< 19 September	21 September >

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 Out of the Box. The article was redirected to a disambiguation page for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the box[edit]

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

out of the box is an adjective, not a noun and may be suitable for wiktionary but not wikipedia - user:mtmoore321 20th sept.

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) 22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Steele (film director)[edit]

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

An individual who does not appear to have any notability. The article claims that he is an independent film director and musician, however upon searching, I am unable to find a single reliable source on him, either of his movies, or his band. IMDB is the only place that seems to have any information on any of them, and that, of course, is not sufficient to pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with the points made above, there are BLP issues too. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have found absolutely nothing to support this article and it's not surprising, considering that he only produced two films nearly ten years ago. Several of the sources I have found are to irrelevant Chris Steeles but I found what may be a relevant Chris Steele here, if this is relevant, it would be insufficient. I believe that this is an open and shut case. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete p b p 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. Admittedly, the article can use an editorial clean-up, but that's not what AfD is about. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the LGBT community[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First off this article has been nominated for deletion three times. It is not a neutral topic and is actually homophobic. While I do believe there is racism in the LGBT community I have not once seen an article on here about homophobia, biphobia or transphobia among people of color. So heres some of the problems 1) This article does not describe how racism in the LGBT community is any worse than in the general community. Whether it exists or not in the LGBT community is really not up for debate but the fact of the matter is that if it isn't greater than the general community its really not notable. 2) By not having an equivelent of sexualism in the different communites of color this topic is not falling into NPOV. Nor is it neutral anyway because it speaks of racism in the LGBT community in wikis voice. 3) It does not represent a global perspective. 4) It has not addressed various forms of racism towards hispanics, Jews and Arabs. Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:28, 20 September 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 September 20. Snotbot t • c » 22:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Meh~~. switching to keep (I'm switching from apathetic to keep as it is a notable topic even if the current article is presently woeful) It's a perfectly valid subject and has been written about extensively and in scholarly work. However, almost none of that is reflected in the current article. If it was more encyclopedic and touched on some of noms concerns i would be more inclined to be a strong keep. It's potentially a great article but a parent article about discrimination in minority populations would be better. Insomesia (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' I'm just saying that it is not neutral. I mean if I posted an article about say homophobia and transphobia in the Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Arab or Jewish community no matter how many sources I used it would probably be taken down as racist. How is this any different?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article for this right now is racism, and this is a studied and valid facet of racism. It's essentially one facet of a contentious area like Homophobia in Latino/a communities would be; also valid but maybe an article isn't really needed unless it's developed. There are books devoted to the subject but if we don't have a good article on it then I'm fine not having any article at this time. I feel equally about Sexism in the LGBT community or any other ___-ism in the ___ community article. We could have dozens of valid ones but in my mind they need to be good to exist. Insomesia (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is definately homophobia in the Latino/a community because of the sexism of machismo. However what I'm actually stateing is not at all that their isn't Racism in the LGBT community but can you actually prove it is worse than in the general community and therefore notable?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't gauged on if it is more prominent in general society, although this may have been studied, it is gauged on if this subject has been covered in reliable sources. And it has. The article as is doesn't explore the issue very well at all. Insomesia (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not more preominent in general society wikipedia is suggesting it is in the LGBT community which is clearly not NPOV.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that just because the article exists, it implies that racism occurs at elevated rates in the LGBT community, just that it is a notable thing. Insomesia (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all as a LGBT person of color (Hispanic, Arab and Jewish) I find this offensive and I think it suggests that there is an elevated level of racism in the LGBT community as you don't see information about Homophobia and Transphobia in communities of color.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are likely reasons to craft articles on other subjects rather than remove this one. I agree that the article as is remains poor. Insomesia (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sourcing showing in the footnotes to pass GNG — multiple, independently-published, substantial sources. Nominator's arguments are one part IDONTLIKEIT and one part OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, in my estimation. Encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Racism within the LGBT community is a major topic in queer studies. There has been a lot scholarly work and press dedicated to the subject and it's become an even more prominent issue in recent years. Obviously the article needs to be expanded and should reflect a global perspective. The article's existence doesn't somehow incriminate or impugn the LGBT community at large. It's a valid topic. - Am86 (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in concurrence with Carrite's points that the basic objections, although clearly sincerely felt, boil down to IDon'tLikeIt and OtherStuffDoesn'tExist which are insufficient grounds for deletion of an article whose subject's notability is established both by journalistic and scholarly articles probing the issue's ramifications. Moreover, Wikipedia criteria for article inclusion don't usually consist of whether or not the topic itself is "neutral": we confine ourselves to requiring that the article's content on the topic be neutral. The dissenter is welcome to include reliably sourced information supporting the contention that racism does not exist disproportionately among LGBTs, and/or to initiate articles documenting the extent of homophobia in communities of color. This article need not demonstrate that racism is comparatively more prevalent or virulent among LGBTs than others as a condition of its existence in Wikipedia: instead, the article may focus, for instance, on how racism manifests in LGBT communities, or perhaps how it is better handled, or how it is less common than among heterosexuals. The article needs expansion, not deletion. EylonTheGreen (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article survived a couple of AfDs, but then got moved several times, and ended up being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relations between the LGBT community and Ethnic Minorities. St Anselm (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space or project space for work. The topic is clearly notable and well sourced (I also posted sources in the last AfD), and the fact that there may be just as much racism in the heterosexual community isn't a deletion argument if sources do talk about racism in the LGBT community. (We might well put that point in the article text though.) However, the article in its current state is rather one-sided, it doesn't do much to acknowledge queer people of color as part of the LGBT community. I'd support moving to user space for the purposes of expanding into a broader (and re-titled) article on qpoc that included racism as an issue faced within the community, but that also acknowledged dual racism and homophobia from the outside, homophobia from one's racial or ethnic community, and - because it shouldn't be all about the problems - information on qpoc cultures, intersection with religion, ... (Similar to the recommendation I made in the last AfD.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about a rename back to relations between LGBT people and ethnic minorities? That way it isn't as one sided LGBT attacking ethnic minorities and becomes an article about racism and sexual discrimination. If people can agree on this I will withdraw my nomination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Noteworthy topic of significant discussion and coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. As others have noted, there's plenty of discussion of the topic in reputable sources and it's a specific enough problem to merit inclusion. Argument about the converse not being on Wikipedia boils down to OtherStuffDoesn'tExist and is a reason to write another article, not delete this one. Avory (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I had no idea racism was a problem in the LGBT community until I read the sources. The BBC article is particularly enlightening. I can't think of any reason why this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to enlighten people and serves no other purpose. People who want to delete this page are just afraid that readers will learn about any issue that makes the LGBT community look bad. This is an understandable concern given the embattled state of the global LGBT community, but deleting this page is an injustice to victims of racism within that community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.236.10 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an article on sexual orientation in African American culture. Nobody is saying it's racist to discuss homophobia among blacks or homophobic elements of black culture 209.129.243.100 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 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) 22:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnball[edit]

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

This appears to be a recently invented regional sport that is not yet discussed in any reliable 3rd party sources. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references in the article are independent or reliable. I looked for 3rd party RS coverage on the Johnball Nationals to no avail. Just YouTube videos. Maybe in the future there will be enough sources to support an article about the sport, but not now. Braincricket (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as it gains coverage in reliable independent third-party sources, which frankly I don't think is going to happen..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm not finding significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 05:36, 23 September 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) 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Sparks[edit]

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

Not notable. No assertion of notability. No independent refs at all. Read like self promotion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any relevant sources using Google News, Google News archives and Google Books. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this particular 'Joel Sparks' is not notable, but others with the same name may be. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? It's an article in the namespace Wikipedia, not in the main namespace. Although I guess it was created in the wrong place. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is there too because of that confusion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved it to mainspace, Joel Sparks. I was going to recreate an MFD (Velalla created it and then asked for its deletion, which I performed) until it occurred to me that I could just move the page to mainspace, where it belonged anyway. All namespace issues should now be resolved. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 23 September 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) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's Chest[edit]

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

This is kind of an odd one. While I am positive that such things actually existed, there's nothing to indicate that the concept presented is actually signifigant in any way. It is, quite literally, just a chest that happens to belong to a captain. I've searched for sources, and while I can find books that mention the phrase "captain's chest", none of them actually discuss the concept in any meaningful way. The second half of the article, about the supposed chest on nuclear subs, is complete speculative rumour, and I was also unable to find any references discussing the term "captain's chest" in this context as well. In short, I'm sure captain's actually owned personal chests, however I am unable to find anything to indicate that this concept is any more notable than any other object that just happens to have been owned by a sea captain. Rorshacma (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if they existed, no sources means no notability. I couldn't find any sources about it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:: First of all I found that there is a section that states, and I quote "It is rumored that the US Navy employs captain's chests on ships or submarines armed" Let me say again "Rumored" this is not reliable information, and unless the creator or someone else finds a reference that supports this article, then it should be deleted. Sky^Talk 23:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can tell you from my days on U.S. Navy submarines that there is in fact a small safe in which the nuclear codes are kept, but I never heard it referred to as the captain's chest. Anyway, it is not the property of the captain and it requires two officers to open it. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:40, 22 September 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 one keep !vote provides nothing to rebut the point that notability has not been established. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Des Taylor[edit]

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

nn selfpromotional vanity piece, no secondary sources, heavily edited by subject Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But with major changes, editing and reduction in size. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no reason is given for how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 21 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) 14:00, 13 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete blatant WP:AUTOBIO. completely lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 21 September 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 Internet Icon. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers Riedell[edit]

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

Like the other Internet Icon contestants (Lana McKissack and The Fu Music), they do not pass the WP:GNG. The references are to YouTube, an unreliable source, and 4 of the external links are inappropriate due to WP:ELNO. Zappa O Mati 00:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet Icon. The show itself seems to be relatively notable, but the Brothers Riedell do not seem to be exceptionally notable outside of it. The numbers for their followers and views aren't really that impressive when you compare them to some of the more well-known YouTubers. Hannah Minx has almost half a million followers and over a hundred million views. Harry Partridge has over 300,000 followers and 80 million plus views. The reason I mention this is because you can't say that their following is so large that it would pass criteria 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Other than one source, I couldn't find coverage of these two in any independent and reliable source that specifically focused on them and not on the show.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:24, 6 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) 13:29, 13 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, as with the recently redirected Lana McKissack. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Gongshow ^Talk 23:54, 20 September 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. The word "arbitrary" is thrown around a lot, but there's not really any case made that it applies. Irregardless, numbers favour keeping, and Uzma Gamal and Colapeninsula rightly point out that chronoligical article series may reasonable use arbitrary but convenient end points so my Grandma can still read them with her dialup. Wily D 15:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for September following the September 11 attacks[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

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

Timeline is unneeded and is better served in Sept 11 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 02:44, August 24, 2012‎

Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the standard deletion templates and the unsigned template. The nomination was listed in a daily log, however due the its malformation it was not noticed as nomination, and was blank for a considerable portion of the listing time, so I am adding to today's log. Please consider the time of this comment as the time of initial listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While interesting, this unsourced blow-by-blow is effectively a news summary. There is no logical endpoint, the bloated federal bureaucracy, raging federal budget deficits, illegal military detention centers, expanded internal surveillance apparatus, mass public paranoia, etc. continue to this day. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. It's fairly arbitrary to make the cutoff point the end of September, at any rate. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-standing, interesting article. I see no reason to delete. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:INTERESTING are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The nominator seems to have missed out a bit of WP:BEFORE which, while not necessary (or even appropriate) in most deletion discussions, should have been regarded as vital here - checking the history of the article and how it is supposed to fit in with the other articles on the September 11 attacks. And the Delete !voters so far seem to have followed suit. This article is part of a restructuring of Timeline of the September 11 attacks carried out in early 2003, leaving a short summary there and splitting the detailed timeline, originally assembled in late 2001, into a sequence of articles, in which this one is immediately preceded by a timeline of the day of the attacks and succeeded by timelines for October and later. Deleting this article without touching the others would create a gap in the detailed timeline for one of the most important periods - the immediate aftermath of the attacks - leaving only the very sketchy summary in the main timeline article. And a fairly detailed continuous timeline is needed, whether in one or several articles - other articles on the September 11 attacks cover the aftermath thematically well but leave the overall chronology difficult to follow. While it is regrettable that this and most of the other timeline articles have the lax of referencing standards common in the early days of Wikipedia, this is improvable - I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that sources won't be available for most of the items in the article, even if they may be more difficult to trace than they would have been ten years ago. If, after any removals of items that can't be sourced after due effort, the detailed timeline articles are short enough, they can of course be merged either back into Timeline of the September 11 attacks or into fewer and possibly more rationally divided articles. PWilkinson (talk) 22:24, 8 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PWilkinson: offering a good way to explain the very important and notable events of 9/11 and its aftermath in an easily understood and navigable format, and as a break-out from Timeline of the September 11 attacks. Also because other media organisations have published timelines of September 2011 which indicate this is a notable topic.[1][2] Do the people wanting this deleted also propose to delete Timeline of World War II and other similar articles and sub-articles? Or is there some guidance on which topics deserve a timeline and which don't? (Also note this isn't the place for your anti-US/anti-Bush arguments.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a straw man. Of course not. Timeline of World War II covers a logical span of time (the entirety of an event). Just looking at the remainder of September 2001 after 9/11 is arbitrary, whether other people have done that or not. Do the effects just stop as of October 1? If Timeline of the September 11 attacks needs to be split, 2001 and beyond would be a more logical break point. I'll propose such a merger if this article is kept. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a straw man? 9/11 may be a little less important in the totality of world history than World War II, but we're not talking about a timeline of the Backstreet Boys reunion, we're talking about perhaps the most important news event of the 21st century so far. Obviously the effects didn't stop at October 1, that's why there's another article Timeline for October following the September 11 attacks. Did you look at Timeline of World War II? Just like Timeline of the September 11 attacks it's divided into articles Timeline of World War II (1940), Timeline of World War II (1941), etc, at arbitrary but convenient points. And despite your belief that it only covers events in a specific time span, Timeline of World War II actually covers relevant events before and after the war. The reason proposed for deletion was that timelines are unnecessary: you accept that timelines for major events are entirely proper and that it's reasonable to divide timelines and you still say "delete" above? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as right now, there were plenty or minor events following the remainder of September '01. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as per above. -- Bharathiya (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Arbitrary, mostly unsourced information. Much of the information could certainly be merged into an appropriate 9/11 article, if fully sourced. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:00, 15 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information is arbitrary and insufficiently sourced. May contain a significant amount of original research. As Carrite rightly points, there is no logical or objective endpoint to the data.--JayJasper (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PWilkinson. A timeline of the attacks is a reasonable and useful topic. This, along with the others, is one reasonable way to organize the articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This falls under WP:PURPLIST: The list is a valuable information source. "This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically." The state of the current list is that editors do not appear to be guessing what may be added to the list, so the list's inclusion criteria appears to be appropriate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:49, 28 September 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 at some point it becomes appropriate to write an article and you'd like this draft, see Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Wily D 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dazzling Girl (Shinee song)[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased song. No charting. No independent refs. No evidence of independent coverage. Google sees many cut-and-pastes of press releases but no actual coverage. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Change of previous opinion. Jun Kayama 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until at least after October 10. The article has quite some promise, and it's likely that it will chart. However, it appears to be a bit too soon at the moment, so for now at least, we should incubate it until the proper time to recreate it comes (when it's actually been released and reliable sources have come). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The material is not released, so stating it is likely to do "X,Y,or Z" is WP:TOOSOON. I was a record promoter for Warner Brothers - Elektra/Asylum Records for years, and telling me that something is "likely to chart" is an absolute pile of bologna. Charting depends on many factors, one of the least of which is actual talent. The label will have to invest publicity, promotion, tour support, album design, marketing, etc, etc.. One of the biggest hurdles will be where the "release" falls on the promotion schedule/list, because if they aren't at the top of the push, they will be left to fend for themselves. So stating; "...it's likely that it will chart" is questionable at best, and probably not going to happen to anyone's satisfaction without some portion of luck and the equations of release timing placing the record without much similar competition, available new chart slots, sufficient label support, yadda, yadda, yadda. Predicting the success of any musical release is impractical at best (if it ever even happens...labels set new priorities all the time and pull releases frequently to pursue other projects at a whim). Suggesting anything about the success of this pending "release" is WAY WP:TOOSOON...if at all. In addition, the suggestion of a "probable chart" is pretty much a matter of promotion as well Яεñ99 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For EN language source Karo Taro Greenfeld covered it in Speed Tribes, but Japan's domestic music industry is a Yakuza-run payola scheme distinct from the American model. I nod to the Delete vote on WP:TOOSOON knowing full well this article will only be resurrected on 10/10, but for this song, CM tie-ins for ｢じゅわいよ・くちゅーるマキ｣and singles placed on television programs (in this case ｢スッキリ!!｣ for NTV) ensure eventual charting on Oricon. Actual talent has very little to do with the success of idol groups in the Japanese market. I may personally loathe the article for being WP:PROMOTION but this song will chart because Oricon has demonstrated repeatedly that is what happens to singles with tie-ins in Japan. Jun Kayama 02:37, 20 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's never too soon for any topic for which reliable sources are writing about. However, no reliable sources are writing about Dazzling Girl (Shinee) so the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm wondering if you have the capacity to access Japanese-language sources. [3] They were on Fuji TV yesterday morning with the song in question. [4] Jun Kayama 18:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Publicity is only a part of the payola machine. Even assuming good faith, that we see them on TV simply suggests that the publicity department at the label is spending money/influence to push the release. Still WP:TOOSOON for it to pan out at this time. (Just as an example, The Rolling Stones "Play With Fire" from 1965, arguably a fantastic song for fans of the group and the era, failed to chart in the UK and only charted Top 96 in the US). Being popular, being good, being well-known means very little until the record gets released and makes it to market to climb the charts - and the label has a very great deal to do with that. The reason gold albums have to be certified sales now, not just shipped gold, is a problem stretching back to Cher's releases when Geffen would ship an album gold knowing full well that returns would be eaten to maintain the sales certification. Chart position is just as volatile; it absolutely cannot be said "for sure" - it has to be seen when the release occurs and the position happens. Can't put the cart before the ox here. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then would incubation be the solution in this case? If it never charts, then it can always be deleted anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, an Encyclopedia should not be about "if's" and "maybe's." You incubate an egg, but that doesn't mean it will hatch into anything useful. When it is released and charts, then you will have opportunity to relish it's success. Again, there should be no rush to "push" to measure the success of something that may not evolve. It's just a matter of speculation at this point, yet another WP we try to avoid :) "All you need is just a little patience...mmm, yeah-eh-eh." Chart position is like an orgasm, you aren't guaranteed to have one! Яεñ99 (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The song in question is already on rotation in television commercials and is the theme song for this show [5] so this isn't purely an Oricon charting issue - it's already in the eye of the Japanese public. Rather than go round in pointless circles on this and segue into how much different the Japanese idol machine is from anything in the West, I've changed my earlier vote to Delete. The article can be recreated when it meets WP:GNG without question. Jun Kayama 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Michaela den (talk) 02:25, 28 September 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 a10, covered by Service (economics). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service mix[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, seems to be some sort of philosophical topic, I PRODded it and the tag was removed by the creator. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:04, 20 September 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) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points Vulture[edit]

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

A neologism not used by reliable sources, deprod'ed by creator. A Google search "Points Vulture" -"In tennis, a Points Vulture is generally a player who over-inflates their ranking" which removes Wikipedia mirrors gives almost nothing of relevance except a few forum posts. It appears to be a pejorative term occasionally used by fans of other players to bash a player they don't like. Per WP:BLP I have removed unsourced claims that some named players are "points vultures". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC) PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly not a term used in the press or books. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasons given by PrimeHunter. It's a colloquial term used on forums but not suitable for a WikiPedia article.--Wolbo (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per... Totally non-encyclopedic, unsourced, lame style and statement within the article. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - term not used in media. --August90 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-encyclopedic article. --Stryn (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last-Minute Lies[edit]

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

searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:48, 20 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, 20 September 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 without prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Roosevelt (Monticello)[edit]

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

User:76.189.97.59 requested on my talk page that I nom this for deletion. No sources, no notability. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any coverage on this camp to establish notability. And the article has zero references. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google searches turn up a number of references to this camp, in particular a number of articles about people who were campers or counselors (Clifford Odets![6] Ralph Lauren![7]). Also, e.g.[8][9] There's also a bunch of false positives since there were a bunch of other camps by the same name (including one that was, annoyingly, near Monticello, Virginia). Needs further review. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, we can't use other Wikipedia articles (of this camp's alumni) as sources to establish the notability of this subject (the camp). And you're right, there are many places called "Camp Roosevelt" so you have to search using the camp's location, Monticello, New York. Also, as you've shown, there are just some quick mentions in a couple of recent newspaper stories about other subjects. That's it. But there's not a single reliable source that's about the camp itself. Like I said, there's just no notability. Thanks. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:46, 14 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) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I want to say keep. Campers from the New York City metropolitan area going to Camp Roosevelt (Monticello) 1926 until the 1980s means that at least a few people have written about the topic. Such Catskills camps were the topic of several movies, but I'm not sure whether this specific camp was. Modern news articles don't add up to too much information: South Florida Sun-Sentinel January 9, 2005, "Bert Manhoff part owner of Camp Roosevelt in Monticello, N.Y., from 1964 through '83, Mr. Manhoff received the Association of Private Camps Distinguished Award in 1980."Star-Ledger July 11, 2005. New York Times August 18, 2005. You probably would need to look in older newspapers to see whether there is enough source material for an article on the topic. Google books seems to have some good hits. I think someone would need to put in the effort to pull out the source information before you could conclude the topic meets WP:GNG. No objection to recreating the article with reliable source information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:11, 28 September 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 Symbolic (Death album). Albums are usually a better target than the artist for songs, as long as the album has an entry Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Words (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of indepth reviews. Since it appears to be of significance to the band, redirecting and mergeing to Chuck Schuldiner also seems workable. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chuck Schuldiner As stated above, this is a non-notable song as per Wikipedia's song notability requirements, however, redirecting seems like a more logical course of action.--Riverrunner123 (talk) 03:37, 14 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) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge but maybe to Symbolic (Death album). I think someone searching for the song will more likely be satisfied to find information on the album, not the guy who wrote the song. hajat vrc @ 07:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Gresham[edit]

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

Non-notable artist fails WP:MUSICNOTE, self-published album, various nominations with no awards MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 01:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:43, 6 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) 13:59, 13 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Exchange[edit]

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

No independent notability shown for this album. Unsourced and little more than a track listing. I found nothing with significanct coverage of this album Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUM. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 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) 14:35, 13 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and I haven't found any Billboard listings aside from what appears to be an irrelevant result. However, there is a BBC news article here, that mentions the album and church once. As I've mentioned at other AfDs, it is not surprising that a religion music album would've received little to no news coverage, and if any, it would be insignificant. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 20 September 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technogypsie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, possible original research; article is solely reliant on sources associated with the subject and the coining or appropriation of the term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Digital nomad, which seems pretty much the same thing and appears more common[10][11][12][13][14]. Similar concepts exist under a lot of different names, e.g. "21st Century minimalist"[15], "technomad"[16] or "techno-nomad"[17] but we only need 1 article. This title with the "-sie" spelling is one of the less common names for the phenomenon, so you'd want to merge/move it elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some overlap between the two but they don't seem quite the same, plus the latter article is also rather sparse, poorly sourced and of questionable notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not identical but they're sufficiently similar that they can be treated in the same article (in essence they're similar but Technogypsies are more new-agey while digital nomads have less spiritual baggage). I agree that Digital nomad isn't the greatest article, but I listed more sources above which indicate room for improvement. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 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) 18:17, 12 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 20 September 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Louis[edit]

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

Delete This article doesn't seem to prove that person is suitable notable for inclusion on wikipedia. It seems to be a glorified CV Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks good per GNG. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:57, 6 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) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Israel sports radio (and change the name of that article to "Israel Sports Radio") Delete. The Haaretz and Jerusalem Post pieces establish notability for ISR, but I find no evidence that Ari Louis has separate notablity. A search of the Phoenix New Times website for ("ari louis") yielded the piece cited in the article (and nothing else); but a string search for (louis) in the piece turned up nothing. The article claims that Louis hosted a talk show in Tucson for five years, starting in 2002, that made him a "cult celebrity"; but a search of the Tucson Weekly (Tucson arts-and-entertainment tabloid) archives for ("louis live"), checking individual years from 2002 to 2007 inclusive, yielded nothing of relevance, although the Weekly has a "Media Watch" column, and another by a sports enthusiast. The claims for Louis's individual notability seem to rest on WP:INHERITED from the Haaretz and Post pieces about ISR, and on assertions regarding his Arizona career that lack verifiable evidence. Ammodramus (talk) 19:39, 19 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look like Louis has separate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smellysox92 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a WP:GNG pass as asserted above - the coverage cited is all about Israel Sports Radio. St Anselm (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I reconsidered my !vote, above, after re-reading the Ari Louis article. There doesn't appear to be enough sourced information in it, nor do the sources cited contain enough information, to make a useful addition to the ISR article. My check of the Arizona arts-and-entertainment papers suggests that we wouldn't be able to find useful sources on Louis before his move to Israel. Ammodramus (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The source information - Phoenix New Times August 30, 2007, Jerusalem Post October 1, 2010, Ynet News October 2, 2010, Haaretz January 21, 2011, Jerusalem Post July 22, 2011, Jerusalem Post July 6, 2012 - doesn't amount to enough source information to meet WP:GNG for a biography article. There might be more information in non-English sources, but the likelihood of that isn't high enough to change a delete into a keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andie Valentino[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her nominations being all scene-related. Fails the general notability guidelines for not having significant reliable source coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON as the subject appears to fail WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO, & WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Lacks significant reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Svartalvheim[edit]

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

searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enought reliable source material (I didn't find any) for the topic to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:25, 16 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS Secret ^account 22:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article reads, "Svartalvheim is Ancient's debut album. It was recorded between November 1993 and May 1994 at Hindu Lyd." The only mention of "Svartalvheim" I could find was Waikato Times June 9, 2009, which appeas to be about a band, not an album. There could be non-English source material in Norway, but at least some of that would need to come forth first before I could think about changing from delete to keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last-Minute Lies[edit]

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

searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from notable/reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:48, 20 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, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final_Days[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Final Days

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

Unpublished draft of a book by a 15 year old. Article is unformatted and unreferenced. LeSnail (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The unformatted part is easily fixed, but not the rest of it. The book is unpublished, has no sources about it whatsoever, and is entirely unnotable. Its a shame that there's no valid category to tag this as a Speedy Delete, rather than having to go through the whole AFD process. Rorshacma (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very obviously not yet notable. Rather than let this progress to some sort of pile it on thing, someone should close this soon. --Lquilter (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close. There are zero and I emphasize zero sources for this article. The only thing I can find on the internet about this book is this particular Wikipedia entry. While it's always commendable when anyone writes a book, let alone at such a young age, writing a book does not extend notability at any age, at least not enough to warrant meriting an entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny R. Figueroa[edit]

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

A retired Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army. Military career doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. Worked as a product manager at Picatinny Arsenal while in the military One reference comes from Picatinny, other come from the military and both say he is the new incoming product manager. Currently pursing a Ph.D. while working a Picatinny as a civilian. Unable to find any references that don't come from the Army. Prod was removed because, "references from independed reliable sources were added" Bgwhite (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Looks like an attempt to promote his post-service career. Qworty (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER guideline and generally does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is not "significant" nor "independent of the subject". EricSerge (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And not that it matters, but this looks like a vanity piece. EricSerge (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline A. Chen[edit]

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

No evidence of notability (contested PROD) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NPR review and Plain Dealer, plus the general level of attention in non-reliable sources, was barely sufficient notability for me to see this as meeting WP:AUTHOR. Admittedly on the bubble, and the article could use some work, but I think there is a useful stub here. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sua sponte recusal. I created the article. I thought tagged myself because I was too heavly invested and I was asking the community to help contribute. So, it seems I used the wrong tag to request help. Live and learn. See the talk page of the article for my discussion on the reasons to keep. Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank everyone, including the people, who propose to delete, for taking time and attention on this article. I defer to consensus. Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible cites in GS. Reviews seem not substantial. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. The Red Chamber has enough press that I think it may be (barely) notable, including the NPR and Plain Dealer reviews cited in the article and also pieces in the Daily Mail and Sunday Sun found in highbeam [18] [19]. But that's not enough for its notability to be inherited by its author. If an article on The Red Chamber ends up being created, it should be ok for this article's title to redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can understand how an author can be notable and a book that they wrote not be notable, but the other way around just doesn't make sense to me. The notable book couldn't exist without the author. If there is another example in Wikipedia of a notable book whose author isn't, I'd be grateful to be pointed to it so I can try to understand this logic. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Ubelowme; Autobiography of a Geisha, although that's a very unusual case that doesn't really apply here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets minimum requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (people), a stub that can be expanded.Righteousskills (talk) 19:02, 27 September 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) 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It Takes Two (Singaporean TV series)[edit]

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

Was supposedly speedied, but I think its been contested somewhat. The contestors reasoning was that it would be recreated for another time. (See the articles talk page) Nevertheless, we cannot follow that kind of logic. Policies like WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL are here for a reason, and hence we should delete this unreferenced page first. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~, G4, per the original AFD. This was created (from a redirect) a couple weeks after the AFD with no obvious improvements. I'm not even sure what you mean by "I think its been contested somewhat".. there was an invalid prod nomination but no speedy noms other than the one you declined. Hairhorn (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's improved; the original version was still speediable, despite the wobbly decline reasoning. Hairhorn (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't see much improvement, other than the addition of three little sources Which I don't think have much significance, as per my comments below. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess I haven't been through the sources. But if there's so little improvement, it should have been speedied long ago. Hairhorn (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This television drama has a wide coverage in the Singaporean media (see this, this and this), so it should meet WP:VERIFY. This article does not seem to be an advert as well, and the drama is already confirmed by Mediacorp, and not, as I quote "product announcements and rumors". As per the above reasons, I think that this article does not meet WP:CRYSTAL criteria and thus should not be deleted. Lastly, looking at the previous AFD, the main concern raised there is about the insufficient coverage of the drama in the media, and as I mentioned above, this situation has already changed, so there should not be any room for contention now.--Lionratz (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How much more proof do admin need? Official Website (in Chinese)Insiders Blog by one of the actors. xinmsn is MediaCorp's web portal (a collaboration with MSN) so it can be taken as an official source. Acsian88 (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources in the article itself that appear to be reliable, like the one from AsiaOne, and the CNA one, but actually they are just rather brief mentions of the show, and do not go in depth about the show and such. Example. This source mentions more about the actor supposedly starring in the drama, rather than chronicling about the show. It also does not say if production has actually started or ended, and the given release date could just be tentative speculation. Same here for this second source. Talks mostly, 95% about the actor and her role, and briefly mentions the show in two lines or so. The xin msn one, I have already posted a short message on the reliable source noticeboard, so we'll have to wait for other people's opinions if its a WP:RS or not. (One thing though, official source may not be a reliable one) So, are those reliable enough? Do this few puny sources assert strong notability? Tell you what, wait till November, when there will most likely be more news coverage. As for now, we should either userfy, incubate, or just downright delete. Thank you. If you disagree, please comment. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rachana Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable (most of the refs are about her husband, or are non-reliable). A previous AfD was withdrawn by its nominator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete tried to make it in neutral tone but may not meet wikiGNG . and source never qoute about the notability of the MS Rachana Shah

New york times source : Please have a look at the source it talks about home & Garden, and not about the said author , the whole article focus is on the writer mr Tahir Shah and not on Rachana shah (as she gets named once of being the wife of author) and no work or notablity is mentioned in the article .
Los angels review : Talks about the book Timbuctoo and nothing about the designer of the cover (the said ms Rachana Shah) , Please also note that not even a single times the name of Ms Rachana shah comes in the article
The independent : Again please note that this is a book review and no where in the article there is remote mention of the name Rachana Shah .

so much for the above links , we cannot establish the claim that she is the creator or the designer of the cover of the book (which is being claimed) nor can we establish her notablity of her or of her work. is a strong delete criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Shrikanthv (talk · contribs) withdrew the first AfD after two failed speedy A7s and after having deleted most of the article at the start of that first AfD. That included deleting reliable sources.
Also, Rachana Shah did not just design the cover, she was the book designer and the design is a key feature of the limited edition hardcover.
Every time a reviewer has positive things to say about the design of the book, then that is a credit to Rashana Shah as the designer of the book, even if her name is not mentioned, just as positive things said about the prose is a credit to the author.
The design of the book is described in detail in the LA Review of Books and as opulent in The Independent. "Opulent" is not a trivial word, and it refers to the design by Rachana Shah.
Though not at all the best of sources, this is perhaps good enough to establish the simple fact that Rachana Shah was the book designer?
The New York Times article is used to verify several simple aspects of Rashana Shah's birth and career in graphic design, and it does this job perfectly adequately. Read the article again.
Primary or self-published sources, though not prohibited, have been used with care.
And lastly, what do you mean by "neutral tone"? I see nothing about NPOV in the article. If you still mean because the article has an external link (which you deleted at the last AfD, considering it commercial), I think that it is perfectly reasonable for a BLP to have an external link to the official web site. This is common practice and is also an informal courtesy to the subject of BLPs. Esowteric+Talk 19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only reason for withdrawl was to support the article and get it into rigth tone of wiki NPOV , which it is currently failing

"Positive things " it would be better to keep a detachment from the subject of the article so that it comes out right.
The articles in all the newspaper never have qouted her name , so it could be anyone , may be the author of the book has himself who has done this , until unless proven we cannot consider Ms Rachana Shah as the author or the designer of the article. or also the popularity of the design or her does not gets mentioned anywhere.
neutral tone = wiki NPOV

Shrikanthv (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Merge basic info into Tahir Shah. This article fails on so many levels. It is best to let this one go and if awards and solid secondary sources come forward then a separate article could be re-considered. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE, and sources are insufficient for WP:GNG. The NYT article is about her husband, not her; it verifies the statements made but doesn't confer notability. The bio on her own website is clearly not independent. The LA Review of Books doesn't mention her once, nor does The Independent. The RISD list is just that - a mention in a list. Her resume doesn't count towards notability for obvious reasons and Amazon listings for her husband's books are equally unusable. The Timbuctoo website mentions her in passing only, and is not independent to boot. Frankly, the NYT article is the only thing here that even comes close to a useable source, and it's not enough for an article. The mentions she already gets in her husband's article are currently about all that can be said with the presently available sources, so there's nothing additional to merge. Yunshui 雲‍水
Note: The article creator has not yet commented here. Esowteric+Talk 10:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final note: Thanks, guys. Lack of notability seems about right, given what you've said. Alas, that leaves Book publishing people -> Category:Book designers, nil. Shrikanthv I think perhaps that your grievance here is that you consider the article to breach WP:NOTADVERTISING and are confusing that with NPOV? Thanks all the same. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Eric. For others, I'm the article creator. Very sad to see this article going, but clearly there's nothing more we can add at this moment to keep it up. Book designers are not usually credited for their work, so this makes things a bit more difficult. Timbuctoo was truly a special book due to the quality of its design, using typefaces dating back to the era in which the book was set, marbled endpapers, etc. Apparently, it's not noteworthy enough at this time. And BTW, I am not Rachana Shah or Tahir Shah. Blue Lupine 14:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The subject has a bit coverage in print media but that is not supporting to have an article on wikipedia, we have to follow the rules not desires. I do realy not see that Shrikanthv's points and concerns are not valid as wiki policies.Justice007 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Non notable on her own, merge into husbands article as suggested above. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a common name, some of whom experienced tragedy: [20][21][22][23][24]. Information about the above noted Rachana Shah includes Times of India February 7, 2006 and New York Times March 30, 2006. That is not enough source material to meet WP:GNG. Beyond this, seems unlikely there is enough source material out there for the topic to meet GNG.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:03, 28 September 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.

Rick Hendrix[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweed Run[edit]

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

Fails notability. This event has been covered in a blog post on the Guardian website [25] and some cycling blog posts[26] but it lacks the sustained, in depth coverage required by the notability criteria. The kind of annual events that typically have Wikipedia articles about them draw tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of participants. This event drew only 400 in 2010. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I had checked Google News, ProQuest and General OneFile, and didn't find significant news coverage. I'd forgotten that I just got a Questia login yesterday, and found significant coverage there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:49, 20 September 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 Bedtime for Democracy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenshit Conformist[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Fails WP:NSONGS. Was never released as a single, no independent notability, no evidence of significant secondary source coverage. Nothing here but unsourced statements, no hope of ever being more than a stub.". PROD tag was removed by an IP with no reason stated. IllaZilla (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its parent album Bedtime for Democracy, possibly without the "in popular culture" section, which would seem to be deprecated. Not much discussion of this song in reliable sources, and still less outside of reviews of the album. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Good song by a great band, but ain't no sourcing of which I'm aware... Carrite (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several other related articles (all non-notable Dead Kennedys songs) were also PRODed and deleted for the same reasons [Pull My Strings, Moon Over Marin, Jock-O-Rama (Invasion of the Beef Patrol), A Growing Boy Needs His Lunch, and Buzzbomb (song)]. I don't see anything different about this one. One generally expects to find 1 or 2 sentences on any given song within the context of album reviews, but that's all I can find for this one. Nothing that would make it stand alone. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There's a mention in Do politics and rock remain a viable mix? Montreal Gazette October 6, 2001 ("Rock'n'roll will always have an enemy, whether for the DKs or Elvis. That enemy is complacency, and if a song called Chickenshit Conformist counters the kind of thinking that might seek to rehabilitate the "Reagan Revolution," all the better."). Another mention in Miami New Times February 7, 2002" "The final studio effort, 1986's Bedtime for Democracy, pushed for musical innovation with the disturbing "Chickenshit Conformist" and "DMSO." ". Unlikely to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Jaitly[edit]

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

No independent sources, no indication that this passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC , in fact the article makes no claim about notability at all. Candidate for speedy delete. LK (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF (for his academic work) or WP:GNG (for his economic consulting activities). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 23 September 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 A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zalute[edit]

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

WP:TNT.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Müdigkeit (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... it's not even clear what this is about, other than "an OutlawRbg military salute started by Malik Killiam of the OUTLAW-RBG Movement". Gotcha. Hairhorn (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, it's not precisely clear what this is about. But it seems to fall under WP:MADEUP. "The OUTLAW-RBG Movement is a grassroots movement that is taking Atlanta, Hip-Hop Music, and the world by storm." Um, no, apparently not -- at least not in reliable sources, according to my search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:19, 20 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish diplomats assassinated by Armenian Terrorist Organisations[edit]

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

The information is already covered in List of attacks by ASALA and Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide George Spurlin (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. Looking at Mr Spurlin's contributions I have got the impression (as have some other users) that he is more interested in separating or lessening when possible the references to "Armenians and terrorism". In other words, I do not see his work here in WP -in general- on terrorism-related articles as objective. This is not a personal attack but yes a good-faith accusation; as we are here to make an objective encyclopedia, and of course he can respond to my criticism. --E4024 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your good-faith criticism is noted. I would like to say that my actions have been mostly reactionary. Since the Safarov's pardon earlier this month, some Azerbaijani and Turkish users have begun a campaign to add the "terrorist" word to as many Armenian articles as they can. And I believe some of those additions were done in bad faith and on a battleground mentality. So I see your point that in the last month my edits have been anti-Azerbaijani/Turkish, but it's only because at the moment there aren't any active Armenian POV pushers . George Spurlin (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article - the article has detailed list, sources and covers the organized activities by Armenian Terrorist Organizations to Turkish diplomats.Konullu (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no real rationale for deletion at this time. --Nounique names 03:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is quite informative, I see no good reason for deletion. Grandmaster 19:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundancy. Sprutt (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list of terrorist attacks which have significance for millions of people around the world. For turks, azeris, armenians and for the people from different countries which want to know about armenian terrorism and how terrible it was. Wertuose (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Going by the lack of similar lists in the [[Category:Lists of victims of crimes]], this lists seems to be the first of the type ...assassinated by terrorist organization. Is this true? If so, we should be aware that we are dealing with a precedent and that similar lists are bound to follow soon, once this gets a green light. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nouniquenames. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why to remove a well-sourced article? I noticed that several articles related to assassination of Turkish diplomats were removed lately without proper discussion. Angel670 talk 17:41, 26 September 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. Wily D 15:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jackson[edit]

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

I can't see any notability here. A Google search lists Nick Jacksons that are clearly not this person - a boat equipment company and an artist instead of this broadcaster. The one English-language link is a trivial mention that says nearly nothing about him. Note: If deleted, the disambiguation page Nicholas Jackson should go to, since it would not link to any articles. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He gets a bit of press so might just be notable: brief review[27], articles on him in trade press[28][29], mentions[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and it might be worth checking local press. But at the same time I wouldn't be bothered if this was deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trade presses are useful as sources, but never establish notability for anything - their purpose is to promote their industry and everyone working it. Mere mentions don't establish notability either. That leaves your first link, which at least is mostly about Jackson, but is short and says very little. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Trade presses ... never establish notability for anything" Care to offer any evidence for that rather sweeping claim? I frequently see trade press cited to help prove notability, e.g. Billboard in music discussions, Publishers Weekly and Library Journal in book discussions, Variety for films, Computer Weekly/InfoWorld/The Register in computing and IT, The Chronicle of Higher Education/Times Higher Education Supplement for academics, etc. Are you saying none of them are allowed in AfD? There are big difference in trade magazines and they need to be assessed individually. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, as I had a different understanding of what "trade press" means than you did. I meant a magazine published, for example, by North American Broadcasters Association, which truly does exist just to promote broadcasting, as opposed to Radio Today, an independent magazine about radio. Two different things, and your trade press sources are the later, clearly. That said, the mentions are quite trivial, merely mentioning that he's changing jobs. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ if someone recognizable like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Bhatt_(musician) doesn't qualify then this person DEFINITELY does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE Wikijustice2013 (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. They are just copy/pasting the same Delete "vote" and comment in every AfD. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[37][38]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:40, 11 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:58, 13 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a promotional magazine is worthless as source or claim of notability, because it is always close to the subject. Delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 01:38, 21 September 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 Initial Teaching Alphabet. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zess[edit]

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

Letters of the Latin alphabet, due to its widespread use, are notable. Letters from the Initial Teaching Alphabet? I don't think so. None of the other letters of the ITA have their own articles, and the article does not appear to assert any notability. Pokajanje|Talk 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any content to Initial Teaching Alphabet, and delete this article. Do not replace with a redirect, because there are other potential targets for "zess", and it should eventually become a disambig page. —Quiddity (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Initial Teaching Alphabet. I can't imagine there's much to say about a single letter; currently the article doesn't say much. Cnilep (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep building blocks. Wakari07 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. "Building blocks" is not a valid argument. Pokajanje|Talk 22:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete argument is basically OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST; I would say this is a reasonably notable subject, and the fact that there are not yet articles on any other ITA letters is perhaps a commentary more on our incompleteness than on their notability. ZX95 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure why there should be a separate article on this, but in fact there's more to say about zess than there would be about most other letters of the I.T.A. I definitely don't think there should be 45 separate articles on all 45 I.T.A. letters... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Especially since a good number of them are simply Latin letters. Pokajanje|Talk 15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AnonMoos (or anyone else who can answer), I would be interested to know what more you think there is to say, as I am not very familiar with ITA. The article says zess looks like a backward z and is used where s is pronounced /z/. Is there more to it than that? Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say there's much more to be said than is already said, just that there's more to say about Zess than many of the other letters of the I.T.A... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...And even that's not much. Pokajanje|Talk 23:30, 20 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn´t notable enough alone, or are there any reliable sources that have that specific letter as a theme? No, Merge!--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I didn't find any article mentioning Initial Teaching Alphabet that also mentioned "Zess". There is not enough source information for the Zess topic to meet WP:GNG to justify a stand alone article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:19, 28 September 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. What I said in the closure of the first AfD still applies, but this time the community's opinion about this article borders on a "keep" consensus, with those who consider it original research by synthesis clearly in the minority. Sandstein 12:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biology and political orientation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no evidence for notability, the page is essentially a synthesis of sources that don't even pass WP:MEDRS. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:49, 8 September 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 September 12. Snotbot t • c » 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as synthesis. This article pulls together unrelated studies and creates a new topic. If any of the studies have any notability, which is doubtful, then they can be put into their own article. We put together for example the view that there is a liberal gene and that liberal and conservative brain structures differ. If this were a field of study worthy of an article then we should be able to find a secondary source that writes about both theories. Much of the article is about the differences between liberal and conservative psychology, which is irrelevant unless the sources say that the psychological differences have a biological difference. TFD (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this content is worth saving, but it should be merged into a new section in Genopolitics rather than as its own article. This is a major topic of concern in political science, but it doesn't yet merit its own article. Thosjleep (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not a new topic. Research applying concepts and techniques from the life sciences to political science dates back to the 1960s.[39][40] Although, it is only in the last decade or so that this approach has gained wider acceptance and prominence within political science, as techniques from behavioral genetics and neuroscience have begun to be applied specifically to questions in political science. For introductory style articles, see [41][42]. Some of the material in this article is original synthesis e.g. the focus on Kanazawa's work (also the idea that there is a "liberal gene" is a misrepresentation that has been called out in the literature), but collecting together neuroscientific and genetic approaches to political science is definitely not an original synthesis, e.g. [43][44]. Plenty of sources exist to write a general article on the intersection of biology and political science. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not new, and notable as noted from such reliable sources as the NY Times. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please name one article. TFD (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just gone through the article and removed a lot of material that doesn't belong, rearranged some things and deleted some duplicated material. The history section under Politics and the life sciences from the Biopolitics article should also be merged in some form across to this article, although in its current form it's a bit OR-y and not NPOV. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Biopolitics It came out in the last afd, which wasn't that long ago, that this rather shoddy article duplicates the scope of another article about the same thing, Biopolitics, but it was too late in the afd to make a consensus for merging. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I pointed out in the last AfD, that wouldn't be a particularly good idea for several reasons that are amply described in this paper [45]. Firstly, biopolitics is now overwhelming used in political science to refer to a separate concept owing to Foucault. Secondly, modern researchers in this area have for the most part avoided using the term biopolitics to describe their field and some have suggested other names (e.g. Lopez & McDermott (2012) suggest political ethology; c.f. Alford & Hibbing (2008) using the term empirical biopolitics). --92.4.165.211 (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur, Biopolitics is a completely different topic. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Whatever happens to the contents here, this title should not redirect there. That is basically a disambiguation page. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:42, 25 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of the nomination that the topic is not notable is incorrect. For example, here's a book with much the same title and topic. The research is described as cutting edge and so should be treated with caution but we ought to have a place to cover this developing field. Warden (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the same topic. The book is about how political issues can be resolved by looking at individual behavior as biologically determined. For example, infant abandonment is a political issue, because society must decide what to do with the child and the parents, but the causes of child abandonment can be understood through understanding human behaviour as developed through biological evolution. It says nothing about how biology could influence political orientation. TFD (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Erm, no. You are very confused. The material covered in that particular book is exactly what this article is about, the application of biological concepts and techniques to help explain political ideology and behavior. The separation of that book into two main sections titled Genes, Evolution and Politics and The Brain and Political Behavior should be rather telling even if you were to look no deeper than that. For instance, the chapter by Hannagan is a reasonably thorough review of the behavioral genetics side of things even if it is a little too dismissive of some of the criticism this research has had. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, the title of the article is something of a red herring. Research in this area does not examine just political orientation, that would be completely naive. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we looking at the same article? I see several studies specifically looking at the relationship between biology (maybe more like neuroscience) and political orientation, and this remains a popular, if controversial, area of study. Biopolitics is a bit of a mess, so I don't like the idea of merging there. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please name one study TFD (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trolling? See Biology and political orientation#References. I see references number 2-8, 10-11, 16-18, and 20 that are directly relevant (not to discount the utility of the others). But surely you saw these before. Do you think all of these references are somehow illegitimate, and you're asking me for another one? --BDD (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure how they tally "name one source" with the fact that six studies are actually referenced in the article itself (plus a few other scholarly articles on this subject), or the links I gave to several scholarly secondary sources above. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A curious topic but there seem to be some sources. Whether one believes it is beside the point. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Could you please name one source. TFD (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the article Biology and political orientation for several sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis ----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest, why specifically do you believe this to be synthesis given the variety of scholarly sources covering this topic linked above?
  - Somit, Albert; Peterson, Steven A. (July 1998). "Biopolitics after Three Decades - A Balance Sheet". British Journal of Political Science. 28 (3): 559–571.
  - Robert H. Blank; Jr, Samuel M. Hines (2001). Biology and Political Science. Routledge Studies in Science, Technology, and Society, Volume 4. London [u.a.]: Routledge. ISBN 9780415204361.
  - Fowler, J. H.; Schreiber, D. (7 November 2008). "Biology, Politics, and the Emerging Science of Human Nature" (PDF). Science. 322 (5903): 912–914. doi:10.1126/science.1158188.
  - Alford, John R.; Hibbing, John R. (1 June 2008). "The New Empirical Biopolitics". Annual Review of Political Science. 11 (1): 183–203. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060806.161216.
  - Steven A. Peterson; Albert Somit (eds.). Biology and Politics: The Cutting Edge. Research in Biopolitics, Volume 9. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. ISBN 9780857245793.
  - McDermott, Rose (2011). Peter K. Hatemi; Rose McDermott (eds.). Man is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226319117.

All of these are secondary academic sources discussing this specific topic, the influence of biology on political ideology/attitudes and behavior. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A word on sources: This is a medical article meaning it has to abide by WP:MEDRS. Yes this article has a reference section but not one single reference passes MEDRS. If you removed every citation that fails MEDRS there wouldn't be an article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it needs deleting, but that standard does not apply unless someone is likely to come to the article seeking medical advise which they are not. Pleased to see you getting the synthesis point by the way. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more psychology than medicine. (Nor is it psychiatry—no one is taking pills to change political orientation.) As Snowded says, it's difficult to imagine this article being used for medical advice. Could you elaborate on how these references fail MEDRS? --BDD (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more behavioral genetics, behavioral neuroscience, psychophysiology and evolutionary psychology as it currently stands (although I have the impression that some research may have looked at psychopharmacology in the past). Guidance on medical sources is not relevant here, other than in a good sense sort of way e.g. using the popular press as sources. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a medical article (regarding the description or treatment of a medical condition). This is pure and applied science. MEDRS does not apply. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason I said a few months ago when this went to AFD already. Ample sources have been found and are in the article. I noticed that recently an IP address removed a large chunk of the article, despite those sections being sourced. [46] I see nothing wrong with the previous version of the article. Anyway, Wikipedia:MEDRS doesn't apply, since if you read the opening paragraph on that page, it says clearly that some people use Wikipedia for health information, and thus you have to be careful. No one is using information in this article to know what medicines or practices to use, so its not relevant. Dream Focus 13:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the edit summaries, whether that material was sourced or not was irrelevant. Notionally, this article covers biology and politics, not biology, politics and anything else you can find about the psychology of liberals and conservatives. Another article, political psychology, would be the place, if any, for that. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you are mistaken, WP:MEDRS lead paragraph says as an introduction: " it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." Are you denying that Physiology and Genetics are fields of Biomedical research? Are you denying that Medical research is covered by MEDRS? I am aware it is difficult to read policies and guidelines beyond the first line, but it helps. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's out of context. The entire thing reads Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. It explains the reasons why in the first sentence, and the second sentence begins with "therefore" just in case you didn't connect the it with the first sentence. Dream Focus 19:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, exactly, because wikipedia is a widely used source of health information it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable sources. That is exactly what I said, and exactly what is covered by MEDRS. It's about medical related studies, of course MEDRS applies. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing this on the talk page. Talk:Biology_and_political_orientation#MEDRS There is absolutely no possible way anyone would base any medical decision of theirs on what they read here, so it does not apply. That guideline is to keep people from getting bad advice that might harm them. There are no pills or surgery to alter your genes currently available, so its not relevant. Dream Focus 07:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources found by 92.4.165.211 and listed above show that the article can be improved substantially. Currently it seems heavily sourced from a couple of recent studies. This isn't enough however for me to !vote delete because the material should probably be included in the article is some form, perhaps with less emphasis, in any case. We do want science-related articles to be up-to-date. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely you will see that the papers selected are those primary papers that happened to be picked up by newspapers and not scientists. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is a synthesis. The sourcing is completely inadequate for WP:MEDRS and no adequate sourcing has been demonstrated. Material about Physiology and Genetics are within the field of medical research and are subject to MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not a synthesis, as has been adequately shown above. And you misunderstand WP:MEDRS. Genetics and physiology are not subfields of biomedicine, they are subfields of biology. Biomedicine often involves these, but things like behavioral genetics and behavioral neuroscience are not in themselves biomedicine unless applied to medical disorders. Out of interest, what journals would you dismiss as non-MEDRS compliant? Nature Neuroscience, Behavior Genetics, Science, Biodemography and Social Biology, Motivation and Emotion, Current Biology, Neuropsychologia, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, Social Neuroscience, Twin Research and Human Genetics, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Trends in Genetics? All of these have published research in this area, I've linked to examples. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are subfields of biomedical research, also, it's not the journals are at issue, it's that the article relies on primary papers which have been selected based on what appeared in newspapers. There is no sign that this is a legitimate topic with legitimate academic secondary sourcing. Instead it has been constructed from newspaper sources and associated articles, and then linked together in a synthesis. As shown below, editors voting keep have a hard time distinguishing this article from other related articles like Biology and politics science, biopolitics and Genopolitics. Please list how you think this topic is distinct from each of these. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are simply incorrect about them being subfields of biomedical research. An intersection does not imply that one topic is a subset of another, what is the medical context here? Behavioral sciences are not a subfield of biomedicine. As someone pointed out, thankfully as I was looking for it and couldn't find it, the relevant guidance is WP:SCIRS. My argument during this AfD has only ever been that there should be an article on the relevance of biology to political science for which there are an abundance of reliable secondary sources, many linked to in this AfD. Biopolitics contained a brief, very general overview of the topic, but isn't the proper place for such an article, for reasons pointed out above, and Genopolitics focuses only on the behavioral genetic research and cannot provide a place for a general overview of the various streams of research in this area. As noted below, I would have merged the history section from Biopolitics to this article and then moved the page to a more appropriate title, either "Biology and politics" or "Biology and political science". Tijfo098 took a different view and created a new article during this AfD, Biology and political science, out of the material from Biopolitics. Now that Biology and political science has been created I do not see any reason for Biology and political orientation to exist and the content should be merged in some form across to the former, with much reduced focus on individual studies and an expansion of context, critical and otherwise. As to whether the current presentation in Biology and political orientation is an original synthesis lacking secondary sources, the studies presented there, Kanai et al. (2011), Amodio et al. (2007), Zamboni et al. (2009), Knutson et al. (2006), Alford, Funk and Hibbing (2005) and Hatemi et al. (2011), can all be covered by secondary sources that have been linked to, either in this or the last AfD. I really recommend you look at and read the sources that have been linked to in this AfD and the last. Start with the introductions in Biology and Politics: The Cutting Edge. and Man is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics., and then look at the chapters reviewing the different streams of research i.e. the ones by Hannagan, Schreiber, Smith, etc and then look at some of the journal articles that have been linked. The evolutionary psych. stuff that's there I'm not too sure about, but evolutionary psych. is definitely covered in some form alongside genetics, neuroscience and physiology and other approaches in reliable sources such as, Man is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics., and it is definitely discussed in the literature. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical research lists Genetics as a field of medical research. The book Man is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics and citations there in are relevant for Biology and political science as the title of the book indicates. This article is based on what the newspapers say about the primary sources, and the primary sources themselves. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – because the topic absolutely passes WP:GNG. Examples include, but are certainly not limited to:

Carey, Benedict (June 21, 2005). "Some Politics May Be Etched in the Genes". The New York Times. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
"Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain". Los Angeles Times. 2007-09-10.
Kattalia, Kathryn (April 8, 2011). "The liberal brain? Scans show liberals and conservatives have different brain structures". New York Daily News. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
"Strong men more likely to vote Conservative". The Telegraph. April 11, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012.

Along with the sources provided above by IP User:92.4.165.211:

Somit, Albert; Peterson, Steven A. (July 1998). "Biopolitics after Three Decades - A Balance Sheet". British Journal of Political Science. 28 (3): 559–571.
Robert H. Blank; Jr, Samuel M. Hines (2001). Biology and Political Science. Routledge Studies in Science, Technology, and Society, Volume 4. London [u.a.]: Routledge. ISBN 9780415204361.
Fowler, J. H.; Schreiber, D. (7 November 2008). "Biology, Politics, and the Emerging Science of Human Nature" (PDF). Science. 322 (5903): 912–914. doi:10.1126/science.1158188.
Alford, John R.; Hibbing, John R. (1 June 2008). "The New Empirical Biopolitics". Annual Review of Political Science. 11 (1): 183–203. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060806.161216.
Steven A. Peterson; Albert Somit (eds.). Biology and Politics: The Cutting Edge. Research in Biopolitics, Volume 9. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. ISBN 9780857245793.
McDermott, Rose (2011). Peter K. Hatemi; Rose McDermott (eds.). Man is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226319117.

—Afterward, perhaps editors can discuss the potential of a merge to Biopolitics. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that merger is a bad idea. Was discussed above. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might have mentioned that you'd started another article, Biology and political science, on this. I agree that the article on this subject should be called Biology and political science, but judging by the fact that you link back to this article it seems you intend it as a fork of some sort? --92.4.165.211 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply split biopolitcs in two because we don't normally have a giant disambiguation and an article on just one of the meanings on the same Wikipedia page. There is a long paper just about the conflicting usages of term "biopolitcs" and Lemke's book is also expounding on the various meanings at length, so the term page even meets GNG. The "Biology and political science" field of study has a few books about it that I could easily find, so it clearly passes GNG. The article is in bad shape though. The contents (which I merely moved) was apparently written by a new (and WP:SPA insofar) editor, User:Raven820. I actually pruned some of the less encyclopedic part of his contribution when I did the split. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just merged the material from Biopolitics to a history section in this article while keeping in mind that the article needed to be renamed to something like Biology and political science, as creating yet another article in this area during an AfD may well cause some confusion. Indeed the 21:42, 25 September comment below would seem symptomatic of that, as the argument has never been that there should be an article specifically on biology and political orientation alongside a separate article on the subfield of political science, at least not on my part. I think quite a bit of the content in this area was written by throwaway accounts e.g. Ronaldfwhite and Biosocstudent. The contributions from both of these lack NPOV to some extent and I know/guess that both had COIs in relation to some of their edits. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are providing sources for Biopolitics and Biology and political science rather defeats the point that this is a distinct topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically "Biology and political orientation" is one of the main topics of research in "Biology and political science". A merge there wouldn't be outlandish. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm afraid I have no good "valid arguments", but it is a really interesting topic and if we have an article about it, I'll keep updated about it through my watchlist. Lova Falk talk 19:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG and other relevant policies as mentioned above. Not an article about medicine, MEDRS does not apply. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to genopolitics per Thosjleep; this article is a content fork. Any relevant findings on this notable topic can be summarized at genopolitics and based of off secondary sources. This is a poor quality article because it is unencyclopedic. It is mostly based off of primary sources. I found secondary sources for this topic and I posted them on the talk page. Biosthmors (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a content fork of that one. MRI studies don't fall under the genetics banner. Possibly merge with biology and political science. It seems to be one the main topics of research in that area. (And there aren't that many other topics there, as far as I can tell.) Tijfo098 (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to see some secondary sources divide up the studies as we do (per WP:SCIRS), otherwise the presentation could be a synthesis. Also, do the MRI studies say there is no genetic basis for their results? You may be on to something, but I'm not sure. Biosthmors (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you mean, are there secondary sources that collect genetic, neuroscientific, physiological and evolutionary psychology approaches to political science together? Then I think sufficient sources have been linked above. Man is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics., for instance. --92.4.165.211 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've encountered this research quite a few times in my general reading of mainstream media. I find it quite interesting. I checked out the articles suggested for merging, and this topic seems different from those. The title could maybe be tweaked. The word "biology" doesn't seem quite right. Maybe "Neurology and political orientation." TimidGuy (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think some of the sources could be included in a sociology article on the perception of biology and political organization, but the article as it is asserts information beyond what the sources can verify. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly so given who edited it. But can you give us a concrete example of source misrepresentation in the article? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic meets WP:GNG] (e.g., sources already in the Wikipedia article, plus Could Political Views Be Driven By Biology? (NPR September 19, 2008), Does biology influence our political opinions? (Deseret Morning News September 27, 2008), UNL researchers say biology shapes political views (AP December 20, 2010), Biology, Ideology, and Epistemology: How Do We Know Political Attitudes Are Inherited and Why Should We Care? (American Journal of Political Science January 1, 2012)). The article lead needs to be improved. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LEE Shing-see[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a non-notable individual. Has been speedily deleted 3x as a copyvio under name of Lee Shing-see. Page creator has a WP:COI. Recommend Delete or Merge into Construction Industry Council Hong Kong. GregJackP Boomer! 21:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable as former Secretary of Works for the Hong Kong Government (although I can't find a reliable source; everyone parrots the same bio information). At the moment this is just poorly sourced COI promotion which can be deleted. Hairhorn (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on him, and the article shouldn't have lasted this long anyways because it's an unsourced BLP. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:21, 19 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No substantial sources have been provided demonstrating notability of this particular set. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Monster Fighters[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)

Wikipedia is not a toy catalog. Don't see any evidence this particular set of Legos is more notable than the other several dozens of sets Lego puts out every year. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - agree the article isn't in good shape but it's modelled on other Lego themes like Lego Ninjago and Lego Star Wars (even the formatting is consistent). We're not talking about a page for individual sets - it's a specific theme (collection of sets) and, though I've only done a quick search, there is likely to be coverage of the collection in its own right, as there is of the other collections:

Brick-or-Treat! LEGOLAND joins in on Halloween fun this October - about events themed around the new collection.
Kids win dream job testing toys - article with passing mention (included because I wanted to highlight the fact that it is referred to as a group, distinct from a specific set), not a good reference, just FYI.
2012 LEGO sets: LEGO Monster Fighters - a blog (so not a great reference) but a review which groups them as a recognised set.
LEGO Haunted House Set - Geekalerts.com review. Not sure about its reliability as a source but thought I would include it.

Am happy to have a look for some more if you would like but I've added the general Lego navbox to the article to give it some context. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You identify three of those four as no good for establishing notability so I checked the first one. It is also worthless as a source. It is a pure puff piece blatantly cobbled together from an amusement parks own press releases and has no discussion whatsoever about this lego set, just mentions it in passing as being part of the theme for Halloween events. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely - my point was more that I thought there had been a misunderstanding about the distinction between a "set" (single box) and a "collection" (themed collection of sets) and gave a few links to look at to help make that distinction. If there is a contention that the themes themselves should not have individual articles then we should probably broaden the discussion. Each other collection / theme has fewer or less reliable references than this one. Sorry - I probably could have worded my intro of those links better - my suggestion was more along the lines that there is generally the same coverage of this collection as there is of the others, eg. not much. Without getting into an WP:ALLORNOTHING situation, I think we need to be conscious of precedent. My position is more Keep, but - the but being that I think there could be a case for considering them all. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I at least get what you driving at now but I don't believe it is relevant. If a subject has not been the focus of significant discussion in reliable sources we should not have an artile on it. That precedent is already well established and reflected in multiple policies. If I correctly understand what you are saying, this article is but one of many in a walled garden environment where standards for a Wikipedia article are not being respected and it is in fact being treated as a toy catalog. I find that troubling, but I did not and do not intend for this AFD to be a general discussion of Lego articles, just this one. If a consensus to delete it emerges it may indeed be time for a broader discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely fair enough. On that basis, I might amend my position to Comment so that the discussion/consensus-building can continue with regard to this article in particular, with the above as a side-note. Happy to help with the others if you go down that path - feel free to get in touch if you do. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - It certainly needs a whole lot of work, more work than it is worth. I say yes to deletion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Needing a lot of work is not a reason for deletion, but for doing the work. Thedistinction between a set and a collection is valid. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that needing work is not a reason to deelte. However not being particularly notable is. I have yet to see a single independent source that discusses this collection in any but the most trivial matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 11 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP is not a sales catalog!!! I agree, too, that needing work is not a reason to delete, but in fact, we will have a lot of work in AFD discussions clearing out is this or that item (bread) or a list of items (bread'n'butter'n'salt) of a great importance (notable) or not. And according to that we will generate a great independent second level source for citing! MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Apart the reason of keeping it along with the pages of other Lego themes, I think this theme is an interesting example of how horror and gothic (albeit in a pop version) play an important part of English-speaking countries culture. Also, see the note at Lego Wikia that links this theme to a movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaldoni (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Abaldoni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As an inexperienced user (two edits two or three years ago, then suddenly back to participate in this AFD) you may not be aware that this is not a discussion of how we feel about this particular lego set/theme/whatever, but rather a discussion of wether it has been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources. If you could find some of those to support your opinions your argument would carry much more weight. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your arguments, and definitely think that I won't be able to find any source supporting my feelings about this set (original research?). However, I'd like to better understand the reasons of deleting this article and keeping, for instance, this one Lego Dino Attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaldoni (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't have that one either, this was simply the first of these articles to come to my attention. Depending on the result here I may be pursuing a more comprehensive solution to this whole family of articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 27 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this may be too general a point for this discussion...if so, sorry! But the underlying logic pretty much applies to all the Lego product lines and many other game related materials. Consider a very narrow, special interest issue that is of relevance to only twenty scientist in the whole world - who regularly publish on the subject in learned journals. By contrast, there may be a product which millions of people buy but which is not well covered by any independent secondary source in writing (e.g. there are no doubt more journals dedicated to obscure literary criticism than to the toy market). Does that really make the first type of subject more relevant for an encyclopedia than the second? It certainly makes it easier to cover, as there are lots of ready-made references. But shouldn't the decision regarding which pages are worth keeping and working on (i.e. trying to find these reliable sources) be based to a certain extent on some notion of "popularity" or "general interest"? Drow69 (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idon't believe there is a legitimate general interest in articles about every theme Lego ever came up with. "Lego made some sets, they looked liked monsters and people who fight monsters" is pretty much all this article says. The reason that is all it says is that there actually isn't anything more to say. By having articles on every theme, set, etc that Lego does Wikipedia is basically serving as an extension of Lego's marketing department, not sharing important knowledge with the world. In any case, no, we don't exempt toys from the requirement that article subjects have been covered by independent reliable sources. Since we have yet to see a single one of those for this subject I don't see how we have any choice but to delete this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Lego collectors have their own wikis. But the reference to the Dino Attack line made above is valid. Why keep one and delete the other? Drow69 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can finally agree with Beeblebrox's comments. These Lego themes pages can be merged in the Lego page or into a new Lego Bricks Themes page (also by removing the product codes) and links to the most used Lego 'archive' sites added to that page as well (ie, Brickset, Brickfactory). A redirection can be provided too (Lego Dino → Lego). --Abaldoni (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, there already IS a List of Lego themes page...--Abaldoni (talk) 11:10, 28 September 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. To my dismay and two relistings, I have closed my nomination as no consensus, I may renominate the article after a few months have passed. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etheric Networks[edit]

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

Non-notable company and I have found insufficient sources to support this article. Despite that the bizjournals.com link that the article cites contains 3 pages, the entire bizjournals article reads like an advertisement and wouldn't be useful for Wikipedia. The only nearly useful information that the article provides is the "200 customers" which most certainly could've changed, considering that the bizjournals article is from 2003. Google News provided this San Jose Mercury-News article which lists them twice to compare company rates. Google News archives provided nothing useful aside from forums and reviews. Google News archives provided articles here and here, both mentioned the company once. Surprisingly, there is a Korean news article here, considering that I am not fluent with Korean, I wouldn't know how useful that link would be. The only useful link I have found is this web.archive.org link that provides a history of the company and its founder. Google Books found one book that cited Wikipedia as the source for all of the content, which would evidently be citing ourselves. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a perfect fit for any definition of non-notability.IceCreamEmpress (talk) 01:06, 8 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, Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 12 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you wait for? This article should have already been deleted.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uncertain SwisterTwister asked me for my opinion, but i fear I will have to be a little less helpful than she probably hoped for, because can not myself decide: they're regionally notable, and I am unsure whether this is enough., DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 24 September 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. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone feels that the newly added references mentioned by ElKevbo aren't up to par. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Xi Nu[edit]

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

Non-notable sorority: notability not supported by independent third party references as required by WP:GNG. Not recognized by any national sorority umbrella group. Very small, fewer than 10 chapters, with a very localized footprint primarily in Texas. GrapedApe (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't really establish notability, nor are there any references to establish notability against WP:GNG. Have had a look - no coverage I can find that could be used to establish notability. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 6 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, Jenks24 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ("Do not Delete this page"). The sorority currently has 10 chapters, and is in the process of expanding to another 5 campuses in the following states: California, Texas, Massachusetts, and Colorado. The page provides wbsite to each of its chapters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajia1999 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, unless those claims can be verified (WP:V) by reliable sources (WP:RS) then the article cannot be included. The organisation must pass the criteria at WP:CORPDEPTH to be considered a "notable" organisation. Unless it has received significant coverage from reliable sources then it won't meet these guidelines. Please also have a read of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. We need more than its existence to justify inclusion. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - http://greeklife.tamu.edu/organizations. Example of outside verification of chapter/organization existence. Chapter/colony websites are listed in the article. Each chapter/colony is recognized by their respective university greek life office. WP:ITSUSEFUL Organization expansion can be impacted by presence of article. Publications covering subject can be found, created by outside sources, to assist with verification. Significant coverage included in university publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.236.120 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Existence does not equal Notability. I have no doubt the organisation exists; I don't think the article is a hoax. But there is a very large gap between hoax and notable into which a great many things fall and this is one of the them. If "significant coverage" exists, please cite it or list it here so it can be considered against WP:GNG. I can see a lot of WP:ILIKEIT but not a lot of WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. You might also like to have a read of WP:SOC and WP:SPA before making further comment. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I would just like to note the irony of a keep !vote citing WP:ITSUSEFUL, which is a Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions--GrapedApe (talk) 03:21, 17 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The (misplaced, unorganized, and apparently unused) references (recently added?) in the article substantiate the notability of this organization. It's certainly not a well-known organization with lots and lots of media coverage and other sources, but there is enough to meet our requirements. ElKevbo (talk) 01:00, 21 September 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. The rationale for merging is mostly unexplained, lest one comment about the article feeling a bit light; that's a subjective judgement, so it can't really weigh strongly against the larger number of voices who disagree. Merger can be discussed locally, of course. Wily D 07:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of South Yorkshire[edit]

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

Not a notable concept or term. Disregarding the vast amounts of citationneeded tags and other inline tags (as these are editing issues), my search as per WP:BEFORE brought forth nothing to indicate that this is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic. Delete. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've tidied up the article and streamlined it a bit, taking out some of the more irrelevant parts and focusing on the fact that in the 1980s, Sheffield Council had a unique and notable policy of municipal socialism. It would be hard to merge this article into another, since the state of affairs given this nickname had political effects on a local, county-wide and national level. Edit: The term has a lot of use in political analysis of 1980s Britain - all the cites I've used explicitly use the name "People's Republic of South Yorkshire" or "Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire", even in scholarly books and papers. Smurrayinchester 13:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, "Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire" gets a lot more useful hits than "People's Republic of South Yorkshire") Smurrayinchester 16:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I understand the nominator's comment about BEFORE. Is that linking to the right place? Road Wizard (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, that was meant to be WP:BEFORE, thanks for flagging it up :) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search on google brings up a large number of sources of varying quality. In addition to the expected blogs and forum posts there are references in books and news articles. Whether the topic is judged "suitable" for an encyclopedia, there are enough sources that find it worthy of note. Road Wizard (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/REdirect -- I feel sure that we must have an article on the politics of Sheffield, which would have a section on this subject. The redirect should be targeted on the section. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to Sheffield and the surrounding region. An article about Sheffield would not be the best place for it. Merging to an article about politics in South Yorkshire might be an option though, if there is one. Road Wizard (talk) 17:11, 17 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I would like to hear more discussion about how this term relates to WP:DICT; in particular, the part that says "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.". Editors should also be aware of using invalid arguments like WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:Not notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to South Yorkshire: Well, since you ask, the article is not exactly a dictionary definition (WP:Dict) of a colloquialism, as it provides some history and politics, with reasonable sources for the usage. However, it does feel too slight for an article, given that the subject is a jokey term for the South Yorkshire area (perhaps that's what people mean when they talk about unencyclopaedic), and people evidently feel a bit uncomfortable about notability, however many sources there are. I'd suggest that a merge to South Yorkshire would be best; the history, politics and indeed witty use of language in northern England would all go toward enriching that article (as a section casting an interesting sidelight), leaving a redirect here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckle! Must be a sister city of the People's Republic of Santa Monica (California). •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A joke name but a notable political phenomenon - and one often referred to under that or similar names at the time and since, as the references in the article show. And while I would have no particular objection to a merger with South Yorkshire, it should be noted that this would be a slightly uneasy fit, as the term was used at the time (and since) not just in connection with the actions of South Yorkshire County Council but also in connection with those of the local metropolitan area councils, and in particular those of Sheffield City Council. PWilkinson (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - something of a historical term, and perhaps the article involves a certain amount of original research, but I think this is basically a notable phenomenon that we should have an article on. Plenty of sources are available. I wouldn't object to a merge somewhere, but I don't think it's necessary either. Robofish (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, Verified content can be summarized and merged into the article about South Yorkshire, as it is a alternative name for the city of South Yorkshire. It is an alias for the town, and it can be mentioned within the body of the subject in a due weight manor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 28 September 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. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaram Mukne[edit]

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

Hasn't received significant press coverage under WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN Harsh (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. One single article noting his appointment as state party secretary. Has not held any significant state or national level office. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Keep: He seems to be a Secretary of an important State Political Party. So it is a State level office. However the article needs secondary sources. It can be kept if some new sources have been added. Note:Lack of having a significant press coverage alone cannot be considered for deletion. Since the subject can also be a low profile. -- Bharathiya (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a state level elected office. This is a political functionary -- a member of the political party who holds no current elected office. That does not meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, and the coverage available does not meet the breadth or depth of coverage required by WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Person who is working at ground level for the backward classes, adivasis and for needy people from the higher caste community also though he has only worked at state level and not national level cannot be a criteria for deletion. If everybody started sitting in an air conditioned offices who would work for grass route level people? So I think higher level office cannot be criteria for publishing a page of any political social activist on Wikipedia. Their devotion to socially at large is important. We must respect Mukne’s Social work and his devotion for poor and helpless Adivasi Dalit and needy people. I must salute Mr. Mukne for his great social work. Publishing his page is really an inspiration for other social workers like him who are behind the curtain and far away from press coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurang (talk • contribs)
Comment This nomination is not in any way intended to imply that Mukne's work is not valuable. Just that, as a politician, his career does not meet the criteria for inclusion for politicians. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Page cannot be deleted because R.P. Mukne had sufficient press coverage in leading Marathi News Papers and TV Media. Mukne is writer also and he is writing articles to catch the attention of Government for the development of this neglected area since 1968. He is working in very remote and neglected area from last 40 years. You are talking about insufficient media coverage and Mukne is working for the Adivasipeople who get insufficient food. So what is important you want "publicity" or "public service"? Therefore it will be unjustified to neglect a great social worker Mukne who work for neglected people in the rural and remote area of rural Thane District. So I request Wikipedia to keep this page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurang (talk • contribs)
Comment Again, no slight is intended against Mukne or his work. But being a writer (even a prolific one) is not sufficient. Only evidence of coverage by independent sources (i.e. people writing about Mukne, not Mukne writing about his issues) is sufficient. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book Reference

In the 1960s and 70s backward class leaders did not get much publicity because of castism in India. So there is no question of press coverage but one important thing must be noted that Mr. Mukne’s voice against untouchablility was noted by Foreign AuthorKlaus Klostermaier and the author has given the reference of mukne's article published in india's leading international daily newspaper the Times of India in 1968 in his book "A Survey of Hinduism" ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurang (talk • contribs)

Comment' An author citing an article by Mukne is not exactly a sign of notability. If many authors cited his works, that would be significant as it would indicate that his thinking has influenced others, but a single citation may just mean that this was a convenient article to cite a particular fact that the author wanted to get across. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 20 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Please note that arguments not based on Wikipedia's deletion policy are likely to be ignored by the closing administrator. The guidelines WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN are particularly relevant to this case. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be according to Wikipedia Mr. mukne has no sufficient online citation to produce here via hyperlink but some News Paper cuttings of articles about Mukne is uploaded and Photographs are attached with this page for reference. Considering his social work he is also appointed Maharashtra State Vice President of All-India Depressed Classes League" founded by Jagjivan Ram who was Deputy Prime Minister of India. In accordance with his social work from last 40 years for depressed class work I request Wikipedia to considering Mukne in social worker category instead of Indian Politician. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurang (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Book Week[edit]

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

Non-notable "internet meme" (read: Facebook chain letter). Described by its creator as "promoting an event " on my talk page. (contested speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, as there's apparently been zero news or industry-blog coverage of this. The best I can find is Yahoo Philippines saying "huh, this hashtag is trending on Google+, how about that". The "grab a book and copy a line" meme has been around for years (it went around with a similarly undated "Today is World Book Day!" last year) - it's maybe a bit louder this week, but doesn't seem loud enough to interest reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better source has now appeared here ("To mark International Book Week, celebrated every year during the third week of September, book lovers have developed a little online game"), although it looks rather like a journalist cribbing from this Wikipedia article (for the first sixteen hours the article was asserting that the week was "held the during the 3rd week of September", adding that the Facebook meme was just one way to celebrate it). --McGeddon (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything primarily described as an "awareness week mentioned in a socially generated internet meme" should follow the same fate. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw this go by on Facebook. This doesn't meet WP:WEB; no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". Not even close. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List_of_Internet_phenomena. --Capitano666 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you merge in? Where's the coverage in reliable sources to merit this? --BDD (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep - y u h8 books? did a book kill ur dog or sumting? 41.204.73.15 (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dbestization[edit]

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

What is this!? Looks like something made up one day. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A number of merge comments exist, but seem to ignore the fundamental facts of the discussion. Sources dug up (by e.g., NorthAmerica1000) strongly indicate the notability of Pizza Cheese independent of Pizza (Who'da thunk it?), and thus comments to the contrary appear to be more guesses as to what one expects than an analysis of the article and situation. They therefor can't be construed to carry much weight. Wily D 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza_cheese[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)).

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese

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

The article lists no references or sources, since December 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stybn (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No potential sources, looks like original research to me. --Koui² (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Processed cheese. No sources, smells like ~~cheese~~original research. See Sprout crumble. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - there is a product called "pizza cheese" sold in Japan. As can be seen there is an interwiki link at the bottom of the page. I don't know if that is really much of an argument for keeping the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep – per WP:NRVE, because topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Also, it passes WP:GNG; the specific topic of pizza cheese has received a considerable amount of press.

Sources include, but are not limited to: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through those sources, and I don't think any of them sustain the notability of this article's subject. They've got the phrase "pizza cheese" in them, but they don't talk about "pizza cheese" as a concept. In fact, it looks like all you've done is a news search for "pizza cheese" and linked the first 15 results. This doesn't change my opinion to redirect. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you access all of the paywalled sources, and read the entire articles? Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read everything I could, and came to the same conclusions as Purplebackpack89 below. But it's up to everyone to agree on a consensus as to whether sources establish notability, not on me to prove they don't. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article has been improved and sources have been added. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The "sources" you added are one source that mentions, but seemingly does not discuss, "pizza cheese". - SummerPhD (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes sources are used to verify information in articles, rather than solely to qualify a topic's notability. My comment was in response to the above nomination of this article as being unsourced, (which actually isn't a valid deletion rationale per WP:DELREASON, and per WP:NRVE, doesn't disqualify a topic's notability). Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to concerns about a lack of significant coverage by saying you had added sources, you pointed to one bare mention you added, which you called "sources". Your response to my concern does not address my concern. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Pizza cheese isn't independently notable of the pizza it's on. Nor is it really independently notable of the various types and brands of pizza cheese either p b p 15:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pizza.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More sources:

Significant coverage: Technology of Cheesemaking - Google Books
Significant coverage: Kindstedt, P.S. "Recent developments in the science and technology of pizza cheese". Australian journal of dairy technology. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
Significant coverage: Reinbold; et al. (April 18, 1978). "Preparation of Pizza Cheese". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
Significant coverage: Quarne, E.L. (April 1968). "Recovery of Milk Solids in Direct Acidification and Traditional Procedures of Manufacturing Pizza Cheese". Volume 51, Issue 4. Journal of Dairy Science. pp. 527–530. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
Significant coverage: "Effect of incorporation of denatured whey proteins on chemical composition and functionality of pizza cheese". Australian journal of dairy technology. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
Many more sources from Google Scholar comprised of significant coverage about this topic: here.
Beyond passing mentions: Revenue Management for the Hospitality Industry - David K. Hayes, Allisha Miller - Google Books
Another article: Continuous Production of Analogue Cheese

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do a book search for "The weather in London" and find lots of hits - doesn't mean it's suitable for an article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Just because sources use the term doesn't mean it's independently notable enough for its own article'. There are certain other topics that are almost always mentioned in the context of pizza cheese...namely, pizza and cheese. Since you can't divorce pizza cheese's notability from pizza's notability, or cheese's notability, the topic isn't deserving of its own article. Remember, passing GNG ≠ automatically keep the article. p b p 16:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no need to post sources in the AfD when they are already in the article; it serves no purpose other than to needlessly clutter the AfD. The editorializing that they are significant coverage is also unnecessary. p b p 16:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor recently stripped all of the sources comprised of significant coverage about the topic in this edit and then immediately again here. The provision of sources in AfD discussions is functional for many reasons. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Pizza. Only a few of the source presented so far are actually anything more than very brief mentions. Even with the couple that do discuss the cheese at length, there really is not enough to have the article ever expand to anything more than a short stub. However, as someone else already pointed out, the notability of this product is pretty much forever tied to Pizza. I think it would be far more appropriate to actually add information on this product to the main Pizza article using the decent sources found, rather than changing it to a simple redirect or outright deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would actually rehash numerous different articles we have on specific cheeses, processed cheese in general, and pizza.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination is completely invalid, the lack of sourcing since December 2009 has nothing to do with whether the topic is notable. This article is over 10 years old, I am impressed to see an article that has existed for over 10 years, and been part of the processed cheese template for over 2 years, be nominated for deletion so cavalierly. Of course, non-cheese enthusiasts may not know that pizza cheese (which depending on the definition applied is actually a "cheese analogue"--which means FAKE) is the subject of a fair amount of scholarly research, e.g., Kindstedt et al.'s 1997 article Chemically-acidified pizza cheese production and functionality[63] (5th Cheese Symposium), Larson et al., Curd-forming techniques for making Pizza-cheese by direct acidification procedures, J. Dailly Sci. 50 (1967), Guinee, T.P. et al., The composition and functional properties of commercial Mozzarella, Cheddar, and analogue pizza cheese, Int'l J. of Dairy Tech, 51 (2000), Kinstedt and Guo, Recent developments in the science and technology of pizza cheese', Aust. J. Dairy Tech., 52 (1997), Breene et al, Manufacture of pizza cheese without starter, J. Dairy Sci. 47:1173 (1964), Govidnasamy-Lucey et al, Effect of Type of Concentrated Sweet Cream Buttermilk on the Manufacture, Yield, and Functionality of Pizza Cheese, J. Dairy Science 90:2675 (2007), and publications by Patrick Fox et al. [64]. These articles discuss the nature, composition, properties, production, and research on pizza cheese, as its a separate area of research from pizza itself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those appear to be about cheese in general with pizza cheese being mentioned in that context. I think we could easily have a "production of pizza" article that covers the cheese aspect within it or some of those sources could be incorporated into the history of pizza article or just the regular article on pizza. A redirect is not going to eliminate the rather limited amount of information provided here. Consider using these sources to expand other articles on the broader subject before entertaining the creation of an article such as this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article having been in existence for X number of years says absolutely nothing about its worthiness p b p 17:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not really worried about convincing pizza cheese jihadists like you guys!! Whether we could have a "production of pizza" article is not relevant to notability of pizza cheese; these articles show that pizza cheese is independently notable. And the fact that the article has existed for over 10 years is an anecdotal comment; consider the untold thousands of editors who have read this article since its creation and never once thought it unsuitable, its not a hidden low-traffic article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - Again, the sources provided are trivial in nature. They do not speak specifically about the product but are only mention the product in passing. Just showing usage of the term in a publication does not establish notability of a subject. Others in this discussion have commented on required the required depth need not being met by supplied sources and I agree with them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheesh. The general ignorance of wikipedia editors regarding pizza cheese is astounding to me. Once they stopped regularly teaching Latin in schools, this is what we get! Placenta Neapolitana Caseus delenda est, people?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – The article has been expanded with more reliable research and book sources as of the time of this post. These serve to qualify the topic's notability for a stand-alone article and can be used to expand it. Clearly a notable topic, per the extensive research publications that exist about the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - I looked at the articles, in quite a few of them they are not talking about "pizza cheese" but "pizza" & "cheese". For instance, the the FDA article on pizza cheese is not about pizza cheese but instead it is about the amount of cheese that must be on a frozen pizza for it to be qualified as a pizza under USDA guidelines. What that means that that article is not about the subject of WP article but about the rules established by the US government to define a specific product, in this case frozen pizza (AP, Pittsburgh Press articles). The other are the same, whether it is about the proper method of making mozzarella ("pizza cheese", Fundamentals of Cheese Science) or the manufacture of processed cheese foods (Cheese analogues: a review). Further, in pretty much all of the pizza cheese sources you have provided are about the manufacture of mozzarella, which is using the term pizza cheese as a synonym for mozzarella.
      
      NA1K, you are not providing references to the subject of the WP article, you are providing links to sources that use the two words pizza and cheese together in the same source. It would be akin to me using sources that simply use the words burger and king in the same source to bolster the notability of the Burger King article, which is bunk. Just because you can find sources that use the term pizza and cheese together in the title does not mean the provided source is about the subject of the WP article pizza cheese.
      
      The reality is that pizza cheese is a marketing term or a synonym for mozzarella cheese and it is not a real product. Pizza is traditionally made with mozzarella, whether di buffulo or cows milk. Yes, some places add other types such as Italian types like Parmesan, Romano or or ricotta or non-Italian cheeses such as cheddar or jack. In the end pizza cheese is mozzarella (which is in fact bolstered in most of your provided sources!), and this article should be redirected to that article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The reality is that pizza cheese is a marketing term, it is not a real product." Uh, you're simply wrong, and horrendously wrong about this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The research study sources in the article are primarily about the literal topic "pizza cheese". Please read them. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I did, hence me dissecting each source you provided. As I stated, the sources you provided are about mozzarella and processed cheese manufacture and use "pizza cheese" as a synonym for those products.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed by Northamerica and Milowent. The topic appears to have received some significant coverage to pass GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is a guideline and not the end-all-be-all of what should get its own article on Wikipedia. This subject overlaps with multiple different articles as has been noted from people who read the sources and as can be understood with a basic application of common sense. Deletion would be inappropriate as this is perfectly suitable as a redirect or maybe a disambiguation page. A stand-alone article does not seem justified even with the sources provided.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and common sense says me the topic is indeed eligible of a separate article. The subject sounds notable, expandable and encyclopedic. Cavarrone (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that "common sense"? Do you really think a redirect or merge is so horrible? It is not like we would be losing anything terribly important. We have one tiny little stub that basically just says stuff we could add somewhere else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not often that I am in agreement with the super-duper-hyper-inclusionists, but c'mon...its cheese that goes no pizza. You can't just put any ol cheese on pizza. Cheddar pizza? Cheez-Wiz pizza? No. People out there discuss just what kind of cheese one puts on a pizza. It exists, and reliable sources confirm that. Jeesh. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does that preclude a redirect or merge? The source you provide is really just about pizza and would be suitable in the article on pizza.

P.S. People do, in fact, put cheddar cheese on pizza.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has ample references found already to prove its notable. You can't delete something because you don't like it. Not how Wikipedia works. Perhaps listing every type of cheese that is found on pizza, and what the most popular types of pizza have, how big of an industry it is, what sort of cheese they made to do it with in ancient Greece, etc. Room for expansion. Dream Focus 21:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your position on a redirect to the article on pizza or perhaps making it a dab page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in keep, not delete/redirect/merge. Dream Focus 01:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps listing every type of cheese that is found on pizza, and what the most popular types of pizza have, how big of an industry it is, what sort of cheese they made to do it with in ancient Greece, etc. Room for expansion." No. Not unless we are also going to start articles for Cheeseburger cheese, Macaroni and cheese cheese, Grilled cheese cheese, etc. listing types of cheeses used, most popular choices, etc. Either we have significant coverage in independent reliable sources or we don't. A term plus original research does not an article make. Heck, where's our article for Pizza crust flour? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that pizzas have had different types of cheeses throughout the world over the past thousands of years, isn't original research. And obviously we'd find sources about what the most popular type of cheese for pizza is and whatnot. And you can list cheeses used, without those cheeses having their own article. I just checked and found some news coverage about this. Working on the article now. Dream Focus 01:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that cheeseburgers have had different types of cheeses... and finding sources for the most popular cheeseburger cheese... Here's the seed for this much needed article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge/redirect to pizza. I'm not convinced by any of the sources provided above that there's notability or substantive coverage on this topic. Most of them appear to be either passing mentions, or else uses of the (very common) phrase/concept "pizza cheese" to mean "cheese that goes on pizza" as opposed to "this particular type of processed cheese which is sometimes used on pizza". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my !vote is based on the scholarly and research articles on pizza cheese I referenced, which are not incorporated into the article as of yet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we...are we seriously discussing the notability of this product? It's quite clear from the picture, let alone the copious sources, that this is its own product. Sure, its main use is on pizza, but it's made and sold separately and has its own special process of being made that is unrelated to how the pizza is made using the finished product of this. Silver seren^C 21:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually seren, we are only really discussing whether it is independently notable of the various articles we have on cheese and pizza since most people above who aren't arguing keep are supporting a redirect or merge. The "picture" is of provel cheese, which has its own article and does not prove any independent notability for "pizza cheese" at all. Any other argument you give can be easily dismissed by noting any article where it would be just as suitably covered. We have an article for processed cheese, cheese analogues, mozzarella, provel, provolone, gouda cheese, goat cheese, parmesan, feta and pretty much any other cheese that is ever used on a pizza. Even as a list this article wouldn't make a whole lot of sense because it would basically be a smaller duplicate of list of cheeses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pizza. If I was looking for information about pizza cheese, I'd assume that pizza was the place to look. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why bullet should be merged to firearm, obviously.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You must be joking to think that's a reasonable comparison.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not joking. I can come up with 1000s of similar examples if you wish. Merge Hot dog bun into Hot dog (both already use a very similar photo!), Hockey puck into Ice hockey, and certainly Nucleon into Atomic nucleus--the former is only used in the latter!. Every such merge would be a plausibly different way to structure the project, but doesn't mean deletion is warranted or necessary. I draw the line not based on personal whim, but on sourcing. When scientific articles exist such as Effect of Type of Concentrated Sweet Cream Buttermilk on the Manufacture, Yield, and Functionality of Pizza Cheese, and Chemically-acidified pizza cheese production and functionality (presented at a cheese symposium, not a pizza symposium) I conclude that pizza cheese is an item that can merit individual coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your comparison would make sense if we were talking about merging Target shooting bullet with Bullet. "Pizza cheese" is not a kind of cheese, it is a use of cheese, mixture of cheeses, fake cheese, etc. depending on who is talking. Yes, we have a Cheese article and articles on various varieties of cheese. This is a use of cheese of whatever variety. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, generally we shouldn't give much attention to such comparisons, but these are really bad comparisons. Pizza cheese is a generalized and undefined subject that overlaps with well over a dozen articles. I would challenge Milo to point to how any of his examples face a similar problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Pizza cheese is not just whatever you think it is; we have published journal articles on that subject, we don't need to rest on the random beliefs of wikipedia editors. Its not just a "use" of cheese like cheeseburger cheese. Its a highly developed product of an industry hellbent on maximizing profit using low cost cheese formulations.[65][66] Educate yourselves people; let's not repeat Richard Denner over and over. The fact that some variation in definition exists does not make the subject non-notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Dude, it's cheese. It can be processed cheese, certainly, and we have an article for processed cheese that would not be particularly difficult to expand with information about how processed cheese is made for pizza. We could also add how they process mozzarella for use in pizza in either the article on mozzarella or the article on pizza. What we cannot do is detail the history of the bullet in an article that covers the entire history of firearms, which includes many things that do not use bullets. Saying this page should be a redirect doesn't mean the cheese used for pizza isn't notable, just that we have no compelling reason to have a separate article about it when we can detail these facts on any of the various cheeses that are used in pizza, the articles on pizza, or general articles on cheese that are related.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As I stated above those articles and journals are about mozzarella, cheese analogues and processed cheese and use the term as a synonym. They are not about the actual subject of pizza cheese. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with you pizza cheese heathens. I can't argue for 7 days non-stop about whether pizza cheese is independently notable as shown by myriad sources. Famous Evil Deletionist Tarc actually !voted to keep above, so I don't think I can say any more.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here looking for an article on pizza cheese and found this very useful and well sourced. Mathieas (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm . . . . [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. I have a sneaking suspicion that you did not come here because you were looking up pizza cheese.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Many sources have been removed from the article. They are currently located on the article's talk page here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - many unrelated links have been challenged and removed as part of WP:BRD. They are not and never were "sources". You need to stop adding them back in and discuss this on the talk page. Adding them back in as inline citations is not the right way to go about this. Wait for the AfD to be completed then discuss it on the talk page as recommended in the linked essay above. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when blanket-removing sources from articles please at least consider placing a notice on the AfD discussion about their removal, and also consider placing them on an article's talk page. That way, others won't have to do it for you. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to pizza Notability concerns aside, the content at its current stage just makes more sense as a part of the parent article, where information about this important component of the dish is currently lacking. Sandstein 12:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question Absolutely nothing wrong with the contents of the article, but don't understand why some are arguing that it should have it's own article. Would moving it to its own section on Pizza really make pizza too big? Is pizza cheese a significant topic independent of Pizza? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:31, 28 September 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. Or maybe "keep" as that is the tenor of all opinions after the rewrite, but in any event the outcome is the same. Sandstein 12:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Race, ethnicity, and religion in various censuses[edit]

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

Short article that is almost entirely either unsourced or original research, and which I cannot foresee being salvaged to make a suitable article any time soon. The topic of the census enumeration of race, ethnicity and religion is notable, as indicated by its treatment in articles like Race and ethnicity in the United States Census and Race and ethnicity in Brazil -- neither of which is linked or discussed from this article. The comparison and discussion of such enumeration in various world jurisdictions is also likely to be notable (and controversial), but the handful of isolated factoids about 6 countries provided in this article does not come anywhere near what a comparison article ought to include. Only three facts in the article have reference citations; I flagged the U.S. fact as "fails verification", but in fact I also cannot find the Israeli fact in the cited source; I haven't tried to translate the Russian document. In summary, although there might be a notable topic here, I don't find it in this article. It would be easier to start over than to try to salvage this one.. Orlady (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start it over, then fine. Futurist110 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am not volunteering to start the article over. That isn't the purpose of this AfD. However, I want to share the information that I stumbled upon a source that contradicts the article's assertion about religion in the U.S. Census: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-appendix3.pdf . It seems that there was long history of the Census collecting information on clergy and places of worship, including their denominational affiliations. A law passed by Congress in 1976 bars the Census from asking "any mandatory question concerning a person’s 'religious beliefs or ... membership in a religious body'”, but it does not bar other types of data collection related to religion. --Orlady (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I fixed that and also fixed some other flaws in my article. I have also linked the U.S. Census race and ethnicity page and the Brazil race page in this article. Futurist110 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The concept, of race, ethnicity and religion being documented in a census is part of Enumeration process. As OrLady has mentioned, race and ethnicity in the USA, Brazil or elsewhere can be very notable. But this article is too general and overlaps the basic concept of enumeration and has far to little to offer in specific articles like those mentioned by OrLady.

It would be best to let this one go and hope that the concept can be built upon in the enumeration article or as a list to that article. Or combing the concept with Demographics. Or something similar as an article request.
I could see an article on Demographics & enumeration studies covering this subject and much more. For a taste, see: Using Information from Demographic Analysis in Post-Enumeration Survey Estimation to adjust for under counts. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 13 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic topic. Highly unlikely search phrase. POV fork in the making... Carrite (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a very useful and encyclopedic topic. I added a whole bunch of sources to this article right now and expanded it a little bit. This article has a lot of potential and if someone wants to change the article name, then that's fine with me. I do not think that I have any bias in this article right now. Futurist110 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now improved and expanded this article like crazy and made this article MUCH better. Futurist110 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm reading the nominator's comments, and largely agree with them at the time they were posted. However, Futurist110 has indeed significantly expanded this, and a lot of Orlandy's concerns have been addressed. There are many countries now, and there'll probably be even more over the course of its history, and the references have been taken care of. I do have one recommendation though, and that is including analyses of this as a general topic or the country-specific data, which would help further establish notability. That in itself shouldn't be too tough. --Activism1234 03:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Right now this is a sourced and useful list (please see requirements for lists here. No reasons for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This falls under WP:LISTPURP: The list is a valuable information source. "This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists ... grouped by theme." The state of the current list is that editors do not appear to be guessing what may be added to the list, so the list's inclusion criteria appears to be appropriate. I suggest the page include a sortable table format having columns for country and each of race, ethnicity, religion, or some combination, and when the feature was first added to the census. That way, you could see which countries count their populations by race, bor example, and when the first started doing so (which would help the reader see where this started and how it spread about the world). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Storm[edit]

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

No indication of notability in the article, the sole reference is to a primary source. Much of the article reads like an advert and the content suggests this individual has been involved in only a few relatively minor projects of note Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and I haven't found any sources aside from this possibly relevant or irrelevant mention. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional in intent. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 September 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) 17:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Latsabidze[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and doesn't provide significantly reliable sources (many primary sources, many simple mentions and many unverifiable sources). Koui² (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been contributed my many other wikipedians, including administrators. As you see there are some problems that might be fixed, or have some sentences that seem to be ambitious removed, or find more sources which would support the statements. I personally think it would be disrespectful to delete whole article since there is clearly enough evidence that pianist is recognizable on the world concert stage. Moreover, I see there are quite enough secondary sources here which are useful. Pianist's notability is established, he performs in Berlin Philarmonie, in Wigmore Hall, in John Smith Square Hall He has new CD published recorded with Royal Philarmonic Orchestra at Naxos Records. All this are criteria that Wikipeida is asking when creating the article. And again, lets' just try to fix the article, not to delete it. Helen-Heller (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add more reliable sources to the article, will continue working furthermore. There is no need to delete this article, in contrary it could be improved, problems can be fixed. I would appreciate your contributions! Sincerely, Helen-Heller (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me : where does Latsabidze meet any of the 12 points that are listed in WP:MUSICBIO ?--Koui² (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Koui: I would be happy to, not only "any" but more than "one" points listed by WP:MUSICBIO. I think whether you have not made enough research or just don't want to admit that your deletion tag was absolutely wrong, which was pointed out to you not only by my but other wikipedians including admins. Now, here are points:

won International Piano Competition in Cagliari, Italy in 1998, got 4th place. There were 6 finalists in 4th round playing piano concerto. You are more than welcome to verify my statement if you have any doubts. This competition is recognized by Geneva Federation and considered as major.
won 1st prize in 1999 at the N. Rubinstein International competition in Superior Category, which is taking place every Spring in Paris, France. You are more than welcome to verify this information with Slavic Conservatory in Paris. This competition was grounded back in 1996, here is another participant who wan the same competition
there is a documentary film made about Latsabidze back in 2005 by Austrian TV company. I have seen that movie when I lived in Austria, it was produced independently by KTV Austria. If you have any doubts you can contact them and ask. Again, I have seen that documentary which was filmed in Salzburg, includes his recital at the Steinway Concert Hall in Salzburg.
International concert tours: I'll just bring few, that should be enough for you: Berliner Philarmoniker, Wigmore Hall, Smith Square London, Triesner Guido-Feger-Saal, etc...
has released many CDs/DVDs in past and just recent is by Naxos Records
has been several times in radio in USA, most importantly is NPR Radio, also, at WHPQ
has been a TV featured subject in his native Tbilisi (capital of Georgia) several times in the main channels such I CHANNEL (PUBLIC BROADCASTER), Imedi,Ertsulovneba. I am sure there are preserved recordings about these shows in archives and I would be happy to obtain those if you wish.
last but not a least: he scored american short feature film : Twilight's Grace, Director: Jeremy Gram Weaver, which has been shown nationally and internationally including Sundance Film Festival, Santa Monica Film Festival, and etc. Also, he scored "Waltz Fantasie" which was nominated for the best music in Bologna film festival back in early 2000. He scored also Georgian movies in his native country and has been working with several producers in past. One of them one could point out was notable producer in Georgia: Reso Esadze

AND: Latsabidsze is a team member of Onward Entertainment, NYC AND LA BASED PRODUCTION COMPANY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetibe (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have pointed out enough and answered your rhetoric question. Now, it's time for you to reconsider your opinion my friend. Think that way, the pianist who is giving concerts in major concert halls such as the Berliner Philharmonie, Wigmore Hall London, etc..must not be that bad as you think, what do you think? Regards, Helen-Heller (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Koui²

I have created this article couple of years ago together with my colleagues we have been trying to improve it over the consecutive years. I am an editor on wikipedia and made some other contributions as well. It's been a challenging but enjoyable. I respect your opinions, however please be advised that all problems can be fixed if such exist. Just nominating article because there were couple of unreliable sources (which has been removed already by you Koui² as I see) seems to me unreasonable. I see you have already removed those unreliable sources, I don't see any reason why you put deletion tag? I think overall article is written well and again it's been written not only by me but other editors and corrected by english administrators. So, I would kindly ask you to reconsider your opinion, I thank you for your contributions and hope you can help further. If there are problems on article let's fix it all together, this is what wikipedia is about, to work together, collaborate together, find problems and solve them in a nice way. I hope you are on the same page. Thank you for your understanding! Sausa (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The performances and recordings with notable organizations (Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, in particular) in the venues mentioned are sufficient in my opinion for the subject of this biography to be included in Wikipedia. The biographies of classical music performers are at a bit of a disadvantage considering the demographics of Wikipedia editors, and that's going to be particularly true for those from non-English speaking countries. There does appear to be, however, some organized promotion of the subject of this article (which appears to be cross-wiki, considering the dozens of interwiki links), and some hype in the article, but that should be addressed by editing and not by deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what User:Edgar181 said. I too believe that the article should be fixed, not deleted. Invertzoo (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned above by Edgar 181 if there were some problems in the article that should be addressed by editing and not by deletion. Moreover, as stated before, this pianist has recorded with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra as well as his upcoming performance in one of the notable music halls in the world: Berliner Philharmonie. Considering those notable venues performed by this pianist the article is salvageable. Sausa (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should be addressed by fixing the problems (if such still exist), not by deletion. Helen-Heller (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Without looking deeper, anyone who played at Wigmore Hall is notable, if you ask me. The article should use more encyclopedic language and concentrate on the important facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. enough sources . as said before, it should be addressed by fixing the problems, not by deletion.--Aghuk (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability requirements. However, a lot of the article reads like a resume. Not enough biographical info but heavy on the list of achievements and praise. It needs to be more balanced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:03, 26 September 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 15:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Romance[edit]

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

Non-notable song. No evidence of charting. No evidence of awards. No evidence of independent recording. One-paragraph all-music review seems to be the peak of coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The author should merge the mention of the song - as a brief note or line - into Bongo Fury. Wikipedia is not a listing of everything, but what is notable and enduring. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a known enough song that has enough in it to keep. Plus it's properly cited, unlike many song articles. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me a list of some of these improperly cited song articles, I'll deal with them too. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine here's a few: "Mōggio", Sheik Yerbouti (which is a NEEDED article, but needs cleaning up as well), and Raymond Kelly --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 13 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khan trio[edit]

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

We have articles on all three. There is no need of an article which is about what all three actors are collectively called by media. Harsh (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. There is already articles about all three of them.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of 3 random actors without any parameters for selection. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Im not sure if the three have ever worked in a film together. Often they are rivals. The rivalry between Shahrukh and Salmaan is pretty intense. Aamir is in no way related to Shah or Salmaan. Yes, they are majors in bollywood. But that does not mean they form a trio. --117.203.63.28 (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

even if they do form a trio/alliance/friendship, will that be an excuse for having an article

Harsh (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Famous armenian murderers released from imprisonment[edit]

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

Ambiguous list made on nationalistic battleground mentality that is open to various interpretations. George Spurlin (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A list of notable Armenian murderers might meet Wikipedia policy (c.f. List of serial killers by country), but I don't see how this does. I don't know about Armenia, but in many countries, most murderers are eventually released from imprisonment, so I don't see this as a particularly sensible grouping. Might it be renamed/moved to something more general? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If some kind of articles are not exist in Wikipedia it does not mean that they should not be created. Wertuose (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it - This article shows that the cases about release from imprisonment. This facts are very interesting and useful from legal perspective. Similar articles for different countries/nations can also be created.Konullu (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure of the encyclopedic value, and question how this could fit criteria. Why not a Famous armenian embezzlers released from imprisonment or Famous armenian manslaughters released from imprisonment? Indiscriminate list that doesn't establish why being released from prison (the primary function of the list) is itself notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:ATTACK. Sprutt (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is very important and useful. Because few weeks ago Azerbaijani army officer was released from life imprisonment in Hungary and this fact was presented by the Armenian government and armenians from all over the world as the great injustice and barbarism. But this article shows that there are many such kind of facts related to armenians in the recent past. And by the way Wikipedia has many list articles and this one is one of them without any differences. Wertuose (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, useless, and, based on Konullu's other edits, created in bad-faith and with clear signs of POV. Other problems abound: Soghomon Tehlirian was not an imprisoned murderer – he was acquitted of all charges by a court. The same goes for Misak Torlakian. Jack Kevorkian was a doctor who assisted others in suicide – the definition of a murderer is something that is not universally agreed on in the US, but I think this is just the article creator's desperate attempt to grasp any straw which ties an Armenian to the death of a person.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly delete. The indication of the cases of Tehlerian and Torlakian shows that the article has a clearly propagandist character. Neither of them was convicted by the court. Both of them carried actions against those responsible for the Genocide of Armenians and 1915. The propagandist character of the piece is clear also because it chronologically followed the release and pardon of the Azerbaijani axe-murderer Ramil Safarov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hablabar (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's normal that some articles have been created following some events. Nothing unusual. 85.132.122.10 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sprutt and MarshallBaghramyan 517design (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I especially like Jack Kevorkian in this list, who is actually a US citizen and only ethnically Armenian. If there is an ethnically motivated attack page, this is it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have to say, this looks a lot like an ethnically-motivated attack page masquerading as "fact". I think it just seemed like a good opportunity to put the words "Armenian" and "murderers" together in a title. What rubbish. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said, the article has a propagandist character. For example, in terms of Yanikian it does not specify the reasons of his action: Yanikian was a son of the Armenian Genocide survivors himself. And he was released from the prison only 11 days before his descent due to deteriorating health conditions. The article does not reflect these basic realities. And it "it has not been created following some events" as specified. Neither Yanikian, nor Genocide-perpetrators assassination happened recently. Hablabar (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article doesn't mention that fact, you can add it. This doesn't imply that article has to be deleted completely. Konullu (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Odious retaliatory, ethnic attack page. Sanction article creator per WP:AA2 for obvious battleground mentality. Athenean (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously a revenge article by an Azeri editor. For context see Ramil Safarov. – Alensha ^talk 02:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dont really understand why the article about single murderer of Azeri ethnicity strongly underlines his ethnicity, and why the articles about terrorist attacks by organised nationalist groups of Armenian ethnicity should hide away their ethnicity, or should be misinterpreted to avoid highlighting the precedent. At the end of the day all the terroristic attacks and assassinations mentioned in this article took place based on nationalist ideology, as per sources provided. There should be some consistency in Wiki. This article is especially interesting in light of Ramil Safarov's case. Angel670 talk 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently unencyclopedic due to a serious WP:UNDUE issue where the wiki-editor primarily decides which cases are "famous". Looks like an WP:ATTACK article anyway due to use of sensational categories like "terrorists" etc. --hydrox (talk) 03:46, 27 September 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. Closed by nominator, in order to allow article creator time to improve article. TFD (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fałszywka[edit]

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

Original research. While it is clear that the Polish word fałszywka means forgery in English, there is no evidence that it was used in Poland to specifically refer to "counterfeit top secret files and fake police reports produced by the Communist secret service". TFD (talk) 05:54, 20 September 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.

Sergio Urias[edit]

The result of this discussion was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Canadian Poetry Association. It appears there's nothing left to merge. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunt Basmajian Chapbook Award[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. nothing from major Canadian broadcaster [75]. note that only 3 winners were even notable. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not enough sources or content for a separate article. The list of winners was already in the sponsor article Canadian Poetry Association, a fork, so I just copied the lead paragraph from the award article to the Association article, in effect a redirect. Recommend keep the categories in the redirect, they are not copied over. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Canadian Poetry Association and find reliable sources for that article both in terms of the material to be merged and the parent article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 21 September 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alarm für Cobra 11 – Die Autobahnpolizei episodes[edit]

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

There is no encyclopedic content in this table at all. That would mean it fails per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Ryan Vesey 02:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to comprehend the deletion rationaile; lists of episodes of television series are something included in Wikipedia, and when they get too long to be included in the actual page for the series, they get spun off, per procedure and guideline. What is indiscrciminate here? Perhaps the table formatting is atrocious, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bushranger; episode lists are standard for dramatic TV series. The deletion nom is lacking substance; asserting that it is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not good enough. postdlf (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is certain it has more WP:NOTABILITY from the TV series, instead of not enough informative information to which is reliable enough for an article.--GoShow (...............) 23:47, 21 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way of Christ world evangelical ministry[edit]

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

Look at the ((articleissues)) template on this article, which is completely accurate: it's mildly spammy (although not to the point of being speedy deleteable); it's definitely not neutral; some of it appears to be original research; both of the sources are affiliated with the organisation; it's clearly written from the point of view of someone associated with it; its tone is nowhere near unencyclopedic; and it tends to assume the truth of the message that the organisation preaches. Time to blow it up. On top of that, there appear to be zero reliable sources online (virtually all of the 60-odd pages that Google showed me were social media of some sort or another, and the rest were business listings), so WP:N is a substantial problem even if you don't believe in blowing up pages that are hopelessly lost. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any appropriate sources with the name "way of Christ world evangelical ministry" or when I added WOCEM to it. It is not surprising that there are zero sources, considering that this is a religious group and such groups rarely receive news coverage, and if any, it is insignificant (events, advert-like, etc.). There may be zero sources as a result of the company only being one year old. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without proper sources there's no way the article can be made encyclopedic, even if this new establishment is notable. Article as stands does little more than promote the group, its hopelessly POV.TheLongTone (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete unless very substantially improved. At present, it might easily be a one-man ministry. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the above are "fair comments" plus the fact that having been founded in 2011 (see lead section) it has hardly had time to acquire notability. (Note: Christ Apostolic Miracle Ministry, referenced in the see also's, seems to be in a very similar condition although founded some fourteen years earlier - it was tagged for dubious notability in 2008.) Jpacobb (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MacedonianFootball.com awards[edit]

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

an award based on a non official website which only gives this website as a source. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have no article on MacedonianFootball.com because it's been deleted under speedy criterion A7, and it's absurd to rely on an unimportant source as the sole basis of a list. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. How exactly is a non-notable website's award notable ifself?! – Kosm1 fent 19:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly non-notable. Giant Snowman 14:02, 22 September 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.