensus. The article really should be cleaned-up considerably, but that's not really an AFD issueCoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So long as not released, the song's existence can be questioned and will be in doubt. Furthermore, these songs were only mentioned by one party, not really extensively verified and agreed upon by other sources. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Democracy is a primary example as to why that's wrong. That was a rumored album that didn't come out until 08 and we have a article about it in 2006 [[44]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I don't consider WP:WAX, I must say that THAT was an album, not a song, and that album was more extensively talked about in numerous third party sources than this one was, and more verifable. So there. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to a point, it's also one of the songs on there and part of the rumors leading up to the album. You can wikilawyer this however you want but the bottom line is that this has already been discussed and ended less then 3 weeks ago, just because you aren't satisfied with a result doesn't mean you should waste our time trying to get your preferred result this soon, consensus doesn't change over night. It's a hard pill to swallow but we have to remember that consensus is what have to bend over for...I hate it sometimes but it happens and our ideas of what's acceptable doesn't always translate to what the community thinks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, yes, consensus does not change overnight, but it does change in three weeks, a.k.a twenty one nights. Also, a lot if the questions I raised in the previous discussion was never answered, so it's a questionable keep. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *Individual* songs maybe, but as a whole "Unreleased Michael Jackson material" has extensive notable coverage. That is the subject of the article. If an individual song describe within "Unreleased Michael Jackson material" does not have enough sourcing, that's an argument for removing that song from a "List of unreleased Michael Jackson material" not axe the entire list. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSONGS doesn't apply because the issue is not the notability of individual songs, but whether the article should exist as a whole, which is a lower standard. Even the entire topic of unreleased MJ songs needs to establish notability to the same standards as a stand-alone article, since the article could exist as a spin-off of the main Jackson or the Jackson discography articles. However it has clearly received some coverage in reliable sources. As long as material is sourced, it would be allowed in the main MJ article, and also in a spin-off of that article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson. There is no way generally a list of unreleased songs can be notable in their own right, therefore any such list must fail WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Michael Jackson is notable but that notability is not inherited by anything and everything he did. Merging, as I have suggested means the information can be kept (subject to necessary pruning of hoaxes etc. as Bonkers the Clown as pointed out) and solves the very arbitrary difference between "recorded" and "released." This is what I wrote last time and I repeat. Nothing has changed --Richhoncho (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying that a list of unreleased songs is generally notable in its own right. The argument is that a list of Michael Jackson's list of unreleased songs is notable. 99.9% of artists will not have notable unreleased material. Michael Jackson does and there's no shortage of sources. The main issue is that the article needs to be improved, but that shouldn't be the issue in an AFD debate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to CoffeeCrumbs. Actually what you are saying is that icebergs should have two articles, one for that part above the waterline and another for below the waterline. The argument here, similarly, is the difference between released and unreleased songs. Why exactly should there be two separate articles for what are still, essentially, songs recorded by MJ? The other article title List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson is inclusive by its very name! By merging the two lists with dates of recording, co-writers, dates of release you are helping to build up a picture of the recording career of MJ, but separated this list non-notable. This is why I am an advocate of merge here. If there hadn't been the list of songs recorded by MJ, then I would have voted delete, because as you said, Nobody's saying that a list of unreleased songs is generally notable in its own right That's a pretty good argument for delete if ever I saw one! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources cover the released and unreleased group of songs separately. An example is hackers stealing songs from Sony Music—stealing unreleased songs is a different news item. At least as per one source, Jackson's unreleased songs were intentionally kept so to be a legacy to his kids: Guardian, UK. If news sources treat the group as a separate entity to be covered (and in this case provide reasons why they are doing it, though WP doesn't require that), we also need to treat the group as separate. Also extrapolating from "list of unreleased songs not being generally notable" to being non-notable in this case (this case being that of, well, Michael Jackson) doesn't work. Churn and change (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is a reason to create articles relating to Sony being hacked, and possibly legacy to his kids. Unreleased songs over a 30+ year period are not, and can not, be specifically relevant to either of those two events. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article on "legacy to his kids" when the newspaper material really is about his unreleased songs, and the "legacy to kids" a mention in relation to that? His unreleased songs are the main subject of many of the sources mentioned in the WP page and here; the songs are a related non-trivial mention only in a few articles. The RSes sometimes point out reasons why they are mentioning the unreleased songs as a single entity; we should not create articles for each such reason. The "unreleased songs" considered and covered as a single entity is what those RS articles have in common; and it is that entity the WP page should be about. Churn and change (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is about an unreleased album, not songs recorded over a 30+ year period. I can't see your objection to agreeing with yourself! --Richhoncho (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and contemplate a procedural close. The previous AFD was just earlier this month, with the same nominator. Last time, the argument was that at least one of the sources used was a hoax; it wasn't. This time, the argument is that we lean too heavily on a single source. Irrespective of the merits of that argument, it is an editorial one. And the closing admin of the previous AFD, all of 15 days ago, noted that "[c]leanup ... is not a reason for deletion." That's still true. And 15 days is not, in my opinion, a reasonable time between nominations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Disruptive tagging, 16 days after previous Afd ended with a "keep." An item related to this made it to WP's news of the day. There is significant coverage of posthumous unreleased material, at least in ABC news, Mercury News and MTV news, as cited in the article and various other places I found with a simple search. Jackson's unreleased songs as a group are talked about by mainstream media: Telegraph, on the economics of it here at Daily Finance, MSNBC, The Atlantic and so on. Churn and change (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes, maybe I was a tad too quick to renominate, next time I will wait for a while more... But I must say, the largely referenced book, Michael Jackson For The Record - 2nd Edition Revised And Expanded, tells us just the existence of the song and often credits are incomplete. It tells us not what purpose the songs are for. Equally hundreds of artists have unreleased songs. They are not notable. Additionally mentioning leaks has no purpose but to promote the leaks unless there is specific coverage from a reliable source about that particular leak! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mention a book which does not have much on the unreleased songs. You ignore the many RSes posted here and present in the article which do have coverage of the unreleased songs as a group. And comparing Michael Jackson to the hundreds of artists out there (emphasis yours) is nonsense. We mention what reliable sources mention, leaks or not. Churn and change (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The debate is not about whether or not Michael Jackson is the only artist that has unreleased songs. The issue is whether Michael Jackson's unreleased songs have notability when taken as a whole. Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that the Enola Gay isn't notable because there were lots of planes used in World War II that don't have pages. It's like the corollary of WP:OSE CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There has been a recent wave of AfDs involving "List of unreleased (Artist X) songs/material", and in most of these instances, the topic of "unreleased (Artist X) songs" did not meet that standard. In this case, however, the topic of "unreleased Michael Jackson material" has been discussed as a group [45][46][47][48][49][50]. If there are issues with individual songs on the list, that can be addressed at the list's talkpage. WP:LISTN suggests, for example, a limit on large lists so that each entry has independent notability. I don't know how practical that would be here as very few of the songs satisfy that threshold. But whatever the solution, it would seem to involve cleanup rather than deletion. Gongshow ^Talk 07:10, 2 November 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 Discussion merged to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Osasuna_VS_Calgary. Gigs (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porodični Paket/Extreme Paket (Specijalni broj)[edit]

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

Fails GNG—can't find RS after good faith search. See related group AfD. czar · · 06:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG per search. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:24, 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 keep. No prejudice towards potential future discussions of renaming or merging. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Fatehpur Violence[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for Notability Zayeem ^(talk) 15:54, 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 » 16:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Oppose: The event has significant impact on the Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh, as it constituted a gross human rights abuse similar to the 2012 Ramu violence. The event was widely by the Bangladeshi press and media. Considering factors such as Geographical scope, Depth of coverage and Diversity of sources, this article should not be deleted. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was no way near to the Ramu violence. It didn't have much news coverage by the media, especially the electronic media totally refrained from covering this. No diversity of sources as only few newspapers covered it, besides it shows different things like violence in Assam or Bihar when searched in Google. The article surely doesn't meet the criteria of notability to be in Wikipedia. Zayeem ^(talk) 17:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this - Satkhira violence. It will show reports from the Financial Express and other Bangladeshi news sites. The title may have been 2012 Satkhira violence.BengaliHindu (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not a small incident at all. This incident was covered by notable Bangladeshi newspapers like Prothom Alo, Janakantha, The Independent etc. at least for two weeks. Ssitaa1814 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— Ssitaa1814 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oppose: Don't throttle truth and freedom of speech. It will be a great disservice to humanity. Krishnendudelhi (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— Krishnendudelhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Nonminator's vote): The news was only covered by few newspapers and renowned local English newspapers like The Daily Star (Bangladesh) showed no interest on the incident. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the electronic media (TV channels) totally refrained from covering this incident. Not to mention the international media also didn't show any interest. Surely it doesn't meet the WP:DIVERSE. It doesn't meet the WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE as well since no analysis about the incident was found in TV news specialty shows, books or in feature length articles in major news magazines and it doesn't have any significant impact over a region or a community. It doesn't pass the WP:EFFECT also. Zayeem ^(talk) 05:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not true that The Daily Star did not show any interest. On 7 April, it reported that the then Railways Minister Suranjit Sengupta had urged Home Minister Sahara Khatun to visit Satkhira - Suranjit asks Shahara to visit Satkhira. WP:DIVERSE doesn't explicitly specify that an event in order to be notable has to be covered by the electronic media. Further there is a The Daily Star op-ed piece which has analysed the recent instances of minority repressions in Bangladesh, including that of Fatehpur, Satkhira - The minorities of Bangladesh, which satisfies WP:INDEPTH criteria. BengaliHindu (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:DIVERSE recommends that an incident should have significant national or international coverage and with being covered by only few local newspapers, this incident doesn't pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion for sure. Besides, the article "The minorities of Bangladesh" mostly analyses the 2012 Ramu violence or the overall condition of minorities in Bangladesh, even though because of its similarity with the topic, 2012 Fatehpur Violence also got a little thematic mention there but the incident was not actually analyzed by the daily as required to pass the WP:INDEPTH criterion. Zayeem ^(talk) 09:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kmzayeem - I struck your "Delete" since your AfD nomination counts as your one iVote. You can comment as often as you want, but only iVote once. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I had also written "(Nominator's vote)" beside "Delete". --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : Coverage or non-coverage by a certain newspaper house does not prove/negate an incident. Leading Bengali dailies pratham alo and janakantha has provided widespread coverage to this incident with far reaching consequences. Unknown.citizen12 (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)— Unknown.citizen12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I'm not talking about only a specific newspaper, I said only few newspapers covered it and no interest was shown by the electronic media (TV channels), hence, it definitely lacks WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Zayeem ^(talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is one of the most significant incidents that has shaken Bangladesh in the recent years. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Most Bangladeshis are totally unaware of the incident and as mentioned earlier, it didn't get enough media attention as well, so can't really agree with your comment. Zayeem ^(talk) 17:06, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because the state media of Bangladesh doesn't report on the persecution of its minorities, it does not mean it is not notable. If the Turkish mass media does not report on the persecution of Armenians or Kurds, it does not mean that the persecution is not notable at all. The same with Tibetans and everyone else. It was also reported outside of Bangladesh, this article from Jihad Watch reports on it citing Indian media. http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?search=Satkhira&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20 It would also be possible to merge the 3 articles into an article on Religious conflicts in Bangladesh in 2012 --Trphierth (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nobody here is talking about state media. The point is, the incident doesn't pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion since only few newspapers covered it. As mentioned mentioned in my earlier comments, it also lacks other criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, hence the article is definitely not eligible to be in wikipedia. Besides, the link which you posted talks about something else not this incident. The article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the persecution was reported at least in some newspapers, both nationally and internationally, and you cannot expect books already when it just happened this year. And you are the only one claiming that it was not reported widely in the Bangladeshi press. But even if you read every newspaper, which you probably don't, I would need to know from a more neutral observer. (Bangladeshi media is ranked at 136th out of 178 countries on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, which in some cases should also be taken into account.)

Also, I take objection to your comment on the Bangladesh notice board, because you seem to imply that you know just from their edits if they are Bangladeshi are not, and you seem to imply that editors writing from the point of view of minorities in Bangladesh are not really Bangladeshi editors or that only right-wing Muslims can be Bangladeshi editors. It is surprising that nobody has commented on this at the notice board. --Trphierth (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may find "you don't read newspaper" type comment little bit excessive. Stay clam and continue! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article appears to have a topic that will be able to meet the notability threshold. I have reviewed the talk page of the nominator in this AfD and he appears to have a history of disruptive edits in favor of his views regarding his country. However, the article itself needs a lot of work. Presently it reads as a news report. I would encourage the proponents of this article to do some more work on it to make it more encyclopedic in tone and content. Voting is not enough-- you need to make the article MEET THE QUALITY of an encyclopedic article-- that is the best thing you can do to save it from deletion now and in the future. OfficeGirl (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hope, next time when you post, you will keep the WP:NPA, WP:AGF policies in mind. Besides, many disruptive editors tend to hide their obnoxious history in wikipedia by archiving it while I haven't archived yet, so there is no logic in judging an editor through his/her talkpage. As for the article, I've already mentioned some reasons why the topic is not notable at all. --Zayeem ^(talk) 05:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are two write ups, Daily Star April 6, 2012 and New Nation April 6, 2012. They both are on the same day (April 6). The Wikipedia article indicates that things happened around 31 March 2012. The six day delay in news coverage may mean a low reliable source interest in the topic. Also, if there was news coverage in May or June or later in 2012 following up the event, the aftermath, etc. that would give more perspective and evidence at least some persistence in reliable source coverage on the topic. There are no reliable sources that support calling the topic "Fatehpur Violence." The lack of evidence of reliable sources giving a name to an event also shows low reliable source interest in the topic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and without evidence of sufficient reliable source interest in a topic, that would put Wikipedia as an originator of that interest, which is not what Wikipedia is. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant event and per OfficeGirl! --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Titodutta (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment: OfficeGirl simply said that the topic is notable without giving any logical reason. Please elaborate the reasons. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeGirl had three points 1) the topic meet the notability threshold 2) the article has a disruptive edit history 3) article needs improvement. On 1, it is so. Though, it may not been covered by all leading newspapers of both countries, at least few newspapers (links above and in reference section in the article) have covered it. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your elaboration. 1) It was covered by few newspapers, but was not covered by the other newspapers, the electronic media or the international media. Hence, it fails to pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion. The incident also doesn't have any significant impact on the community (according to sources) thus it fails to meet the WP:GEOSCOPE. It also fails to meet the WP:INDEPTH since it has not been analyzed in books, feature length articles in major news magazines, and TV news specialty shows. It also fails to meet WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT. Considering these points, the topic is definitely not notable at all. 2) OfficeGirl actually said that after reviewing the nominator's talkpage (my talkpage), she found that the nominator (me) has a history of disruptive edits, she wasn't talking about the article and the article also doesn't have any disruptive edit in its history. 3) The article surely needs improvement but I don't think it can ever be an encyclopedic article, since the article is already 6 months old, still not up to the mark. --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this incidence has been covered by few newspapers as main topic then it can be kept. Depending on "I like it", "I don't like it", "I can't publish it (even if it is a news) because it will be against my sponsors", "I must publish it (even if it is not a news) because it praises our community" many incidences are covered/not covered in newsmedia. I read mainly Bengali and English newspapers. And in Indian newspapers it is not very uncommon to find a news being covered in first page of a newspaper and missing in another one. If you have heard about Singur conflict, Nandigram violence etc you may find different opinions in different newspapers. I hope it is more or less same in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka too. I don't expect all Bangladeshi newspapers will cover the same event in same tone.

I have been working in some Bangladesh related article. I wish to do some work on Bangladeshi theatre, I have started writing one or two articles too, for example Bahurupi Natya Sangstha. Well, when I work on Bangladesh related articles I mainly depend on 1) The Daily Star (as you can see in the linked article too I have added a bunch of Daily Star citations) 2) BDNews24. And a Daily Star article like this forces me to ponder on the subject! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC) typo correction signed --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand the criteria. It doesn't matter to who the dailies belong or what point of view they posses while judging the notability of an event. Notable events are covered equally by the whole media, take 2012 Ramu violence for example. Besides, the source also mainly focused on the traffic gridlock caused by the demonstration by the students. And even though the incident is covered by few dailies, it's still not sufficient to pass the WP:DIVERSE. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Initially I was not so sure about this one. However, I see the incidence has been covered in some newspapers, and had some impact in the vicinity as well as far places like in the capital. We should keep in mind that in the Indian subcontinent (probably all over the world!) the newspaper coverage is often influenced by the nature of the news and the publication group, as explained by Tito above. Perhaps more so in the Islamic nation of Bangladesh where the influence of fundamentalists are even more. So, after going through the coverage, I feel this meets the notability criteria. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dwaipayanc (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment: Well, as replied earlier, it doesn't matter by who the dailies are influenced, notable events are equally covered by the whole media as it happened with 2012 Ramu violence. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the incident also fails to pass the WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dwaipayan.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Nobody canvassed me. What made you think so. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I replied to Dwaipayan, it doesn't matter whether the dailies are influenced by a group or not, notable topics are covered by the whole media no matter whom it belongs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drift: Exlanation demanded[edit]

I demand to know what makes an editor (who does not care to sign after expressing a concern) that I have been canvassed here (I can see he has added the same template for two other editors too, Dwaipayanc and Shyamsundar)? This editor has been a subject of India Noticeboard for a long time now. See report one, and the latest report. There may be more reports, I don't know! If I have been asked by someone to vote. I should have voted in all nominations. I take this as a personal attack! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to sign after the canvass template, however editors can get to know who added the template by watching the history. I have added the template since it seems the participants who are voting for Keep belong to a particular group and have a common and predetermined viewpoint which might be a result of Votestacking or Stealth canvassing. It is also to be mentioned that editors belonging to a particular group were invited to take part in these AfDs through some noticeboards here and here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your tongue if you can not control it. Reporting in a noticeboard without mentioning anything to vote or not to vote is not necessarily canvassing. And there he linked 4-5 articles, I have voted in one. If you see that version of India Noticeboard you'll find my reply in each and every post of that page. How does it become a canvassing? I participate in such discussions every day. Right now I have at least 2 more issues which are either reported to ANI or admins are handling it If you see my contribution list, I am a regular AFD participant and have given few more votes in AFDs in last few days too!

And even if I consider it mentioning articles in a noticeboard is canvassing, what is this? You reported the same thing in Bangladesh noticeboard! There might be more similar posts, I have not checked. Should I go ahead and add "This user is canvassing"? Forget it, I am not gonna do so.

About signing canvas template, it is a common sense- when you read "an editor has expressed some concern", you immediately ask "Who?". So, signing should be a good etiquette here!

In this very recent sockpuppet investigation you made the SPI admin "fed up" who felt it was a "a gigantic waste of time" and "You're clearly not getting the picture." So we are now. In this AFD you have cited WP:DIVERSE in your every second or third line. What do you think? We are not reading the discussion so that you need to keep repeating the same thing again and again (and again)... The SPI admin was fed up! So, I am! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more, this is somewhat weird! If you see above, I have criticized someone since I felt he was talking rudely with you! If I am invited here to oppose you why should I post in your favor there? If I am remembering correctly, I added some positive comments in one of your band related articles which was in danger at that moment!

The word I was expecting from you here is a simple "Sorry"! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC) pen slip correction signed --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, by tagging the template I've expressed concern that you have been canvassed here by some other editor who wants to distort the consensus here, that means the accusation is against that editor who has canvassed you, I'm not accusing you, which is why I felt surprised when you said that you are feeling attacked because of that template. Secondly, you need to understand the meaning of canvassing, the tone of the posts here and here is simply indicating inappropriate canvassing and the posts are clearly inviting other editors to take part in the AfDs. About the sock puppetry investigation, well it was because I was unable to show proper evidence but you might have also noticed that the admin has also declared those user ids as meat puppets who also took part in this AfD. And the notice which I reported in Bangladesh noticeboard is definitely not about this article or any AfD, hence it can't be termed as canvassing. You don't want but I would request you to check if I've made any canvassing since I know I haven't made anything which violate the policies of wikipedia. And, yes, I have cited WP:DIVERSE and many other links quite often that's because everyone here is raising the same reasons again and again without even considering that I've already countered those reasons earlier. This indicates that many editors joined this discussion with a predetermined point of view. You have expressed that you are feeling personally attacked but it's only me who has actually been attacked here several times, pointing at my past experience. I am never shy of seeking apology, but here, I don't think I've made or posted anything against the policies. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:01, 4 November 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 A7 by Bbb23 (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abd allh Mmdooh[edit]

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

delete claims notability but fails to provide sources and appears to be self authored Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:COI by username and no signs of notability. czar · · 05:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retagged as A7 - Actually, Hell in a Bucket, I would have supported the speedy deletion as A7 because there is virtually nothing to support this biography and hardly indicates his significance, aside from primary social media pages. As a result of this, I have restored the A7 tag. Additionally, the article contains poor English and, as mentioned with my speedy deletion edit summary, it's unlikely this young man has established a sucessful career yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 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 List of titles by Pink Pineapple. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parade Parade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Search for reliable, third-party sources only turns up the one review that is already linked in the article. This fails the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:NOTE. All of the keep comments from the previous AfD were citing the raw number of Google hits, that it was licensed in English, that it has an IMDb entry, asserted that it was notable without giving an other argument or evidence, or gave no reason at all. —Farix (t | c) 20:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While the series does appear to have some degree of popularity, and it is licensed, there appears to be a lack of reliable coverage in either English or Japanese. There isn't even an ANN link announcing its licensing (although I could have missed it). The reason for the "weak" is because it is licensed, which IMHO can be an assertion of notability if it were a regular series, but it's a hentai so it doesn't count. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:02, 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) 20:27, 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) 00:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Valid movie; is listed on I.M.D.B. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a movie, but an OVA, which was released directly to video. During the 90s, Japanese studios would produce an OVA on just about anything so long as someone paid them. The results was that most of those OVAs were terrible. But most importantly of all, they did not get any of the coverage that would have been given to an actual film. —Farix (t | c) 20:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources here to back notability, I have seen no valid keep arguements here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 27 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) 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of titles by Pink Pineapple. I found two sole sources for this and I have a feeling that there might be a little more out there, but is probably lost to the sands of pre/early-Internet time. Pink Pineapple itself is rather notable, having produced several series and being a known name (despite the article for them needing a ton of work), but not everything they've done is individually noteworthy. I say that it'd be a good idea to redirect this to that page and work on fleshing out that page as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:20, 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. (non-admin closure) - Closed partly because of consensus to keep and partly because of possible Sock problems. Because of possiblility that the Keeps aren't socks, I can't close as delete. Vacation9 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kehoskie[edit]

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

Article is allegedly for a baseball player agent, but according to its text, the only specific Major League Baseball player he can be said to have represented had a very brief career and retired in 1998. Much of the article consists of listing more famous people with whom the subject's various lower-level jobs put him in "degrees of separation."

Also seems likely to have been written by the subject. DwaynefromME (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article has 29 citations & the subject has 129 hits in the U.S. Google News Archives, over 200 hits at U.S. NewsLibrary & 15 hits at U.S. Google Books. It appears nominator DwaynefromME created his account just so he could nominate this page for deletion, but the citations in this article easily surpass WP:GNG. Nominator also alleges the article was written by the subject, but I don't see any violations of WP:NPOV. // 91.105.232.27 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this subject appears to be to be very borderline in notability, there appears to be an additional complicating factor in this listing. It appears extremely that someone registered and posted the article for deletion stemming solely from a political fight on a http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/ot_politics_-_october_2012_-_the_race_as_candidates_prep_for_debate_attenti/P3500 baseball website between Joe Kehoskie and other people. Though this doesn't affect the notability of Joe Kehoskie, some action must be taken because I think it's clear Wikipedia is not a tool intended to be used for individuals to play out their grudge matches. An experienced editor may be needed on this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 October 2012

If that thread is going to be entered into evidence, please note two points about it:

Mr. Kehoskie threatens to "dox" his enemies, thus the desire for anonymity;
He is repeatedly accused of writing the Wikipedia entry and never denies it. DwaynefromME (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith The preceding comment by DwaynefromME sounds like a clear admission that he nominated this page in bad faith, as the result of a political argument. Not cool. (If the nominator didn't know about that political argument, why would he have a "desire for anonymity"?) // 91.105.232.27 (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I think we've cleared up any ambiguity about the motives of the nominator or whether or not the nominator is connected to a heated argument over on some baseball website. WP:SK seems applicable, as I now have little doubt that the nomination was made solely for harassment. To the original nominator, that you apparently had a fight with the subject of the article has little bearing on this issue. Last I checked, there's no Wikipedia: Subject of Article Displeased Me. This is an extremely awkward nomination, so I've requested additional input from editors on how to deal both with this nomination and any possible further actions that need to be taken. Wikipedia is not a playground for people to hash out their disagreements from elsewhere. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable, some references are broken links, and in others he is not the focus of the article at all; he only has been quoted saying one or two sentences. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few sources out there that clearly establish his bonafides when it comes to Cuban baseball (NY Times, PBS, ESPN) and a piece from Westlaw http://lawschool.westlaw.com/shared/marketInfoDisplay.asp?code=CR&id=25 makes a better case, though I think it's close. The article should definitely be a lot shorter and more focused as there's a lot of extraneous links and information in there. A relatively unknown figure doesn't need that much bloat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaving aside the COI issue, this is an article about a non-notable individual. As far as I can tell, that Westlaw source is the only one that discusses the subject in a non-trivial manner. More than one non-trivial source is required for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sources It looks like people are voting before looking for sources. This article is entirely about the subject, as are references #1 and #9 on the Wiki page and this Toronto Globe and Mail article (not listed on Wiki page). This major Vanity Fair article includes several passages about the subject, as does this Sporting News article (not listed on the Wiki page), this Washington Post article, and two different Seattle Times articles (#1 (2005) (not listed on Wiki page), #2 (2007) (not listed on Wiki page)). The subject was also featured in this ESPN show (article not listed on Wiki page), this ESPN show and this PBS documentary. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources: The Daily (not on Wiki page), Life in the Fast Lane (not on Wiki page). - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are what LogicalCreator described above. Providing brief support quotes for an article does not make the article "about" the person providing the quotes.

As I read the article's text, the subject has been a baseball agent for 16 years, yet at best has represented one highly obscure Major League Baseball player. (Clever wording in the article implies that he has represented José Bautista and Félix Hernández, but it seems clear that that's not the case -- click name links for Google searches.) That is not a notable person, even if said person has been quoted/appeared in media a few times in those 16 years. DwaynefromME (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More bad faith from bad-faith nominator There's no special Wikipedia notability guideline for baseball agents. All that matters is that the subject passes WP:GNG for any reason, and the list of references above establishes that he does. (If he's not notable as a baseball agent, why does the media quote him as an expert on a regular basis?) Also, contrary to your continued bad-faith claims, the list of citations above are not "the same as LogicalCreator described." I just listed at least seven (7) new references above (ESPN, Toronto Globe and Mail, The Sporting News, Seattle Times, etc.) that aren't currently cited on the Wikipedia page in question. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean (or write...) that they were literally the same cites. My point is that they share the quality LogicalCreator described of mentioning Kehoskie in passing while discussing the article's true subject, rather than being articles about him in any meaningful sense.

Regarding the criteria for agents in general, I note that Category:American_sports_agents has 81 entries. Considering the size of the American sports industry, that seems to be pretty exclusive. And some of those 81 can't be challenged on notability because they are former major league players. Of the remaining number, I'd be curious to know how many have as little verifiable record of representing major leaguers in their sport as Kehoskie appears to. DwaynefromME (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Your curiosity isn't a Wikipedia standard. The only thing that matters here is WP:GNG.

If your point was that the subject is only "mentioned in passing" in the references listed, you were incorrect. This Toronto Globe and Mail article mentions the subject in five out of six paragraphs. This WestLaw article is entirely about the subject. This ESPN article says he was one of the two central figures in a 60-minute ESPN show, and this PBS page shows he was one of the main figures in a PBS documentary. If not for the ax you have to grind, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. - 202.71.129.154 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let folks evaluate the other cites for themselves, but I will say that claiming that the Globe and Mail article is about Kehoskie because he's "mentioned in five out of six paragraphs" is disingenuous IMO. Yes, his name is mentioned... giving quotes about the World Baseball Classic final game and the players involved. That is what the article is about. If the author Jeff Blair had seen the game himself and repeatedly written that "I" saw this and that in the game, would that have made it an article proving that Jeff Blair was a notable person? I would hope not. If we were to evaluate Blair's notability, it would be based on his accomplishments in his career as a Globe and Mail reporter.

Each of the 30 Major League Baseball teams has bloggers whose opinions of games and players are cited throughout both the blogosphere and mainstream media on a daily basis, far more often than we're seeing here. Again, though, the bloggers' notability is based not on digging up a handful of name-mentions, but on evaluating their success in their careers as bloggers (and few have been found to be notable).

In the same manner, Kehoskie's notability rests on his accomplishments as an agent. DwaynefromME (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be making up your own Wikipedia standards. Clearly, reliable sources are quoting Kehoskie as an expert in the field. Under guidelines for notability, the subject does not have to be the main subject of an article. A reliable source searching out and mentioning someone specifically for expertise is more than a passing mention. Why do you keep making up a WP:SportsAgents guideline and then strictly comparing Kehoskie to this guideline, ignoring all evidence of notability? God, do you think David Berkowitz's page should be removed because he doesn't match up to some ridiculous WP:Mailman guideline you made up?

As I said, he appears to be borderline, but being widely cited by his peers is a guideline under WP:BIO. You haven't quoted a single Wikipedia guideline in support of your nomination other than your assertion to lack of notability. Why does Wikipedia have to be subjected to your personal grudges? Are you 5? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't the most interesting article on Wikipedia, but the current sources plus the new sources listed above are enough to meet WP:GNG. Here's another new reference (Edmonton Journal) that mentions the subject almost 20 times. || Note: Voting from IP (AT&T Business); don't want any retaliatory edit wars with the nominator, who seems like a man on a mission. || 64.134.103.30 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highly Irregular Goings-On. Apart from the merits of whether we should keep or delete the Joe Kehoskie article, somehting very odd is going on in this AfD discussion. Other than User:Moboshgu and User:LogicalCreator, every other participant in this AfD is either a newly created account or an IP address (in two cases, from a country where baseball has a very minor following):

. User:DwaynefromME – Nominator is a newly created account;
. User:91.105.232.27 – First-time IP participant with Russian Federation IP address;
. User:CoffeeCrumbs – Newly-created account;
. User:202.71.129.154 – First-time IP participant with Indian IP address;
. User:64.134.103.30 – First-time IP participant with a corporate account dynamic IP address in Austin, Texas.

This whole AfD smells a like a giant sock farm. I would suggest that one of our Wikipedia administrators check out what's going on here. Apparently this article and/or Joe Kehoskie are the subject of some off-wiki controversy, and that this AfD is being used to continue that off-wiki combat here. This merits closer investigation, and I would suggest that this AfD be placed on hold while that investigation takes place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's difficult to have an open, good-faith AfD discussion when the nomination was made in bad faith. It's clear this nominator has an ax to grind; anyone who votes against him from their main Wikipedia account is opening him or herself to retaliation. Brand-new accounts can't create pages; they probably shouldn't be able to AfD them either. -202.71.129.154 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, this is a new account. That's why, if you check the edit history, I put up a block to ask for experienced editors to bring in input for a difficult situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you DirtLawyer. That Baseball Think Factory link up above demonstrates that there is something fishy here. There is a good chance those above listed accounts and IPs are socks. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This discussion should be closed pending potential investigation on account of it smelling like dirty socks. It's really a profound stench. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:03, 25 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) 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am Dennis Brown, and I am not a sock. Just wanted to make that clear since I feel like I'm in a sock drawer here. There is at least one article where he is the primary subject, and in several articles, he is quoted and was contacted, assumably as an expert on the subject. Those alone would likely quality as he wasn't just mentioned, but was sought out for his opinion by the reliable sources. In the end, while he isn't the most famous person I've seen, he cleanly passes the requirements here as the sources have demonstrated that they consider him notable. Our job is NOT to determine if WE THINK he is notable, it is to determine if the sources consider him notable, and they do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC The Steve

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 Little Brother (Cory Doctorow novel)#Sequel. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland (Cory Doctorow novel)[edit]

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

This is a clear cut case of WP:TOOSOON. There is a lack of independent and reliable sources for this book to show that it's ultimately notable at this point in time. It doesn't release until February of 2013 and the sources I could find via a search are not the type that you can use to show notability. There's fan pages and non-usable blog entries, as well as very brief mentions of the book in a few places, but nothing that would show that this as of yet unreleased book meets notability guidelines. PROD was removed with the rationale of WP:OBVIOUSLYNOTABLE. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The world could end before this non-notable book ever comes out. And then in a couple of thousand years, when extraterrestrials visit the Wikipedia servers, they'll wonder why we ever had an article about this book in the first place. Qworty (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Looks like a real book that will, in fact, come out. Needs a lot of work, however. LogicalCreator (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ITEXISTS isn't a valid argument to keep a book or really any article. You have to show that the book is notable by providing in-depth coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. That just doesn't exist at this point in time. There are a few places publishing excerpts, but that's not the same thing as someone publishing an article that discusses the book in-depth. As Qworty said, anything can happen between now and the book's publication. The book could be pushed back. The author might decide to scrap the entire thing and re-write it. A fire could burn any existent copies of the book. The publisher might decide to drop the project. All of these are things that have actually happened to various authors and their books over the years. We can't say "this will release and it will obviously be notable" because we don't know if it will release and we don't know if it will be notable. There are many books released by very notable authors that never get enough coverage to merit an article. Saying that it will is pretty much WP:CRYSTAL because you can't guarantee that it will.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:00, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Brother (Cory Doctorow novel)#Sequel for now and merge in any useful information. This book is the sequel of a notable book, but it isn't notable in itself yet. Bovlb (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bovlb. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 31 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 Cogent reasons have been given for deletion, and nobody has put forward a "keep" argument. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spellblast[edit]

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

No reason to consider them notable, only reference self published & can't see anything of worth when I google them. TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NMUSIC, WP:MUSIC, etc. Qworty (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only created the Battlecry page because I noticed that it was redlinked, and I can only assume if Spellblast and Battlecry don't meet NMUSIC and etc mentioned above, then I can only assume Horns of Silence and Ray of Time don't meet them either? (The Iron Turtle 09:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- That's WP:OTHERCRAP. Qworty (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really other stuff exists: its a justifiction for having written this article, and a fair one. The implication is that if the band is non-notable, its recordings are also non-notable (which I believe to be the case). A new article was recently created on one of these: following the linked band name I thought that they were not notable, & so AFD the band, which clears the way to PROD or CSD the articles on the individual recordings. TheLongTone (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:22, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Per the same closing rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chirirbandar violence, since the debates are essentially identical. -Splash - tk 23:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Hathazari Violence[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for Notability Zayeem ^(talk) 15:55, 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 » 16:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The event is a gross violation of the religious rights of the Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh. The destruction of Hindu temples is a strong case of religious persecution, similar to the 2012 Ramu violence. The event was widely by the Bangladeshi press and media. Considering factors such as Geographical scope, Depth of coverage and Diversity of sources, this article should not be deleted. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Nominator's vote): The human rights abuse was not much severe to have a significant impact on the community, hence, the article surely doesn't meet the WP:EFFECT or WP:GEOSCOPE. The article also fails to meet the criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE since only few local newspapers covered it and the electronic media totally refrained from covering it, besides, the incident was also not featured in books, feature length articles in major news magazines or in the TV news specialty shows. Zayeem ^(talk) 06:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The daily Star, new Age & Samakal covered this violent outburst thus proving the gravity of the incident.Unknown.citizen12 (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)— Unknown.citizen12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Not convincing, as I said only few newspapers covered it and no interest was shown by the electronic media (TV channels), thus, it lacks WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Zayeem ^(talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is one of the most significant incidents that has shaken Bangladesh in the recent years. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Well, as mentioned in my earlier comments, the incident didn't get enough media attention, hence, the statement "This is one of the most significant incidents that has shaken Bangladesh in the recent years." doesn't make any sense. Also, only a small number of Bangladeshis are actually aware of the incident. Zayeem ^(talk) 17:01, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because the state media of Bangladesh doesn't report on the persecution of its minorities, it does not mean it is not notable. If the Turkish mass media does not report on the persecution of Armenians or Kurds, it does not mean that the persecution is not notable at all. The same with Tibetans and everyone else. It was also reported outside of Bangladesh, this article from Jihad Watch reports on it citing Indian media. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/bangladesh-muslims-vandalize-hindu-temples.html It would also be possible to merge the 3 articles into an article on Religious conflicts in Bangladesh in 2012 --Trphierth (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, its not about state media. The fact that the incident is covered by only few newspapers clearly proves that it doesn't pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion. As mentioned mentioned in my earlier comments, it also doesn't meet other criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, hence the article is definitely not eligible to be in wikipedia. The article should be deleted according to WP:NOTNEWS. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the persecution was reported at least in some newspapers, both nationally and internationally, and you cannot expect books already when it just happened this year. And you are the only one claiming that it was not reported widely in the Bangladeshi press. But even if you read every newspaper, which you probably don't, I would need to know from a more neutral observer. (Bangladeshi media is ranked at 136th out of 178 countries on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, which in some cases should also be taken into account.)

Doing a very quick Google search, I find quite many different reports and even pictures on this, and that even though I should probably search for this event with several different search terms. Of course already the article links to some of these reports.

Also, I take objection to your comment on the Bangladesh notice board, because you seem to imply that you know just from their edits if they are Bangladeshi are not, and you seem to imply that editors writing from the point of view of minorities in Bangladesh are not really Bangladeshi editors or that only right-wing Muslims can be Bangladeshi editors. It is surprising that nobody has commented on this at the notice board. --Trphierth (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in the noticeboard is definitely not about this article and the comment is definitely not similar to how you mentioned here. Coming to the AfD, the google search shows results mostly belonging to different blog sites, search sites, facebook pages, translation pages which are of no use here. The incident surely can't be stated as Persecution, so please choose your words wisely. Your argument is not convincing enough, it could be if you provide sufficient reliable sources. I will still stick to that the incident is only covered by few dailies which is not enough to pass WP:DIVERSE. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the article also fails to pass WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE. The duration of the coverage is also not convincing to pass WP:PERSISTENCE. -Zayeem ^(talk) 16:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. I can give very little credence to the notion that "the human rights abuse was not much severe to have a significant impact on the community, hence, the article surely doesn't meet the WP:EFFECT or WP:GEOSCOPE", since I cannot imagine a scale of Wikipedia policy that places certain abuses of human rights as non-notable merely because they were not very widespread. A far better policy based approach is needed. -Splash - tk 23:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Chirirbandar violence[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for Notability Zayeem ^(talk) 16:03, 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 » 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The event has significant impact on future of the Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh, as it constituted a gross human rights abuse. The event was widely by the Bangladeshi press and media. Considering factors such as Geographical scope, Depth of coverage and Diversity of sources, this article should not be deleted. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Nominator's vote): The human rights abuse was not much severe to have a significant impact on the community, hence, the article surely doesn't meet the WP:EFFECT or WP:GEOSCOPE. The article also fails to meet the criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE since only few local newspapers covered it and the electronic media totally refrained from covering it, besides, the incident was also not featured in books, feature length articles in major news magazines or in the TV news specialty shows. Zayeem ^(talk) 06:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is one of the most significant incidents that has shaken Bangladesh in the recent years. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Not really, most people in Bangladesh don't even know about the incident, besides, the incident didn't have much media attention also, as mentioned in my previous comments. Zayeem ^(talk) 16:55, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because the state media of Bangladesh doesn't report on the persecution of its minorities, it does not mean it is not notable. If the Turkish mass media does not report on the persecution of Armenians or Kurds, it does not mean that the persecution is not notable at all. The same with Tibetans and everyone else. It would also be possible to merge the 3 articles into an article on Religious conflicts in Bangladesh in 2012 --Trphierth (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its not just about state media. The fact that the incident is covered by only few newspapers clearly proves that it fails to meet the WP:DIVERSE criterion. As mentioned in my earlier comments, it also doesn't meet other criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, hence the article is definitely not eligible to be in wikipedia. The article needs to be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the persecution was reported at least in some newspapers, both nationally and internationally, and you cannot expect books already when it just happened this year. And you are the only one claiming that it was not reported widely in the Bangladeshi press. But even if you read every newspaper, which you probably don't, I would need to know from a more neutral observer. (Bangladeshi media is ranked at 136th out of 178 countries on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, which in some cases should also be taken into account.)

Doing a very quick Google search, I find quite many different reports and even pictures on this, and that even though I should probably search for this event with several different search terms. Of course already the article links to some of these reports.

Also, I take objection to your comment on the Bangladesh notice board, because you seem to imply that you know just from their edits if they are Bangladeshi are not, and you seem to imply that editors writing from the point of view of minorities in Bangladesh are not really Bangladeshi editors or that only right-wing Muslims can be Bangladeshi editors. It is surprising that nobody has commented on this at the notice board. --Trphierth (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, over 50 important Bangladeshi intellectuals including Shahriar Kabir and Syed Shamsul Haque have condemned the violence. Source And you are trying to tell us that the persecution has not made any media impact? --Trphierth (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in the noticeboard is definitely not about this article and the comment is definitely not similar to how you mentioned here. Coming to the AfD, the google search shows results mostly belonging to different blog sites, search sites, video pages, facebook pages which are of no use here. The source which you provided here also belongs to a blog site. The incident surely can't be stated as Persecution, so please choose your words wisely. Your argument is not convincing enough, it could be if you provide sufficient reliable sources. I will still stick to that the incident is only covered by few dailies which is not enough to pass WP:DIVERSE. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the article also fails to pass WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE. The duration of the coverage is also not convincing to pass WP:PERSISTENCE. -Zayeem ^(talk) 16:38, 2 November 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[51] 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Chauhan (actor)[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:Abhishekitmbm, who posted the AFD tag with the edit summary "not meeting WP:BIO criteria". On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 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) 19:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I began searching Google News with "Mohit Chauhan actor" but received results for the singer so I started adding Chauhan's films, starting with "Zameen" but no success. When I searched "Chak de India", Google News provided minor mentions through the film and one insufficient review here for Second Marriage Dot Com (his most recent film). It is certainly possible that additional sources are not English, but if that is the case or not, there is an insufficient amount of significant sources for Mohit Chauhan himself (aside from the small mentions). SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The entire motive of starting this article was to clear the confusion between the actor and the singer. Most people get confused between the actor and the singer as there is no mention anywhere of the actor. While creating the article, I tried to find out references but could not find any reliable ones. Hence, added only two. But as he has acted in some films, sources might be coming somewhere in the future. Its upto you folks to keep or delete this article now. BPositive (talk) 04:04, 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) 05:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News search is often not helpful (at least for Indian articles). There are treasures hidden in The Times of India and specially The Telegraph (Calcutta). But, I almost never get the best TOI and specially Telegraph results in Google News. For example, when I clicked on the "News" link above, it returned "no result", but when I manually searched in Times of India etc I found few good results including this one (Note: Please check if this is the Mohit Chauhan we are talking about, if so, I'll change add my vote). I don't follow other Indian newspapers (Indian Express,Deccan Herald, The Hindu etc). If manually searched I think we can get some more results. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to "Keep". Subject is playing an important character in "Second Marriage Dot Com" which is being covered by multiple websites --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: As per links provided by Titodutta, especially the TOI's link which attributes to him. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per Tito Dutta. Will additionally try to look for sources in The HIndu and thru Highbeam. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMDb seems to have confused him with singer Mohit Chauhan. But the acting section on the page lists 7 films Second Marriage Dot Com, Life Express, Prince, Detective Naani, Dil Kabaddi, Chak De! India and Dhoom 2. Are they referring to our subject here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the general notability guideline. Coverage by secondary sources has been demonstrated by Titodutta.--xanchester (t) 15:08, 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. -Splash - tk 23:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C.A.D.R.E.[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable musical instrument; hits on Google News archives and Google Books for "cadre" "cyrille brissot" (Brissot is the inventor) amount to mere brief mentions. Seems to fail the general notability guideline. I may have missed something in my searches, but I highly doubt that searching for "cadre" is going to get anyone anywhere, as it's a fairly common English word. CtP (t • c) 20:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 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) 19:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No indication of why it might be notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C.A.D.R.E. is part of the instrumentarium that has revolutionized the way we play computer music. Before the research of Professor Brissot and some of his colleagues of the IRCAM, Computer Music not thought that delayed. The introduction of real-time and can be played as a classical instrument, contributes daily to incorporate musical way the digital revolution. Or some musical instrument, either the saxophone or the Martenot Waves waited for decades and have a large catalog of works to their credit before any references.

Indeed, it is difficult to find many references, but precisely because it is new technology. But the interest is obvious, therefore, project Professor Brissot received many awards from the musical world. C.A.D.R.E. is only part of all the work done by Brissot, but I honestly think this would be a mistake to delete this type of article that will make any sense when more ambitious articles will be write (Article on the Music 2.0 on the career of the great professors such as Miller Puckette, David Zicarelli, Cyrille Brissot will appear in wikipedia, it is only a matter of time). See Brissot research on the iPad, the Wii. We spent Concert laptop requiring intervention VJ in real concert of virtuoso musicians, such as exists for other musical instruments.

Nevertheless, I will expand the article by including links with many academic theses which cites the work of Professor Brissot.

I fully understand that quality of wikipedia is related to the articles proposed filtering required, however, is a journalist specializing in the areas of new technologies, I can assure you that part C.A.D.R.E. instruments that have begun to revolutionize the music.

Here some awards example:

Brissot's Awards and recognition ▪ 2002: Award Video-Art Festival Paris-Berlin (Idiosyncrosy / Pleasure (Video-Art Project with Seungyon-Seny Lee) ▪ 2004: French Music Award Best Electronic Music/Groove/Dance album of the year for Émilie Simon. (Electro-Pop - Emilie Simon Project) ▪ 2006: French Music Award Best Original Film or Television soundtrack of the year for La Marche de l'Empereur (soundtrack). (Electro-Pop - Emilie Simon Project) ▪ 2007: French Music Award Best Electronic/groove/dance album of the year for Végétal. (Electro-Pop - Emilie Simon Project) ▪ 2008: Research Award Villa Medicis in India for Baratha.Data (Motion Capture Research for Dance and Music combination) ▪ 2009: Prix de la Creation Numérique 2009 - Bains Numeriques Festival for Mayakkam-Oxymore (Real-Time Light-Painting Dance show) ▪ 2010: Preço de Criação Digital 2010 - Modern Art Museum Festival - (Museu de Arte Moderna) Salvadar Bahia for exhibition Em/Entre ser há/e um outro (Real-Time Light-Painting Dance show) ▪ 2011: Grands Prix Sacem - Best Electronic Music (Electro-Pop - Emilie Simon Project)

And all his collaboration with international Artists: (Marina Abramovic, Carlinhos Brown, Nicolas Frize, Marko93, Emilie Simon, Valecia Ribeiro, Peggy Preheim, Mika Mutti, Avril, O-Rudo, Seungyon-Seny Lee, Cyril Hernandez, Jean-François Laporte, Ben Vedren, Valeria Apicella ...) and thus result to hybrid works or two worlds confront and enrich themselves. Thus are born the works Poussières d'étoiles - Stardust (Cité des Sciences, Paris, 2001), Works and Paper Inc.. (Los Angeles, 2002), Ganga (Bezons, 2002), Speaking with wind (2006), Aqua (GRM electronic Presences, 2007), Movie concert (Seoul, 2007) AquaVox (Festival de l'Oh, Paris, 2007), BarathaData (Chennai, 2008), ShowLight (Grand Palais - Paris, 2007), Concert ES / PCL (Salle Pleyel - Paris, 2007), Mayakkam-Oxymore (Paris, Enghien-les-bains, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad , 2009), VoxStrumental (Cité des Sciences - Paris, 2010), Metropolis (Fritz Lang / C2 - Digital Art Festival - Taipe, 2010), Entre/Em um ser e/ha um outro (Museum of Modern Art - Salvador 2010), Effervescence (Uberlandia, 2010), Electro-Axe (Carnaval Salvador, 2011), Saudade/Sol (Rio, 2012), GlobalOpus (Salvador, 2012).

Here some example of Brissot's research and his software development:

Brissot's R&D work As a researcher at IRCAM and at Centre Pompidou, Brissot develops various software and audio plugins. He is the author of, among others, TheArchitect, MoteurA, TheSatelites, LiveCompagnons, 1-Pro-Vis, Octogone ... and participated in the development of many innovative products: EtherSense, WiseBox, eo-Body, Persephone, Lemur, Karlax ... etc. In 2004, mandated by the french National Education, he developed MusiqueLab-Audio, software that incorporates the technologies advanced for his previous software MoteurA, but with an educational orientation. In 2010, accompanied by Jean Lochard (aka JeanJean), he developed a collection of plugins (Max4Live) IrcaMax^[1], due to a collaboration between IRCAM and Ableton, to propose some ircam-technologies available to users of Ableton Live.

About real-time video software and his huge work. Thus he developed the software Ecran specializes in "array processing" of video and VJJV, VJing software that interacts with the music.Various project with the iconic graffiti Marko93 led him to develop new techniques of Light-Painting, which are employed in software ComeIntoMyLight and Light-Flux^[2].

I really think it would be a mistake to delete the article on C.A.D.R.E. even if it is a minor work compared to 30-year career of Professor Brissot. For example, I think B.R.A.H.A.S^[3] is even more important than C.A.D.R.E. .

This article has all its meaning from a larger article will be made on the work of Brissot in general.

References

^ IrcaMax, "IRCAMAX preview", Ableton
^ Light-Flux, "Light-Painting / En vidéo en temps réel", Wikipedia
^ B.R.A.H.A.S, "Emilie Simon's Cyborg Arm Music Controller", sense-aware sonic interaction: sonification interactive robotic wearable & generative music

Back to the deletion discussion

DELETE this as a desperate example of the purest WP:SPAM, lacking in adequate WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 23:54, 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) 05:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read thru that wall of text above. (Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, short to the point is better). Was a struggle. My understanding, It's a minor work from a redlinked artist, less important than a redlinked instrument. The rest is not about CADRE but about it's inventor. the wall fails to raise any argument that suggest any independent notability for this instrument. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I concur with Duffbeerforme with regards to the above wall of text. We are presented with ample puffery about Brissot, but delivered no compelling argument that the C.A.D.R.E. meets Wikipedia's notability standards. CtP (t • c) 20:41, 31 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. -Splash - tk 23:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Nasty Naz[edit]

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

A DJ and chef. Only able to find one independent, reliable ref about him and that would be the Sway Magzine article. The GlobalGrind ref in the article is a reprint of a blog piece by DJ Nasty Naz. There are a few interviews to be found and articles that briefly mention him. He hasn't released any music on any label. There aren't any reliable refs that he has worked With Snoop Dogg, Rihanna, Sean Paul, Selena, Bieber, etc. Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article should be kept, but needs to "clean" up any :references" that they can't find for the article. I've added some more links of articles to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.29.177 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the "references" as blogs and interviews are not reliable references. Please see WP:SOURCE on that counts as a reliable reference. Bgwhite (talk) 17:47, 17 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 - Appears to have some local celebrity but lacks the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article seems fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.29.211 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Can't vote twice. Bgwhite (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see some popularity at a local level, but i was unable to find any reliable sources to determine notability. I see he has done some music with Rihanna but it's mostly underground: nothing released. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:40, 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) 05:15, 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. -Splash - tk 23:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mahdi[edit]

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

The book does not appear to meet notability critera listed at WP:notability (books) and the article itself does not add anything beyond what is already provided under A. J. Quinnell ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete/Redirect to A. J. Quinnell. The article is empty and can't find professional reviews other than one Kirkus.[52] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:08, 24 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) 05:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the WP:BK criteria, having received coverage from multiple independent sources; there's enough information here to go beyond a stub.
- The book is covered with some depth in a chapter of this book.
- It seems to be also covered with an entire chapter in this book (chapter 13 is titled "The Other's Image in Quinnell's The Mahdi).
- More coverage in this book about crime fiction and the Middle East.
- Was covered briefly in the Kirkus review cited above.
- There's a significant New York Times review from 1982.
- And another NYT review from the same year.
- The Los Angeles Times also reviewed it, although I can't read how significant the coverage was because of a paywall.
This amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, in my view, meeting WP:GNG and the WP:BK criterion 1. --Batard0 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources. It sounds highly notable to me. I just hope the article will be expanded and referenced. Cavarrone (talk) 21:14, 3 November 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) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislav Stajić[edit]

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

Not notable - no reliable references. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources.--В и к и T 17:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 21:27, 1 November 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. CSD G5. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fortunato[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability in accordance with WP:NACTOR or generally notability guidelines, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cindy(talk to me) 04:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - It's probably too soon and he has had insufficient work to be considered notable at this time. I began with a search at Google News Italy and found nothing when I noticed he has had mostly American work. Google News found nothing relevant despite multiple searches with Guiding Light, The Sopranos and One Life to Live (the longest work he has had) as well as his two future films. Aside from that, the other roles are minor and insignificant. Considering he acted, directed, wrote and produced a short film, I searched with this but found nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 31 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 close. Wrong venue; discussion has been moved here. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem's sixth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eminem's sixth studio album

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

There is no need for this redirect becaseu the album's title has been disclosed and the article is made. it is also unlikely people actually use that query in the searchbox. They can find the album under his discography or simply search by title. Banan14kab (talk) 03:29, 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. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackoustic[edit]

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

Notability not established for this compilation album of covers. Uncharted, unsourced, lacking notability in accordance with WP:NALBUMS. Would normally A9 or redirect, but outside of separate articles, there is no target article. Another editor questioned the A9, which rightly brings us here. Looks like there may be sources other than English, so hopefully we can get a few eyes on this. Cindy(talk to me) 02:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a few sources that could easily be found and added to the article. Also, the album has just charted. I was just about to get offline for some sleep when I came across the article and its AfD entry, so I'm going to work on it later until it becomes adequate. Since AfDs discussions usually last for some days, there's plenty of time. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 03:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, article is quite better now. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for your work! While the article only has one independent citation, the other clearly indicates charting in Finland. Therefore, I'm inclined to withdraw the AFD. Again, thanks for your work. Cindy(talk to me) 08:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Withdrawn due to sources provided to establish notability in accordance with WP:NALBUM. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 08:01, 30 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 Vince McMahon. There is not a consensus here to delete, but it seems the creation of this standalone article is at odds with relevant off-AfD discussion. I'm therefore going to leave behind a harmless redirect; if any of those advocating merging wish to do this themselves, they are free so to do. -Splash - tk 23:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. McMahon[edit]

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

The following lists include reasons why this page should be deleted. "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons", specifically "No original research (NOR)" as the page is a copy/paste of part of the article for Vince McMahon, and thus is a plagarization of the works of others. It also fails redundancy as the information on this page is contained entirely within another page. Smokachu 19:36, 15 September 2012

Delete for redundancy. If anything notable (not the week-by-week details) is missing from Vince McMahon, merge. Every other wrestler/wrestling performer has his/her wrestling career info in a clearly defined section of their article, as McMahon did till it was recently and unilaterally moved (see discussion). Standard practice. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This issue was discussed at length, and I cannot state anything better than the Inedible Hulk did. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other situations where an actual person with a fictional alter-ego has two pages. (See Stephen Colbert and his The Colbert Report alter-ego.) I divided it over length of the Vince McMahon page. Wikipedia really needs to have some consistent guidelines on how to handle such pages. Jgera5 (talk)=

Is there another wrestler with two pages? No. Does each of the 2,000+ existing articles leave room for biographical information and filthy fake lies? Yes. So we have consistent, consensus-backed practice. If you'd like to translate it into a written guideline, that can be arranged. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia DOES have consistent guidelines on such topics. But one has to take the time to read these guidelines. For example among the many reasons to create a new page you will never see listed "If a page is too long, create a second one". If that's your only rationale behind keeping this page, then perhaps you should look into the other guidelines wikipedia has towards page content, and cut down the cumbersome page. Vince McMahon's main page can be chopped down a lot in wording alone, without removing any information at all. And then on top of that there's a plethora of things that can be removed, like detailing of the "kiss my A club" (which deserves a sentence or 2 tops not a full page). Comparing this to Stephen Colbert is completely irrelevant. Once again I feel the need to point out, Vince McMahon is not an actor. He is the CEO of a company who plays a distinct role on his show as himself. He has never even remotely pretended to be anyone but Vince McMahon, and he's sold every second of it as it's real. He never broke kayfabe. Stephen Colbert IS an actor. The Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Mos Def Colbert, D.F.A., Heavyweight Champion of the World is a character he portrays. Both are distinct different entities. The television character is a heavily fictionalized satirical man, and a completely different man than the man who, for example, did an episode of Whose Line is it Anyway? Both have achieved notoriety to the point where they exist, successfully, independent of each other. But since you're still using that as the model even though it's been pointed out several times that's not the right model to use, use it as a WHOLE model. Compare this page to that one. You certainly won't find several thousand identical words in both pages I assure you that.Smokachu 17:04, 21 September 2012

Keep If Colbert gets two, McMahon should as well. Kris (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AFD was neither properly formatted nor listed. I fixed both, and the seven day clock should start now.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both Vince McMahon (the businessman) and Mr. McMahon (the character) have clearly established notability, as demonstrated by the sourcing. Obviously, this should not be seen as a precedent to split the articles of every professional wrestler, but it is fitting in this case. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vince McMahon. The "Mr" article is redundant, all the info is already in "Vince". Colbert is not a pro wrestler, so I'm not sure why he's a valid example. Starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Prior to Mr. McMahon, he portrayed the role of the promotion's television announcer, in which he was presented separate from his role in running the company. For a period of time, the two never intersected due to the lack of mainstream attention/publicity the company enjoyed. Should this announcing role be considered a separate character worthy of its own article? My measuring stick is that we have a single article entitled Alice Cooper, rather than separate articles for Alice Cooper (the band), Alice Cooper (the character) and Vincent Furnier (the real person). Unless you believe that once again, I'm babbling about ancient history that couldn't possibly be as important or relevant than Stephen Colbert. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, oldtimer. Babyface play-by-play/interviewer McMahon is neither the "real guy" nor the "evil boss". If split, which article (if either) would contain this info? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. This might normally qualify for relisting, but the article is, to me, an A7 speedy, since it asserts no notability for the organisation. The mildly interesting controversy the article mentions might be notable, but this article is emphatically not about that. -Splash - tk 23:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 100 a cappella group[edit]

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

College a capella club, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Lack of independent reliable sources to show notability. Some coverage over a temporary scandal, but WP:NOT#NEWS applies.GrapedApe (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Simply not notable. Best to include the information about the brief scandal in University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, but there is no need for an article about this small singing group.OfficeGirl (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 31 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) 15:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party of Argentina[edit]

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

This is not a real political party. See the results for the 2011 elections, 2009 elections and 2007 elections. The party did not get a poor result: it is completely absent. They have not run for elections at all. Cambalachero (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real political party in formation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.197.207 (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps it may have an article... when it is established as a party and the press talks about it. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's not speculate on whether it will become notable. The article can always be re-created/restored later. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible evidence of its existence, let alone notability. Can be re-created if and when it receives coverage in reliable secondary sources.--JayJasper (talk) 18:07, 1 November 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 Scarface (1983 film) . MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scarface characters[edit]

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

Extensive retelling of plot from a single film, a single film does not need a list of characters. Original research, bits of game plot too which belongs in its own article. What little information that exists that is NOT already in the film article (which I don't think is the case) can be merged there very easily. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Say hello to my little WP:OR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be the common misconception that attempts to directly describe a primary work, such as a film, are WP:OR, but that's incorrect. Only if the description ventures into original analysis or speculation (i.e., becomes unverifiable by any work, primary or otherwise), does it become original research. That said, merge to Scarface (1983 film) (and the spin-off video game article, if applicable) because there's no call for having a separate list of characters only featured in one film. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Postdlf. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR and doesn't need its own spinout. If it had sources, I'd say merge, but right now I don't see any details notable enough to keep as sections. czar · · 09:18, 1 November 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 discussion successfully removes the sources as being of any use to demonstrate notability. -Splash - tk 22:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boid for Android[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not appear to pass notability and has been tagged as such since March 2012. I've looked on Google News, Newsbank, Trove, Google Books and I do not see independent sourcing which would imply the software is notable. LauraHale (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep Appears to have marginal notability and is a decent quality stub, so I see no real reason to debate. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources confer notability? --LauraHale (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, 4 all are about Boid for Android. Yes, they're not exactly from the New York Times, but they all speak about it. As mentioned, notability is marginal, but it's a decent stub that is verifiable, so I think that it's worth keeping. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about these sites means they should be used to confer notability? A review site that looks to review almost every phone? A site dedicated to android phones? Do the reviews feed to Google News, Newsbank, Lexis Nexis or some other database that indicates the source would confer notability? --LauraHale (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on Google News and is about the kid who developed the app. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blog. Why should this blog on Computer World be used to confer notability? --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are used to substantiate content, especially when they are blogs under parent sites that would be considered reliable sources, such as this one. This one shows up on Google News, which furthers its credibility. I understand your disagreement, but I just think that this, coupled with the aforementioned sites, give it enough meat to keep, especially considering that this is a reasonably well-written, solid stub. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "substantiate content" but confer notability. WP:RS does not mean it also confers notability. I don't find it compelling that a review site that reviews lots and lots of apps should confer notability, that a blog about the creator should also assist in conferring notability, a place to network and sell your product should assist in conferring notability. --LauraHale (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that substantiating content is different than establishing notability and as mentioned, I'm on the fence about this one, but I think that the collection of the sources does just enough to establish, albeit weakly, notability per WP:NSOFT. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Yes I understand that this is an essay, not policy... Go Phightins! (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per GNG and WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it fails the general notability guideline, as it doesn't have any significant coverage nor does it have sources that is independent of the subject (current citied Google/Android really isn't independent of the subject), therefore this article fails on reliable and verifiable sources. Bidgee (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to prove notability. Reviews in publications about Android, phones or mobile software still count, provided they are independent of Google and of the app's creators and publisher (so Google Play isn't a reliable source but independent Android news may be assuming it meets requirements of independence and professionalism). Blogs in publications like Computer World are reliable sources per WP:RS "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." There's no requirement that sources are in Google Books or NewsBank or Google News. LauraHale claims "I don't find it compelling that a review site that reviews lots and lots of apps should confer notability" - Wikipedia policy doesn't care what you find compelling, what matters is what the notability guidelines say, and they say significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. They don't say "you can't have an app review from a computer publication or a film review from a film magazine or articles on science from a science journal". Having an article on an app from someone who actually knows about apps would be considered a good thing by many people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the two sources in the article, which sources would confer notability? And no, a self published website for promoting your own work behind a paywall doesn't convey notability. Blogs don't convey notability. There should be more than 3 sources for notability, or at least more than 3. Are there more? Where I looked, I didn't see them.--LauraHale (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs can convey notability if they are professionally produced by experts or journalists. WP:RS is clear that they can be reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:37, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:33, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 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 NO CONSENSUS. There is no clear demonstration either way that this player is (non-)notable, so consensus for deletion cannot have been established, despite a month of trying. On my own reading, it appears he may meet WP:NFOOTBALL, although it's hard for me to judge whether his club is "top flight" or not. -Splash - tk 23:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Janota[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Original concern is unknown. Mr Janota has not played in a fully pro league or received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Player played 90 minutes for fully-pro (Division 2) Atletico CP in the Portuguese League Cup against fully-pro (D2) Sporting Covilhã and in the Portuguese Cup against fully-pro (D2) Naval. If a player had done the English equivalent, he would be presumed notable, and I suspect we shouldn't be treating English fully-pro leagues differently from non-English. Article needs (considerable) improvement, not deletion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Struway2. There is a long-standing consensus that playing a cup-tie between two teams from fully pro leagues confer notability. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:17, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet GNG. Were Atletico a 2nd level team when he was with them? From Fora de Jogo it looked like they were 3rd level (but called Division II). Given his career is quite recent I'd expect significant web references to be available if he was actually notable. Eldumpo (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atletico are a second-level team, and he is with them. It was this season that he made his first-team appearances for them as a second-level club, as Fora de Jogo confirms (click on the magnifying glass on the 2012/13 row).
Having had a quick look for online sources, there's media coverage going back to his first call-up for Portugal under-17s in 2004, was called into Benfica's first team squad when they had an injury crisis and was on the bench once aged 18, was a transfer target for Standard Liege in 2006, had trials with CD Leon in July and with FC Utrecht in October 2007, match reports for his various third-tier clubs, signing for Atletico again (the online piece tells us to buy Saturday's paper if we want to read the whole article), etc. None of these sources are in the article, and some are little more than name-checks, but it's rather quicker and easier to find what are to me foreign-language sources than to incorporate them into coherent prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only had a quick look at FdJ and I think the fact that his info box doesn't list games at Atletico in this current spell, made me assume he played at his highest level earlier on. Anyway, I note you have found a number of further mentions of him, although as you suggest, they don't appear to constitute meeting GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:57, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:51, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 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 MERGE to Tuff (band). Please feel free! I note the multiple relistings, and I don't think more are going to alter the survival of this page. -Splash - tk 22:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Rachelle[edit]

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

At first glance this article looks well referenced but a closer look says otherwise. Passing mentions on non reliable sources. Looking at the article titles and the way they are used suggests they are there (like other references) to verify related info and not to provide any coverage of Rachelle. This article is such a major case of bombardment trying to fake notability that I found nothing better to use. Delete due to the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources.--Kourtneykardashian (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I refactored the nomination using the normal AfD template. Also listed it in the daily log. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tuff (band), at least in a summarized form. There are bits and pieces of coverage around but pretty much all relate to Tuff, e.g. [53]. --Michig (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 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) 18:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a number of sources that I have added to the article, including SPIN, the Los Angeles Daily News, and the Capital Times. Note that one is all about Rachelle in CWA and not Tuff. The Steve 05:50, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tuff (band). Tuff was signed and got some recordings out, so they pass WP:BAND. Policy is that band members redirect to the band unless they are separately notable. Not the case here. And too much info about his skateboarding. He's not Tony Hawk. --John Nagle (talk) 05:42, 13 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) 08:41, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash - tk 22:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tarkhans (Sikh)[edit]

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

Lists are meant to be navigational aids, yet other than the founders mentioned in the lead, there are no links to any articles. Instead what we have is a magnet for people to add their relatives or colleagues or people they admire. This is non-encyclopaedic and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists do not have to be navigational aids: see WP:L#Types of lists and WP:CSC. You can have a list where everything is non-notable, or a list that's a well-defined set of things even if they don't all have articles. (I'm not voting keep because I don't know enough about the topic.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Of no encyclopaedic value at all. Span (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarkhan (Punjab). --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. I will assume good faith about this nomination, and therefore say that the specified grounds for it are one of the worst cases of not doing WP:BEFORE that I can remember. While lists often need not be navigational aids, this is one that almost certainly should be - but, of the names without links currently in the article, three are clearly meant to refer to Zail Singh, Ajay Devgn and Sobha Singh (painter), and a fourth probably to Joginder Singh (rally driver). Moreover, several (though apparently by no means all) of the names the nominator removed from the article before nominating it also have Wikipedia articles - indeed, in a couple of cases, they were actually given as references. No good as references, of course, but they would be perfectly good wikilinks. The article could therefore be converted into a list of notable individuals with very little difficulty. The reason my keep is conditional is that currently there is no clearly cited evidence either in this article or in most of the articles on the listed individuals that the people concerned are (or were) indeed Tarkhans (often it doesn't seem even to be mentioned). However, in each case I have looked at, the claim that they are (were) Tarkhans is at least plausible, and I think it very likely that this will be verifiable for enough of them to make the list keepable. PWilkinson (talk) 22:13, 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)} 07:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although being a list hater , there are lot of lists like below having no logic or providing any help but are there e.g list of iyers , list of brahmins Shrikanthv (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is non-encyclopaedic. Individuals (if wp:notable ) have their own articles. It should be deleted.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the same basis as we keep similar lists for notable people in other groups. Certainly the individuals should have their same articles, but the list is also appropriate. No reason has been given why this should be different than other groups. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the article does not have any references to establish that the people listed are tarkhans and hence is a violation of WP:BLPCAT --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying they are not members of this group, or that it have not yet been shown . if the later, the solution is to write the individual articles showing it, DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC) '[reply]

I am saying that you or I or anyone for that matter cannot verify that they are members of the group unless a reliable source says so. In addition to that, for living people in that list, self-identification is necessary as per WP:BLPCAT. Given the controversial issues we are facing about Indian caste articles (The issues went so complex that Arbcom provided a discretionary sanction), having information about caste without proper references will not improve wikipedia in any way.--Anbu121 (talk me) 07:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article serves no purpose. It would be much better to add notable persons of that tribe to the parent article (Tarkhan (Punjab)). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criteria for inclusion are sufficiently narrow and clear. Moreover, I think sourcing could be found that treats Tarkhans as a group, e.g. this book, which is required under WP:LISTN. People arguing delete above have not argued that Tarkhans are non-notable as a group, which is the threshold for list notability per WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Some people for deletion have also used the fact that people on the list do not have Wikipedia articles as a basis for removal. This is not a valid argument under WP:LISTN: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." In any event, it appears that some of the people on the list are notable and have articles but simply were not wikilinked. Hence in view of the fact that secondary reliable sources could establish the Tarkhans as a group, it meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG and should be kept. --Batard0 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context This article was created by a known vandal. They operate many socks and are currently blocked. Span (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tarkhan (Punjab). Forget other issues, this list doesn't even passes the stand-alone list criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:57, 20 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) 04:37, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 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 NO CONSENSUS. This AfD has to be disposed of eventually and, in nearly than a month, no evident consensus to delete has emerged, thus a default result. -Splash - tk 22:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Week Thus Far[edit]

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

I can't see much reason for notability here. The show does not appear to be broadcast by a major channel, and the news coverage seems to be limited to this--well, local buzz, maybe, but nothing that establishes notability per our guidelines. BTW, the article is not well-written and resembles a promo piece, but that's of course beside the point. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:00, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It now has 4 sources, though all are from Manitoba. I'm not sure if a TV program is supposed to show geographically-wider coverage to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 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, Gongshow ^Talk 02:37, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The series appears to have gained reasonable coverage, I would believe enough to satisfy and I found another news article here. The series also appears to be broadcasted by a large Canadian company so that may also suggest notability Canadian-wise. Considering The Week Thus Far has sources, there are far worse articles that need to be deleted. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 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. As noted, the references do not establish notability. -Splash - tk 22:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Daniels LLP[edit]

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

Article seems purely promotional and has no references to establish notability. The article also contains multiple links to the subjects organization's web site. - MrX ^(TALK) 02:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made explicit the 3 references that were lurking as links from the article text. Aside from that, I can find one passing mention] in The Guardian. However although one ref does describe the subject as an "ambitious law firm", this feels like a local firm getting on with its own business, and no clear notability. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was easily able to find many sources in simple use of Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. While there is a secondary source which discusses the firm (here), I can't find any sources which go to the notability of the firm itself. I see many sites that appear to redirect back to their main website (or lead to some video/article written by them), so I'm not sure we have reliable sources here. Lord Roem (talk) 04:19, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 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. Discounting the recently-created accounts and IP addresses as evident vested interests, there is consensus to delete. Just in case, I have checked the version of the article on 9 August 2012 as suggested below, to see if it might invalidate the policy-based claims below. In my judgement, those policy problems are clearly present then also, so the deletion consensus established here is suitable. -Splash - tk 22:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Greisen[edit]

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

Horrible puff piece of minor -- at best -- media entrepreneur. Indistinguishable from spam, really. Calton | Talk 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion criteria should be whether the subject is or is not notable, not how well the article is written. The article could certainly be written better, but the subject is an award-winning Christian filmmaker http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=418# and is notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have some difficulty with the meaning of "puff piece" and "puffery". Hint 1: it's not about writing style -- though you seem to have been, long-term, quite happy with this ad-copy-disguised-as-an-encyclopedia-article -- but with exaggerated claims and claims unsupported by actual facts. Hint 2: engaging in further puffery -- like the meaningless-on-it's-own adjective "award-winning" -- is not really helping your case. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I propose that the article is kept. As Walter Görlitz says, Greisen is a notable person. However, I also propose that the page is reverted to a previous version; the current version is simply an advertisement for Reel Productions. The previous version was an encyclopedic biography of Steve Greisen. --GreatAwk (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please identify a previous version that you believe to be encyclopedic, so that others can evaluate it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on or before 9 August 2012. These versions are at least unbiased, which cannot be said for the current version. GreatAwk (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And keep the picture. Agree about how the content has become much more of a fluff piece in recent months though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the pictures should be kept. Also agreed, the piece has become more "fluff" in recent months...I was already unhappy about some of the (likely true but) uncited facts of Greisen's life. If the wording was changed, it would help (for example, changing "versatile and accomplished screenwriter..." and "Greisen’s brazen, entrepreneurial marketing mind..." to something a little less biased). GreatAwk (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs someone who actually knows and has worked with Steve Greisen I wonder how someone completely unknown to the subject of an article can claim it to be spam. Mr. Greisen is well known in the industry he is in: http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=418, http://www.matthewward.com/closingbook.html, http://www.fandango.com/stevegreisen/overview/p625094, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/steve_greisen/, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4237126/. If there aren't enough references there let me know. Previously this article was written by someone unknown to Mr. Greisen and was based on vague truths, it appears to be updated with factual information and it's deemed as a "puff piece?" Mr. Greisen's "award winning" (let me again reference those since they were obviously missed by a self-appointed-authority that didn't bother to read the Awards or References sections: http://www.reelproductions.net/awards/) is something I've personally been witness to. There is nothing on this page that cannot be researched and it's validity found out. Perhaps a review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion should be made, with attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and specifically "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." If a personal story and success is thought puffed up it would appear that this is an argument from a "soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda" and is not being used in the proper context. I would like to know what specific claims Calton deems are "exaggerated claims and claims unsupported by actual facts." This is no more a puff piece or advertising than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg.TheNewAmanda (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about whether you know a person. It's about unbiased, verifiable information. Therefore, while I agree with you that it's a good thing to have less "vague truths", as you call them, I feel the article needs to not sound like an advertisement, which it does right now. If the article could be written in an unbiased, clearly cited manner (without most references directed to Greisen's personal websites), this would likely be acceptable to the Wikipedia community. GreatAwk (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Aside from my own personal knowledge I still have to say this article is by all accounts correct, correctly cited, and if Wikipedia doesn't like personal sites then they should probably not have any personal information on here. Let me rephrase "vague truths" to say that there were outright inaccuracies that were actually cited according to Wikipedia standards. The article here is factually based and, although cited by some of Steve Greisen's personal work, is true. http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Steve%20Greisen http://www.tellyawards.com/silver/club/members/?single=1&id=9545 My suggestion is that the article include a few more of these citations.

KeepThe entire article written about Steve Greisen is as unbiased as any other page referencing a notable person, as well appropriately verifiable within the context of the article and where it is being cited. The previous page also linked to his personal website, removing this article wouldn't change those references. The article shows a correct picture of a filmmaker that is clearly cited. If the Wikipedia community doesn't approve of citing someone with their own work then there would not be a single article about anyone on here.75.71.51.230 (talk) 04:17, 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, TruPepitoM Talk To Me 13:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (doesn't seem to meet either WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER) unless more and better sources can be found to establish notability. Most of the current references are highly dodgy (indeed, one of them is another Wikipedia article!) and the couple that seem more acceptable don't establish significant independent third-party coverage. If kept the article should likely be rewritten from scratch... Sideways713 (talk) 16:11, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure promo-spam supported by "references" from the subject's company website and supported here by WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments from WP:SPAs. Very little significant coverage in reliable sources from what I can see. If we removed the peacock language and the non-independent "references" the article would be almost blank. Reads like a resume. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:34, 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. Clear consensus to delete. While there is evidence the company existed, there is no evidence of notability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airdale Brewing Company[edit]

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

Spammy article about a non-notable brewery. The only references cited are self-referential, and I found only passing mentions at Google News Archive. They have only been in business for 4 years, and they do not seem to have won any major awards; most Wikipedia-listed breweries have won multiple national awards. MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: per the research cited below, I will add to my deletion arguments the fact that the brewery is now defunct, so is unlikely to generate any future coverage which might add to its notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Brewery was in existence for about four years and was served locally in the San Diego area. May adjust some of the wording to lesson the "spamminess". I have adjusted the article to reflect their closing. Article should be kept for historical accuracy and reference. When "Airdale Brewing Company" is searched there are no shortage of articles that reference this brewery (certainly more than I would categorize as "passing mentions"). Specifically, it might be notable to the San Diego and mico-brewing community due to it's closure. 21:51, 28 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.167.148 (talk) — 173.79.167.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete, although I enjoy craft beer, and hail from the greater San Diego region, looking at what reliably sourced content is out there, there is not sufficient significant coverage for the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. Hopefully this company will produce its stoat again, as it sounds like something that I would like to try, but that doesn't mean that the company is presently notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:12, 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) 20:39, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The spamminess factor is offset by the fact that this is a defunct commercial entity. As such, the information becomes historical and should be treasured. Meets GNG, see, for example THIS COVERAGE from West Coaster SD — the San Diego beer community's internet trade publication. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete - Although it appears that the brewery has not won any awards, this is probably due to the fact that they only operated for four years. I'm inclined to keep this article because Google News archives results provided, what I believe is enough, to support the content. As I mentioned, I agree that the company has not gained any significant awards or achievements, and I considered voting delete, but I think this article has reasonable number of local sources (for four years) for now. I will add the sources I have found to the article shortly. EDIT: After reviewing the sources I found, I have realised that they were not sufficient for notability, with one of them being a user reviews website. I have slightly improved the article's appearance but I think it is not enough. I attempted to search for sources to support the "Altitude and Horizon are their flagship beers" but found none. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. And responding to Carrite above, if the best reason to keep this is a short article in a local specialist publication noting that the company no longer exists, then the case is not very strong. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:29, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:41, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 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. Clearly promotion material, and merely a re-run of the summit agenda for the last few years. None of the sources are actually related to the summit itself, apart from self-citations. -Splash - tk 22:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Economics Summit[edit]

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

This student run event does not appear to be notable, I am unable to find any secondary sources that detail summit in any detail. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Mt king ^(edits) 05:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Warwick Economics Summit has received much media attention is recent years from a variety of sources including the likes of Reuters News Agency, the BBC, the Harvard Gazette and the Student Journals. [54][55] [56][57] --Garethcork (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Furthermore to the above secondary sources The Summit has been featured on Bloomberg and the Telegraph[58][59][60] -- Garethcork (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those are Significant coverage of the event and are Independent of the subject ? The only one that gets close to that is the one from The Gateway Online ,the rest are just mentions of the event without discussing it in detail or are written by those attending speaking at it or from the uni. Mt king ^(edits) 09:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The Warwick Economics Summit is independent of the University of Warwick and has been endorsed in a number of ways including the referenced links. [61][62] --Garethcork 11:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ? according to the website it is sponsored by the economics department and hosted on the university campus. Mt king ^(edits) 10:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Warwick Economics Summit is a separate entity to the University of Warwick, it is only obliged to comply to the students unions regulation. The Summits is not governed by The University or the Economics Department. While it is hosted at the university we are paying for the service to book the lecture theatres. -- Garethcork (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Economics Summit has been featured on why study economics which is a secondary and independent source [63] -- 10:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.238.159 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 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 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fairly obvious above that WP is being used to WP:PROMO this NN event and that the editors in question are WP:NOTHERE to build WP. The references provided above are either non-RS blogs or articles from university "news" sites promo-ing on-campus events (regardless of the "independence" of the organising committee). Blatant NN promo which has no place here. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:51, 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 Pekan Air Panas#Education. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SJK (C) Tenang[edit]

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

Most primary schools aren't notable and should be redirected to their locale. I see no reason to make an exception in this case Ϣere SpielChequers 08:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per usual procedure for nn primary schools, to Pekan Air Panas#Education where it is listed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt that a redirect would be a good idea due to the school's rather unusual name. If it had a name like "Pekan Air Paras Elementary School" then a redirect would have worked, but I doubt that the name would be a likely search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 An unusual name is a good reason for a redirect. A name like "Pekan Air Panas Elementary School" would have less need of a redirect as a search for "Pekan Air Panas" should find Pekan Air Panas#Education. Redirects are only a problem when the name is common and easily confused. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:51, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This is an unusual name... except for anyone from Malaysia for whom such a school name would be quite common. It is a standard abbreviation for Chinese primary schools. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 4 November 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. Scott Mac 12:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Foote Wood[edit]

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

Perennial political candidate, who has held several local political positions, but never quite achieved a major one. (The general rule of notability for British politicians is that only members of Parliament, MEPs and members of devolved assemblies are automatically notable.) I can't find enough significant coverage of him in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Obviously, if he achieves a notable position in future, this article could always be recreated. Robofish (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He appears to have published a number of books. What are the notability criteria for authors? Road Wizard (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After further examination it looks like 10 of the 16 books listed were published by his own company. 1 of the remaining 6 was a local guidebook. That leaves 5 published by an independent company. Road Wizard (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was leader of a District Council. Are council leaders generally considered notable or not? Bondegezou (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- As a politican he is on the verges of notability (as council leader for six years), though I think we do not normally have articles on council leaders. As an author, I am not sure. He is writing for a reputable, though non-academic publisher and has a good list of books to his name (even if some are self-publihsed). This again probably puts him on the verge of notablility. Adding these together, I think he just about gets over the notability hurdle. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep agree w/ Peterkiniron. I did a commercial database search of newspapers etc and found over 100 hits. Added some of the book reviews to the article, most of the search results are newspaper stories that contain a mention of Wood, in relation to local politics. None are in-depth about Wood, but the sheer number of mentions across many different newspapers and time suggest he is notable enough. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:10, 17 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) 08:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an encyclopaedia not a repository for here there and everywhere political candidate. It is also not a place for little known authors. To qualify under Notability the individual must actually have been well known at least locally and this has not been demonstrated in the article. This individuals is not notable as a politician and the notability of the individual as an author has not been established. This article should be deleted. Sport and politics (talk) 22:48, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. And that may just be due to the quality of the article's style. But that aside, the sources are lacking here. Beef up the sourcing and this is a Keep. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Green Cardamom. If there are no further comments, I suggest the closer consider a "no consensus" close rather than relisting it again. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still weak keep -- because he is close to being notable in multiple areas, which I add up to just notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 3 November 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. Difficult call here. Unfortunately, despite relisting, there's too low a level of contribution to generate consensus. I'm calling no consensus for deletion, but with some support for a merge/redirect if a target can be worked out. I'd also leave open the possibility of new afd in a few weeks. Scott Mac 12:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euro RSCG London[edit]

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

Just another advertising agency with no indications of any real notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, we have had a wikipedia page for years. I was simply updating our name and information following our rebrand which happened on Monday. Why now are we not notable but we had a site for years so I assume were then? What can I do to increase our notability?? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupola2012 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also now ammended the links so they should credible, objective and not self promotion.

Comment The age of a page is not relevant during a deletion discussion (see WP:ARTICLEAGE). The assumption that this company has been notable in the past and is only now not notable is false. The recent changes in the page brought it to my attention, and I found that the notability of the company in question did not merit inclusion at Wikipedia. The amended links do not help, as they are all to press releases published by the company, rather than any real evidence of significant, independent coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 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) 13:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that Euro RSCG London is/was notable, as distinct from Euro RSCG itself. AllyD (talk) 17:55, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Havas. CamillePontalec (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The page offers crucial information about the agency, including the brands they work with and the management. There is plenty of information here to maintain the article. It is often very difficult to find this kind of information about advertising agencies. Additionally, every advertising agency is sufficiently different from its parent companies because of the way the advertising industry is structured. Additionally, the article is updated regularly. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, there's plenty of information here, but it's all from primary sources. There's no indication of any significant coverage of this company in independent media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The agency has many awards. http://www.clioawards.com/catalog/2012/film/ http://blogit.realwire.com/Euro-RSCG-London-wins-prestigious-TED-award-for-best-global-Ad-worth-spreading are a couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithandteam (talk • contribs) 21:25, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Havas. Most of the content is not encyclopedic style: the intro, list of clients, and a summmary list of campaigns can be kept, but the individual descriptions of the campaigns are full of dubious unsourced POV statements, opinion, original research, and bullshit (using the word in its technical sense). Cut that and you have a very short article. Since it's now part of the Havas group, merging is sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 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 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion, if this were to be merged I think the better merge is to Euro_RSCG_Worldwide (which should be renamed to Havas Worldwide now?). It seems Havas is the main umbrella holding Arnold Worldwide, Havas Digital and what is now renamed Havas Worldwide (current link at Euro RSCG Worldwide), and Euro RSCG London is within that Euro RSCG/Havas Worldwide division. In general, the various redirects and name changes could use a little clarification from someone who knows exactly how they break down. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the accurate breakdown of holding companies, but individual agencies are notable (see: Ogilvy & Mather, an agency held by WPP). The consensus might be the following combination of edits: RENAME Euro RSCG Worldwide to Havas Worldwide and MERGE Euro RSCG London to Havas Worldwide. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I agree. I think the main three subsidiaries (or such similar term that describes them) are notable, and further breakdown may be the cause of notability concerns. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major player in PR in Europe, it would seem, see THIS SNIPPET from PR Week which alludes as much. These characters are so effective in manipulating their own Google hits that one has to get deep, deep, deep into the responses to find independent material. Very impressive how they do that, actually. Regardless, I am presuming this is a major player based on clientele, etc. No opinion about merger into another standing piece although I'm very much opposed to outright deletion. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 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. Scott Mac 12:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SJ Seymour Group[edit]

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

Appears not to meet the WP:GNG requirement and WP:CORPDEPTH. A small financial firm that has not attracted much notice. The cited articles containing quotes from an SJS employee do not confer notability on SJS, although they may on the employee; in any event, they're passing references at best. A search did not turn up solid secondary sources. Batard0 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient Reference

I think the references supplied from Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, FINMA and Labuan financial services authority alone suffice significant coverage from reliable and independent secondary sources. There are some words which sounds promotional which needs to be corrected. Gradually the content would gain more attraction and result in more references in the future.

The issue with the Hong Kong, FINMA and Labuan references is that they're simply notices that SJS is regulated by them, which doesn't qualify as significant coverage, unfortunately. They don't show that people have independently taken notice of SJS; they merely show that SJS has applied for and received licenses to operate in these markets. What we'd need is things like articles in widely circulated newspapers and magazines that focus in some significant way on the firm. Take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH for further guidance. I can't find evidence that such support exists, but if it does in fact exist, I think the consensus will be to keep the article. --Batard0 (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting reference from Honk Kong, FINMA and Labuan is quite sufficient as they are the top authorities to monitor this section of business in their specific countries.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is nothing in WP:CORPDEPTH that would qualify a company as notable simply because it is regulated by multiple authorities. If I'm missing something, please cite the policy. If we considered as automatically notable all companies regulated by the SEC, FSA, HKSFC, FINMA and others, we'd be talking about hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of firms, many of them tiny and obscure. --Batard0 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found some references added them, I don't know much about Wikipedia policies but I think mentioned references in this article suffice the requirements. I have never been a contributor of content so don't know much about the guidelines but I surf at least 5 hrs a day on Wikipedia and have read many articles on various services, products and companies. Keep it or delete it doesn't much matters to me but I am sure later in future it has to be here someday as this is one of the top financial firm from Singapore and HK its just that it has less online presence for now. "Chow". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.126.131 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much hope that becomes the case; once the company attracts significant coverage in reliable sources like magazines, newspapers, etc., we can easily justify inclusion. If you like, the article could be moved to your userspace for safe-keeping and later use if the consensus ends up being delete. --Batard0 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from regulatory listings (which just establish that a firm is authorised to trade, i.e. the absolute minimal requirement in financial services) and PRweb press releases (which are primary), the only substantial reference is the CNBC article on junk bond trading, where a representative of this company is among those quoted, but that is effectively a passing mention. There is also a similar piece in a Reuters 2010 article on oil prices, but again a passing mention. Nothing sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH that I can see. AllyD (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in WP:CORPDEPTH it says An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, as you mentioned that in various references the SJS employees have just a passing mention or the quotes, if you would have searched little deep you would have found the various videos like these “reference1”, “reference 2” or “reference” where the SJS representatives have been speaking in all the major financial news channels giving their views from past 1 decade. Considering the reputation of these news channels globally in the financial industry these videos represents substantial evidence to cover WP:CORPDEPTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Submitmaster (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, the organization is not the subject of these reports. The subject is the markets and the analysts' views. These are just passing mentions, but if they do confer any notability, that notability is conferred upon the analyst and not the company. The company does not inherit notability from its employees, per WP:N and WP:ORGIN. It would be nice to keep this, but what we need to see is some coverage of the company itself in secondary, reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 05:53, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the coverage about the company seems not to be "significant coverage". Other "sources" seem to be by the company or its employees so would not be considered significant coverage of the subject company. On that basis, I'm not convinced the company has been the subject of enough coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Request Moderators to Checkout the new references added, I hope this suffice the requirements.submitmaster((talk)) 10:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean administrators? Admins have no particularly special role in an AFD discussion (except to close it) and Wikipedia is not a chat page or discussion forum with "moderators" who have special powers. These discussions are based on the principle of consensus. You need to make arguments based on policy and guidelines and convince fellow editors. Your assertions (in an article, including those about notability) need to be supported by reliable sources. If you have sources and would like to suggest that they confer notability, you are welcome to post them here (or ask other editors to have a look at ones linked from the article itself). After the AFD has been open for a while, an admin will consider the points made and determine if a consensus has been reached. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make things easier I editing the article to remove duplicate references and a couple that were not reliable sources at all. Of the 7 that remain, 5 do not give "significant coverage" to the company that would allow it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (the last 5 in the list). 2 are coverage of company employees giving opinions about markets - coverage of other things by the company, not coverage of the company. 3 are generic company listings (1 of which is not a listing for the company at all) which show which entities regulate the company's activities - this could not possibly be considered significant coverage of the company itself. Of the 2 that might be considered news "coverage", 1 is quite openly listed as a reprinted press release from the company distributed by PRWeb. It certainly couldn't be considered an independent reliable source. Of the 7 provided, the WealthBriefing source might be okay (though after 2 views it goes behind a pay-wall), though that would not be coverage enough to meet the requirement for multiple sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - The Sources Provided are Independent and if seen overall covers the every wikipedia policy as compared to all the other articles and reference. If the reference goes behind the paywall after 2 visits I don't think It won't be considered as a reference anymore. Dedeepyareddy((talk)) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The misplaced capital letters, strange double-bracket talk link, WP:SPA contributions and strange prose strongly suggest you and User:submitmaster are the same person trying to "vote" twice, which is pointless because AFDs are not decided on the number of votes but on the weight of arguments. Strongly suggest you stop - I will happily open an WP:SPI, formally confirm your sock-puppetry and strike all of your contributions above. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 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) 15:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirametrix Research[edit]

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

Companion article to the one on Hennessey nominated above. Non-notable technological firm. non notable academic technologist; Adjunct professor with a few publications. Article created by subsequently-banned sock-pupeteer active in creating articles on marginally notable technical companies and their executives. DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Most refs are in very obscure web publications. Fails WP:COMPANY. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 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 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another paid sock'n'schlock article on a company that is long on promotional cash but very short on notability, assembled with a jumble of sketchy cites, mostly primary sludge mixed with bloggy onanism mixed with dishonest paraphrase of other sources--in other words, a typical paid hack job. In technical terms, fails WP:CORP per lack of WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete onanism. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:55, 3 November 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. Scott Mac 11:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Dickau[edit]

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

Non notable, references are to personal website and works. Reads as a resume/advertising. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References appear to be too slender. (A footnote: my impression is that BLPs that refer to their subject as "Dr X" or "Professor X" so often get deleted). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the professor were a garage band with a 7-inch, we wouldn't even be here. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO. Possible G12 speedy deletion in view of the wholesale copying of text from http://www.waltonmusic.com/CompBios/ddbio.php to here (archive.org has copies of the waltonmusic page from before the 2006 creation date of this article). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 4 November 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.