< 11 September	13 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 delete. Courcelles 23:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems[edit]

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

WP:N This article is an orphan and this group lacks notability. The only notability seems to be a relationship with Shannen Rossmiller who was instrumental in discovering Ryan G. Anderson's attempts to aid al-Qaeda. But according to RS, Rossmiller did not act as a member of this group, or any other, while she was engaging Anderson for the FBI. This group was earlier known as 7Seas [1] and I've nominated that for deletion for the same reasons. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Two names for a seven person self-described "Global Security and Intelligence Team". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless how much 7 Seas / Phoenix were involved in the Anderson incident, Rossmiller stated she was a member of 7 Seas as per this book, this book, and even in her own autobiography. Rossmiller is the focus of this ~~Seattle Times article~~corrected Seatle Times URL, but 7 Seas garners substantial coverage as a secondary subject. This article features 7 Seas as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rossmiller explains she did not share anything with the group in this Wired article: [2]. And the group notability comes only by it's association with her. Agree with Amatulic. Notability WP:NOTINHERITED. Even the founder, Brent Astley doesn't have a wikipedia article. That's how not-notable it is. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The group may have become more noticed because of the actions of Rossmiller, but there is coverage about the group that goes beyond WP:INHERITED. I made an error in the cutting and pasting and linked to the wrong item above for the Seattle Times, and have corrected the link. I've also linked above to an ABC article that covers them as the primary topic. The Houston Chronicle also covers this group. The fact that the founder doesn't have an article is irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Houston Chronicle article begins with mention of Shannen Rossmiller (and in fact, it's all about her). Again, it's only by her notability that the group is mentioned. They would be totally obscure if she had not been associated, however loosely, with them. The 'group' has no notability without her. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - And Michelle Obama is only notable because she is the wife of Barrack Obama. WP:INHERITED does not automatically mean that the related subject cannot be notable itself. The sources I have presented satisfy WP:GNG in that they are reliable sources (major media), and the coverage is significant (beyond just a passing mention). When something satisifies our inclusion criteria, then it should be included. -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - No, you cannot compare Michelle Obama to this. This group, under any name, has not been credited with anything except that at one time they had a loose association with Shannen Rossmiller. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - The Michelle Obama thing was a just a bit of hyperbole to point out that inherited notability can still meet the WP:GNG. I have provided multiple sources that contain significant coverage about the group. Which part of the WP:GNG do you feel has not been addressed by the provided sources? -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: Every source you've provided only shows Rossmiller's accomplishments. The "group" has done nothing of any notability on its own. Without reference to Rossmiller, there would be no reason for any newspaper to write a story about them. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - I'm not disputing that the work of Rossmiller is what got 7seas the coverage. However, we don't determine notability based on our own personal opinion of whether subject has done something worthwhile, we determine notability based on the existence of coverage in reliable sources. Are you disputing that they have been covered in reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I agree with delete (not notable enough on its own), but any relevant info from this article could be added to Rossmiller. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think enough has been said by the two of us. It's time to let other editors look at the "sources," Google the company names and see for themselves, and then make their own decision. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If this article is deleted, then 7Seas will also need to be deleted under WP:CSD#G8. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Besides, articles is a thinly disguised advertisement. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:31, 19 September 2011 (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. It first appeared that just one section was copied and pasted, but much of the rest seems to have been as well, only it's bee tidied up (but not enough to remove copyright concerns). Since there doesn't seem to be anything salvageable, there seems no choice but to speedy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 7 Trustee[edit]

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

No indication that Chapter 7 Trustees are WP:N. Even if they are, this article is in such terrible shape that it would need to be rewritten from scratch. Smells strongly of a copyvio. —SW— ^spout 23:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chapter 7, Title 11, United States Code, at worst. (I don't rule out the possibility that this article could be improved sufficiently to justify being kept.) I don't know if this page was copied from somewhere (I haven't found the source yet, if so), but even if it was, it's possible that the source might be a work of the U.S. government and thus in the public domain. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. Potentially a highly notable topic (or at least worthy of substantial coverage in some article about US bankruptcy law) but the current article doesn't cut it. Most of the text appears to be have been copied from the FAQ page of the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees [3]; this source is cited (repeatedly) in the article, but it's still a copyvio. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue. AfD is not for rescue. They perform an important US government function. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that "rescue" in this particular case means "start over from scratch"? If so, then how is that different from deleting the article without prejudice for recreation (especially considering that it will wipe out the history which is likely full of copyvios)? Why do you feel the need to turn this into a battle? —SW— ^comment 21:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nevermind. Just saw Arxiloxos' comment above. The whole thing is a copyvio. Tagging for speedy G12. —SW— ^babble 21:34, 13 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Beth Ellis[edit]

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

Not a notable author. Google News proves that she writes (or wrote) for msnbc, but I don't see any secondary sources that prove she passes WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.--Slon02 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Verheyden[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:CREATIVE: Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

This spokesperson/journalist is not widely cited by peers according to any sources given. As a subject, he is non-notable.

Per Wikipedia:NOTCV, Wikipedia:CONFLICT: This article was written by the subject; in fact, the only edits made here by User:Jverheyden have been about himself. The article reads like a CV, with external links to works by the subject. Other than the fact they were published, there is no indication of notability or neutrality in this article content, and much remains uncited after more than two years. JFHJr (㊟) 22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To conform this article with basic Wiki standards until this is resolved, I've removed the content in clear violation of Wikipedia:BLP and migrated external links into references to put them into the best context possible. The article should still be deleted per Wikipedia:N. JFHJr (㊟) 03:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He was the OSCE spokesperson, so he was quoted a lot in the press, but I cannot find any significant coverage about him that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. It's a common fallacy at AfD for Keep proponents to ignore the explicit statement that quotes from someone in the press do not establish notability for the spokesman. Ravenswing 17:42, 13 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Murakami[edit]

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

Non-notable recording engineer. All of the references are worthless and do nothing to establish notability. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - No significant coverage about the subject to establish notability. The SP times article is primarily about the subject's father and the org he founded with subject being a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Swimming Pool Association[edit]

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

Organisation fails WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. Article appears to have been created by the subject organisation. I have gone for an AFD rather than a CSD on the basis that Florida presumably has a relatively substantial swimming pool industry and therefore others may feel/prove this group has some notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article behind a pay wall looks to be about them. but aside from that, there's just a lot of quotes from members of this trade association on various swimming pool related topics. Insufficient to establish notability for an organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Just a trade association without any evidence of notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:36, 19 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Clark[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this economist. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am finding it hard to find sources due to the common name. As only too often, the BLP does not state the exact name he publishes under. Article reads like promotional spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note - I have reverted the main body of the article to an earlier version due to copyright issues. The nominated version of the article was a copy of the about page from the subject's web site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to publish as Woodrow W. Clark II, but my searches only found Google scholar citation counts of 28,17,14,12,11,..., not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. In Google news, I found only a couple press releases about his joining Milken and his book, also not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. There is however a different Woodrow W. Clark Jr. who may have some minor notability as a movie producer. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Eppstein. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care but... here's the guy's [own bio page] just FYI NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 15:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Championship[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page because it redirects solely to the nominated article:

Entirely fictional "championship" that is stated to have never been defended or to indeed exist in any form other than a toy replica owned by a professional wrestler. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominator's note: I strongly believe delete rather than redirect is the appropriate action given that (as stated below by User:Huon) "Internet Championship" is such a vague term and the name "WWE Internet Championship" is wholly inaccurate due to the championship not being of WWE's ownership/devising. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Internet Championship and Redirect WWE Internet Championship to Zack Ryder the page should have never been created in the first place.--Dcheagle 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Given the multitude of possible "Internet Championships", a redirect to Zack Ryder actually seems counterproductive. Huon (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zack Ryder. Only ever champion.--Deely1 23:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Internet Championship as it is vague. (Changed vote due to Gary's comments, new vote of Redirect is explained below.) Redirect "WWE Internet Championship" to Zack Ryder. WWE doesn't own it - but it has appeared on WWE programming, so I don't see why this redirect can't work as it isn't vague. Starship.paint (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Far to vague of a term to be redirected. If the article was titled "WWE Internet Championship", then a redirect would be appropriate, but, in this situation, it is not. Delete. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 03:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and oppose redirect~~ - Internet Championship is far to vague to redirect to Zack Ryder. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and oppose redirect for Internet Championship, but Redirect WWE Internet Championship to Zack Ryder -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh guys, what about the page "WWE Internet Championship"? I understand if you want to delete "Internet Championship", but not a single person except Suriel has talked about "WWE Internet Championship". Would you guys be favourable towards a redirect to Zack Ryder for "WWE Internet Championship"? Starship.paint (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have no objection to a redirect for WWE Internet Championship to Zack Ryder. It's a stupid concept but it's real(ish) and a valid redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable - I failed to notice that point. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 16:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I have stated above, I feel that an article title "WWE Internet Championship" (even as a redirect) is wholly inaccurate due to the championship not being of WWE's ownership/devising. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It doesn't matter that the WWE don't own it. A redirect is not an article; it is a navigation aid. The Zack Ryder article can explain that it isn't a WWE sanctioned title. - Whpq (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Reply Its common practice for WP:PW to have the Championships listed with WWE or TNA and etc. in the name because there might be several championships with the same name. And no matter what the championship is a "sanctioned" title in the fact that WWE allows it to be on its shows, its like the Million Dollar Championship. Its sanctioned in private but its not in public.--Dcheagle 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Comment - the Million Dollar Championship is not titled the WWE Million Dollar Championship. And that was a belt devised and owned by WWE. The "Internet Championship" is not. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Its not titled with WWE because no other championship at this time goes by Million Dollar Championship. And the Internet Championship is owned by WWE if it wasn't there is no why in hell that that they would allow Ryder to continue with the idea of it.--Dcheagle 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only acceptable name for a redirect would be Internet Championship (WWE) (per World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)) as "WWE" is not part of the title's name. As for your belief in WWE's ownership of the title, do you have proof of that? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't see the point about an "acceptable name" for the redirect. As Whpq has said, a redirect is a navigation aid. What are people most likely going to type in the search box? WWE Internet Championship or Internet Championship (WWE)? Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. Redirect both and the matter is settled. Starship.paint (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I were a betting man, I'd wager upon WWE Internet Championship being the search query. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 14:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken, particularly relating to "WWE Internet Championship" as a search query - it does have Google hits. (They're all of the forum fanboy variety, but the point stands) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "WWE Internet Championship" to Zack Ryder. Someone looking for that search term will be interested in the information covered in the Ryder article, and it seems a common enough search term to make a redirect worthwhile. (This is the second part of my !vote; I gave my opinion on "Internet Championship" before the redirect was added to the nomination.) Huon (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both redirects if the article is deleted - There is absolutely no reason to delete the "Internet Championship" redirect, as it is a valid (and probable) search term, as the page has been viewed 1843 times this month--more than some articles for former WWE champions--and the title is not used for anything else. If another "Internet Championship" appears in wrestling or any other area, that's exactly what a disambiguation page is for. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my quick Googling found at least three different wrestling "Internet Championships", two for chess and one for backgammon. What makes this one a better redirect target than, say, the NWA Shockwave Internet Championship? And do you really think disambiguating the non-notable is helpful? Huon (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about the possibility of creating a disambiguation page. I therefore support a creation of a disambiguation page which Redirects people to the various pages from "Internet Championship". This will make it easier for anyone who is searching for a particular Internet Championship to be linked to the page they are searching for. Starship.paint (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Merge with the Zack Ryder profile (WorldSeriesOfPoker500 (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2011 (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 Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems. If that article gets deleted, then this redirect will be deleted under WP:CSD#G8. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7Seas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It appears to be a duplicate article. Apparently, this organization was renamed a long time ago and now has another Wikipedia article Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems The history of the organization can easily be incorporated there and given a redirect. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modification after discussion I'm modifying this AfD after discussing it with Whpq. This article is not sourced and it's only references online refer back to Shannen Rossmiller. After a Google search on her and the reliable sources about her, it seems she didn't really perform any function for 7Seas and it appears this group was in fact more of a friendship/information cooperative. She has said in interviews in Wired and other RS, that she didn't really share anything with this group and the group had nothing to do with the cases she's notable for. The article isn't sourced, the group no longer exists and doesn't seem notable, so I'm nominating that it be deleted on that basis. Certainly, mention of it can be kept in Rossmiller's BLP, but as far as having it's own article, it seems it doesn't meet the standard. I'm also going to nominate Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems here: [4] for the same reasons. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural close~~ - The nominator is proposing to either merge the article, or redirect the article, none of which are deletion actions. AFD is not the venue to propose such actions, and in this case, boldly merging them would have made sense. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm proposing deleting it. The Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems article already has mention that it was once called 7Seas. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The nomination specifically states "The history of the organization can easily be incorporated there and given a redirect" without a single mention of deletion. But regardless, the a redirect would be appropriate as a former name of the org. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Okay, no problem. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AS the nominator has adjusted the nomination rationale, I now suggest Redirect to Phoenix Global Intelligence Systems as this is just an older name for the same organisation. Notability of Pheonix will be addressed at that article's AFD -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Some refs appear not to mention topic. I also marked some dead links. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. M. Shankara[edit]

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

Subject isn't notable - doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE Dkchana (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shankara is a world champion in his sport, which meets and surpasses the criterion at WP:ATHLETE#Generally acceptable standards criterion 1. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes basic criterion for Notability guidelines for people. See here, Google news archives. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added a reliable source reference to the article: "Striking at the right time." Live Mint & The Wall Street Journal. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:NSPORT. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The wording of the nomination is inspecific, stating that the topic doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE guidelines without stating which one(s). Referring to entire pages of guidelines fails to qualify specific reasons for notability or lack thereof, and equates to referring to an entire list of multiple, specific rationales as a singular, generic rationale for article deletion. This equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page, without actually stating any of the criterion on the guideline page to qualify the statement, which is illogical. Assuming the nominator is referring to the basic criterion section of stated guidelines, which part(s) of the guidelines are not being met? All of them? Some of them? None are specifically stated. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlotta (band)[edit]

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

Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources beyond the student paper article already given. No criterion of WP:BAND applies, this fails WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom stated, subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND; I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:39, 19 September 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed Virtues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Assassin's Creed Virtues

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

No sources given for name; Virtues is a purely unsubstantiated rumour. Aside from naming issues, there has been no information yet released about the Vita Assassin's Creed game, so article is unnecessary at this stage. SynergyBlades (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merely a rumored name, I've seen people trying to add it without a source to the "List of Vita games" article too. If any information is confirmed on this game, it ought to just be a section at the series article for now anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even a credible rumored name; no gaming site has picked it up.--Odie5533 (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, also fails WP:CRYSTAL. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:41, 19 September 2011 (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. Ignoring the open proxies, we are left with a clear consensus to delete. Courcelles 23:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robots and Racecars[edit]

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

Band of questionable notability. Some local airplay and coverage, but little significant coverage from independent reliable sources - mainly simple listings, primary sources, and social media. Fails WP:BAND. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This entry should not be deleted because the band meets the following 2 points

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Per references: http://www.radio1045.com/pages/studio/robots_and_racecars.html (Philadelphia Clear Channel Radio Station) http://www.theinshow.com/music/robotsANDracecars.html (LA Radio Station) http://stickam.com/liveforjapan (National website, talks about a show played with many bands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.90.36.191 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — 190.90.36.191 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - neither the Philadelphia or the LA station airings constitute rotation on a national network. As for Stickam, that is a social website featuring user-generated content. Being on that website does not equal a major national network. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While stickam.com features user created content, the band has been featured by the site admins and looking at page http://stickam.com/liveforjapan, it was an event that the normal user could not be a part of. bands were hand selected and only a few played. the event.

From the contested deletion page: Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the band receives radio airplay nationwide, is sponsored by a national sponsor (Red Bull) and hosts a weekly national show on Stickam.com seen by thousands weekly. There is some relevance to the subject. an. — 69.249.105.212 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC) [edit] Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Robots and Racecars is a well established music group who has been around for a number of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.73.221 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC) [edit] Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Robots and Racecars plays with national touring bands and people may want additional information after seeing them. . — 76.98.228.214 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC) [edit] Contested deletion

References are from national sources such as stickam.com (#1 social website), and radio1045 (clear channel owned station). also the aqurian weekly (longest running print magazine for punk rock). band is known due to playing with national touring and signed bands as well as weekly stickam show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.132.59 (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — 89.207.132.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. There are several non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. There are several references including newpapers, magazines and blogs. None of which look like they are controlled by the band. --212.7.210.88 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — 212.7.210.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Little significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Also note Afd is not a vote. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep avoids self-promotion; and includes information that can be verified through independent sources.--38.124.192.20 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — 38.124.192.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment A simple Bing search brings up: their Myspace, Facebook and Twitter pages and a few blogs. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple bing search for any band brings up their Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and a few blogs. Reference list shows many independent sources of information. --189.3.50.34 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)— 189.3.50.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Really, are you sure. In all seriousness though, saying that doesn't mean it deserves an article. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just read all of the references in the article and they seem valid and independent. --89.207.132.59 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)— 89.207.132.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Admin note: At least most of the IPs in this debate so far are now blocked as open proxies. So they're probably the same user. You guys should knock it off with the sockpuppetry before I semi-protect this page. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think they have enough exposure with the Red Bull sponsorship and playing with large bands. Looks reliant with the history, no self promotion and a good amount of references. I see a need for this.--76.98.228.214 (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)— 76.98.228.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Admin note:Of the five "keep" comments so far, four are from IPs with no edits at all except to this AfD, the article, or its talk page, and the other one has almost no edits except to this AfD. Three of them were made from open proxies, which are now blocked. I have no evidence as to whether the other two are proxies. Since the likely sockpuppet-editing has continued after zzuuzz's warning, I have gone ahead with the suggested semi-protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The tidal wave of sockpuppets notwithstanding, I see nothing that meets any of the criteria of WP:BAND. Such mention in any reliable sources other than the local weekly is only a couple sentences long, and does not meet the "significant detail" requirement of the GNG. Presuming there is indeed a "Red Bull sponsorship" - for which no reliable sources have been proffered - so what? I played for a youth hockey team that was sponsored by the local Coca-Cola bottler, but being "sponsored by Coke" didn't make the team notable. Ravenswing 18:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the write-up mentioned above by Ravenswing, I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 20:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrapesTALK[edit]

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

This is a nice online magazine, but apparently not notable according to WP:CORP. It's difficult to determine whether it meets WP:SIGCOV, due to ambiguity between search hits for "grape stalk", "grapes talk", and the actual name of the magazine. The only source cited even describes the magazine as an "amateurish newsletter". The article appears to be an attempt at promotion or exposure, having been created by its publisher/editor (creator's username is the same as the publisher). ~Amatulić (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been skeptical of the notability of this article for a while but have procrastinated in submitting it for AfD because I was taking a break from deletion debates. It does indeed just look to be a self-promotion vehicle and after 2 years of existence, I have not seen any reliable sources demonstrating mainstream coverage that could be used to improve the article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination and Agne27, and lack of reliable sources that establish notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2011 (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.

Article was speedily deleted as a Blatant hoax (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccans with Disabilities Act of 1992[edit]

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

Hoax. All of the text refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – [5], [6] – It's obviously copied from a past revision of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American comic book industry timeline[edit]

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

There is no stated basis for inclusion of items here: Some are quantifiable firsts, others are pure POV and undue weight.
Aside from the theoretically fixable problems tagged on the article page, there are many speculative "probably" phrases and suppositions that may be endemic to any such timeline of this particular subject, which has variables as to even what constitutes a "comic book", as well as much fancruft minutiae.
Given that we have prose articles that give the history of comic books in context with referencing, this timeline, with its intrinsic problems, is not needed. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK redundant with American_comic_book#History, but riddled with original research and undue weight as described by the nominator. Already covered with better referencing and context. (Note: nominator is unfamiliar with AFD processes, but is navigating the bureaucracy in good faith by moving from PROD to AFD. Give him a break.) :) Shooterwalker (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A timeline or chronology is a sensible and standard part of a reference work, as we see in the The World Encyclopedia of Comics, for example, which contains a "Chronology of Comic Art from the 18th Century to the Present". Deciding what to include in such a chronology is an ordinary editorial decision which is no different to the decisions required when writing a prose history. Complaints about OR just seem to be the routine issues found in most of our articles and American_comic_book#History is no exception as its section on The Modern Age seems quite debatable and is unsupported by any sources. Our editing policy is to work on such issues over time rather than to peremptorily delete. Warden (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that the topic exist outside of the article. All content appears to be original research by synthesis at best, with no indication that the subject meets the general notability guideline by itself. As mentioned by others, the article is an unreferenced content fork that has no notability supported by reliable secondary sources, so it should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree this is a content fork that's composed of original research with no independent notability. Dzlife (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arash habibi lashkari[edit]

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

Ph.D. candidate in computer science who does not show any evidence of passing WP:PROF. Entirely self-sourced. Resumecruft. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources in the article or that I can find. Only 11 listed published articles from his edu bio and all of them have been published since 2009. The two published English books are from publishers that publish thesis and dissertations. Only a PhD student. Bgwhite (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 24 cites on GS. Far, far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:44, 19 September 2011 (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 deleted as G11 and G12. matt (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Study abroad in Thailand[edit]

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

This seems more like an ad than anything else (note the list of universities and their URLs)--it's certainly nothing like Study abroad in the United States. Perhaps this is a possible article, but certainly not like this. I didn't attempt a speedy like G11 since I don't think it's that bad, but it is much too promotional for my taste. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 and G12: http://studyinthailand.org/ Gurt Posh (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete i'd call it unambiguous advertising, no need for AfD, Just CSD it. Bailo26 16:27, 12 September 2011 (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. This does not preclude any further discussions about renaming. Rlendog (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kariya (Kannada Film)[edit]

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

No notability established per WP:NFILM. Further, the only claim of notability is unverified. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just two days ago, NDTV in India called it one of the "biggest hits" among films made in the Kannada language. Strong presumption of extensive reliable sources in the Kannada language, spoken by 50 million people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's very easy to find the NDTV reference that Cullen mentions above and there's this from the Dainik Bhaskar which clearly states it had two releases, the first one running for 75 days and the next time it ran for 100 days. Film was released in 2003, Deccan Chronicle online archives don't go back that far. And apparently it was in theatres in 2010 and 2011. Vernacular and offline sources should be available in plenty for a movie like this. —SpacemanSpiff 10:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable film. It also created some controversy, which I have added to the article with a referenced news source. Dream Focus 15:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 2003 film that has a successful re-release more than five yars later. Meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should be moved to Kariya (film) to satisfy WP:NCF, and an entry should be placed on Kariya (disambiguation). Did not want to do this while discussion is taking place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added to dab and created a redirect from the correct title, article can be moved when the AfD is closed. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 14 September 2011 (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. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bone[edit]

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

Longstanding concerns about the notability of this film under Wikipedia:Notability (films), raised on the talk page in 2008 and reiterated since then, have not been resolved. It's apparent that these concerns cannot be alleviated. This film just isn't notable. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors have been working on the article since 2008,[7] but yes... the article as nominated was not the best. That granted, it really did not take too long at all to clean it up, add additional sources, and give it a healthier and more encyclopedic appearance. My argument here is that WP:NF does not expect a film to receive worldwide coverage, and that notable to Northern Ireland through review and critical commentary in that coutry's major newspapers, should be good enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is already coverage linked to in the article. [8] Dream Focus 01:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources added to the article that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I read the ANI discussion and whatever WP:CANVASS violation that may have occurred has likely bee completely countered by the outside attention. Roughly, there's just under 2:1 in favor of deletion (and almost as many "note to closing admin" comments); WP:NOTNEWS/WP:ONEEVENT is the ultimate outcome... — Scientizzle 14:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack[edit]

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

clearly WP:NOTNEWS. no one killed even injured. Evacuations and arrests happen all the time. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't seems especially noteworthy. A line in a list of failed terrorist attempts perhaps. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy by Al-qaida link.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep investigation underway by Swedish police and SÄPO. No way to know how this will turn out. Got press outside sweden in major publications/news sites. Libstar is also wrong about the notion that evacuations and arrestes happen all the time, atleast not evacuations were the police have suspicion of attempted terrorist attacks in Sweden. They are all under arrest on the higher level of suspicion too. Anyhow I say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that Libstar didnt send me a notification of this AfD as is expected. Just for future reference.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you found this AfD in about 1 hour of it being created. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By chance.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have been good if you received a notification, but no, the absence of notification has no bearing on the article's notability. Tomas e (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a news agency. Not a noteworhty event. - DonCalo (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is built on news. we even have an ITN section.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also notable per Al-qaida link.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That link is speculation. /Julle (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, no. That's not even speculation, that's just plain wrong. They are rumoured to have links to al-Shabaab, a political fraction in Somalia (with links to al-Qaida, though I don't see why that would be considered that important in 2011, when al-Shabaab is a probably much stronger force than al-Qaida). /Julle (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: no indication this will have any lasting coverage or effect. If it turns out to after all, there's always re-creation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The men has been described as three men from Somalia and one from Iraq with links to Al-qaida. And it has recieved lasting coverage not dying out in a day or two. And how can we even have an indication fo lasting coverage after 2 days? If that is the premise we go after then it has recieved lasting coverage by mention in most national and international news sources since.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011

Also notable per Al-qaida link.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the sources of the article I can find CBS reporting that one tabloid, Expressen, known as one of the least reputable news sources in the country, says that anonymous sources suspect that they have links to al-Shabab, which in turn have links to al-Qaida. Taking that information and saying "they have links to al-Qaida!" is not a way to build a dependable encyclopedia. /Julle (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now investigators think that the men have links to an Al-qaida group. So I wouldnt call this yet another failed terrorist attack. Had it been in Iraq or similar were these kind of attacks happen quite frequently I would have agreed but when it almost happened in Sweden I think it is notable. And in the closeness to the September 11 attacks 10 year anniversary in the US you can wonder if the attacks was planned to bring news for al-qaida and disturb the anniversary by bombing Sweden a country with little terrorist security and an easy target for Al-qaida.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investigators haven't said so officially, no. What the tabloids write isn't necessarily true. And al-Shabaab isn't "an al-Qaida group". They are a political group in Somalia – bigger, stronger, and probably have more blood on their hands than al-Qaida. Leave al-Qaida out of this and, if you necessarily want to argue the point, say that the men (and it hasn't even been proven that this is something the investigators agree on) are suspected of having links to al-Shabaab. /Julle (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't seems especially noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.133.72 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

single purpose account, with no real reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't looks like a single-purpose account at all; it has four edits on completely unrelated info. Blue Crest (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge: the entry on the current events portal can stay, but i agree that this probably doesn't warrant an article of its own. Is there a Crime/Terrorism in Sweden article? Maybe put a sentence about it in there. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue this wouldn't warrant mentioning in a "Crime in Sweden" article. /Julle (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this line: investigation underway by Swedish police and SÄPO. No way to know how this will turn out. Got press outside sweden in major publications/news sites. The article is not great but it seems to be notable enough to be kept. Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 17:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin this !vote was canvassed. [9]. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its time to check trough what canvassing is. Because you seem to not fully understand it. Just a suggestion. It is a difference between canvassing and notifying.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't know how this will turn out" is no argument for notability, but rather for not having an article at all on this specific subject. See WP:CRYSTAL. Tomas e (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a valid argument. The main distinction between "routine" (non-notable) and "non-routine" news coverage is to check to consider what would happen after an event. This appears to be non-routine news coverage - And it doesn't violate Crystal ball to think "gosh, what could be the result of this event?" - We use that thought process all the time when we consider notability of a news event. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to widespread media coverage, i.e. "notable" as covered in "multiple" "reliable sources". --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - nothing to indicate that it is notable. Tomas e (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Suspected link to an infamous terror cell, potential for hundreds of deaths, lots of coverage... seems comparable to the Christmas Day bombing attempt. Obviously more information needs to be added about the plans and event as the investigation reveals more information. Blue Crest (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. "potential for hundreds of deaths", every plane that takes off has potential for hundreds of deaths. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about trying to "canvass" an opinion?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

does not fit the definition of WP:CANVASS, suggest you read it. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm sure there's a good explanation, but can I ask what the link is between this AfD and the numerous editors that User:BabbaQ posted on the talk page of, asking them to participate in it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I generally don't want to delete articles because of the quality, but this has no substance what so ever. Latest news (and I'm sorry if you can't read Swedish, but all the best and the best updated sources will be in Swedish when we're talking Swedish criminal cases) is that they won't even be prosecuted as terrorists but for "förberedelse till mord", conspiracy to murder. The law doesn't recognize them as terrorists. There's some speculation that their target was Swedish artist Lars Vilks. If so I'd say we could add a sentence or two about the case in the article on him – but later, when we have the facts! /Julle (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Ongoing investigation of an event that is notable, there is no WP:DEADLINE for deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how is the event notable as per WP:EVENT. seems rather routine terrorist arrest to me. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about trying to "canvass" an opinion?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

does not fit the definition of WP:CANVASS, suggest you read it. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Events can be a catalyst/trigger for something else. According to this ariticle here from the Huffington Post, it is reporting that after this event the Swedish government is throwing more tax payer money in to anti- terrorist measures. That result makes this event notable. --Ryan.germany (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No direct connection, so that claim has no relevance whatsoever to establishing the article's relevance. The autumn session of the Swedish parliament opened this week, and its main focus is the 2012 budget. It is customary to announce various upcoming measures over the week or two leading up to the release of the full budget proposal, different ministries on different days, to give several different ministers a chance to be in the news. Tomas e (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this !vote was canvassed given that Ryan.germany !votes keep at almost every AfD. [10]. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin Please check my voting record, I have not voted in any AfDs since this accusation. I have voted in 30 AfDs. I have voted 13 Keep, 14 Delete, 1 Merge/delete and 2 Redirect. Please put LibStar on notice for false accusations and harassment as he spreading this false statement on multiple pages "this !vote was canvassed given that Ryan.germany !votes keep at almost every AfD." about me. --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You call it canvassing, I call it notifying. Which is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note to closing admin Ryan.Germany accompanies its votes with arguments and sources. LibStar votes Delete at almost every AfD typically with the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" WP:AADD of "Just pointing at a policy or guideline" WP:JUSTAPOLICY. --Ryan.germany (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ever respond to canvassing by other editors. see WP:CANVASS. my edit history shows no responding to canvassing ever. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. However, I was not responding to the canvassing accusation. I was commenting on your voting history (you often vote "Delete") and on your style of arguments (typically WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:GOOGLEHITS, which are considered "not good arguments" WP:AADD). Every Wikipedia article comes downs to sources, sources, sources. Challenge the sources. If the sources don't hold up, there is nothing else to worry about. --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how did you know to come to this AfD? LibStar (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar - I came across very good advice on a user talk page that I would like to quote "Comments are welcome, but if you've come here because you've been following me around at AfDs, I suggest you desist and WP:CHILL. I will not respond to comments from wikihounders. otherwise feel free to make constructive comments." It doesn't get any simpler than that. It is interesting to note that you voted on an AfD page, where I too voted on, just 6 minutes after I place my comment here. Wikihounding? --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clearly WP:NOTNEWS is not a question of sources, it's question of policy. otherwise WP would have articles on every event that got reported (which is what BabbaQ is hinting at). LibStar (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin -- It's kind of hard to tell from the above discussion, but it seems as though User:BabbaQ has been canvassing editors who !vote keep to come to this AfD. So far, the user has refused to acknowledge this and has removed the questions about this behavior from his talk page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first line in the Canvassing page states: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, and that is all that I have done. Then if some users that usually like 90% of the times !votes delete disagrees with that doesnt make it canvassing. I simply notified users of this AfD mark the word "notified" not telling them in anyway how to !vote or my own opinion in the matter, I personally dont think I have the powers to make someone change their mind or similar. Could it potentially be that these users are smart enough to come up with their own decision? Just imagine.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know if you're trying to avoid the question or what, but no one was saying your message wasn't neutrally worded. But you posted it to a bunch of editors who had no connection to this article outside of the fact that the voted keep in past AfDs! That is canvassing, plain and simple, and is not acceptable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Yaksar, from WP:CANVASS "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions". LibStar (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin -- In my opinion it seems like some users here keeps bringing the alleged canvassing situation up more because they are just angry that it has been many independently made Keep !votes while them themselves !voted delete and are of an delete opinion. I dont think these "canvassing accusations" would have been made had a majority been in favour of delete. Which I find disturbing. These users !voted keep by looking at the article and making their own personal decisions in a in my opinion clear cut Keep case, lets face it!. That is my last comment to this situation, I dont want to disrespect all those keep !voters intelligence.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that yo seem to be willing to break the rules to get what you want: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbaQ/Archive. - DonCalo (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now This is the first War on Terror conflicting to Sweden. If not, this article must merge to Wikinews. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "War on Terror conflicting", but I very much doubt you'd find a good definition that both covers this event and makes it the first. See 2010 Stockholm bombings. /Julle (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - by itself not a major event, but if more events later develop, could be part of an article called Terrorism in Sweden or something. Kansan (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourced and currenly open-ended. (This !vote was not canvassed.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

being sourced is not a reason for keeping. otherwise we'd create articles for every event reported in the media. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made your opinion about the article abundantly clear, so there's no real need to respond to every !vote and comment. Let other folks express their opinions, yours will be given due weight even without the repetition. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like BabbaQ responding to every delete vote with the comment that an alleged Al Qaida link automatically makes something notable? Van Isaac_WS^contribs 03:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors should stop repetitions remarks. It's true that AfD should be a conversation and not a vote, but (cf. Monty Python's Argument Clinic, simply repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make a discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An attempted terrorist attack in a country with little history of such acts is extremely likely to have enduring notability, as this article passes the regular notability guidelines, that should be enough to keep the article. If the entire world forgets about this in a few months, perhaps deletion should be revisited, but again, it seems likely this will continue to receive attention. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"extremely likely to have enduring notability" is purely speculation and WP:CRYSTALballing. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be WP:CRYSTAL, everyone arguing that this is WP:NOTNEWS and or WP:EVENT is doing the same thing. We shouldn't delete an article that passes WP:N on speculation that it will not have enduring notability, especially in a case where the nature of the subject make it likely it will receive prolonged attention. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are from the period of this event, no demonstration of enduring historical significance so as per WP:NOTNEWS policy this should be deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 06:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ban user - The event is not notable enough to have its own article. The user should also be banned for his disruptive behaviour detailed in the ongoing ANI discussions surrounding him. Colofac (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (ecx2) Clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Everything that Al-qaida touches does not make that item notable on its own. If someone really believes that this should be kept, then it should be moved to the section of the Al-qaida article on failed projects. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except, yet again, and I do apologize if I'm repeating myself, but I feel this is an important point: al-Shabaab shouldn't be described as "an al-Qaida group". The article should be enough to explain why. (That if such a connection would be established, of course. The conenction to al-Shabaab is what a Sweidsh tabloid reported that anonymous sources claim the investigators are suspecting. Surely, that is not a way to build a dependable encyclopedia?) That has, to me, absolutely nothing to do with whether this article is relevant or not. Al-Qaida is not the only important terrorist organization, or militant Islamic fraction, in the world. Al-Shabaab is probably more important today. /Julle (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No substance and not noteworthy. This story rated brief mention in the international press for one day, and has generated no follow-up commentary or analysis. Might be worth mentioning tersely on a list of foiled terrorist attacks, but certainly not substantial enough for its own article by a longshot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT. JohnCD (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. In the highly unlikely scenario that some detail of this event has lasting impact, a DRV may then be appropriate. DeliciousBits (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even minor news - there have been thousands of such evacutations across the globe, and they are not "notable" for Wikipedia. I suppose someone might make a comprehensive list of all such, but it would be longer than the old British monarchy descendents page used to be [11]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign that this has any enduring coverage to make up for WP:NOTNEWS. Yaksar (let's chat) 14:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Chillllls (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is run-of-the-mill news involving run-of-the-mill policework stopping a run-of-the-mill crime. Nothing here gives any evidence that this event will have a lasting significance beyond any other random event from news cycle. --Jayron32 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this must be deleted, then it should be merged to Wikinews, it's better way about the up to date information conflicting terrorism. Wikipedia has guidelines for WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT topics so we can't put the up to date information there. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are licensing reasons why it can't be transferred to Wikinews - see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects#Wikinews. The author would have to input it there directly (which is where it should have been in the first place). JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous nomination. Anyone doing research into terrorism in Europe will find the topic of this article notable. Deterence ^Talk 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the first Swedish Islamist terrorist incident ever in Europe's history, must merge to Wikinews or the result will be no consenus. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Not the case, as JohnCD says above, merge to Wikinews is NOT possible and as WP:NOT is policy (ie not a guideline) those advocating keep have to show enduring significance and as no refs outside the 48 hrs of the event have been provided this has not happened. Mt king ^(edits) 00:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This failed terrorist attempt did not highly happen as 9/11 attacks in the US, and its not an important story. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already explained above, no, it's not. See 2010 Stockholm bombings. /Julle (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Where Have I read that around here? Seriously, did any of you citing NOTNEWS (now depreciated in favor of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER actually read what it says: For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is not a routine announcement or a football score. This is a major news story, and the coverage definitely qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Buddy431 (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only note that the word "enduring" is in that section. You may want to address the enduring nature of this event by showing how it has endured. Some sources which show its endurance would be useful to changing votes. --Jayron32 05:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also have a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Barack Obama visit to India and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India his visit revived far more coverage than this event, but like this event the coverage stopped when the event stopped, in both cases there is no evidence of any enduring notability. Mt king ^(edits) 05:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, to be honest. On English Wikipedia we are mainly working with English sources. Barack Obama is the president of the most populous English-speaking country, so of course, what he does far more easily gets covered by big media in English, compared to what happens in Sweden. However, from a global point of view, if we're going to look at (English) media attention as a criterion for relevance, then that will seriously unbalance how we judge relevance in the US compared to Russia, Canada compared to China, Britain compared to Algeria and so on. (And if we, on the other hand, would turn to Swedish-language media, then of course this got more coverage.) /Julle (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was about the need to show more than news coverage at the time, so to avoid falling foul of the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy there is a need it to show enduring notability of the event by showing coverage after the time frame of the event. Mt king ^(edits) 11:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the true threat to the Wikipedia, editors who wish to turn us away from an encyclopedia and into an arm of Google News. Editors who approach article-writing with the mindset of "X number of mentions in sources == article creation". WP:NOTNEWS to a T. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Editors who whimsically delete informative content are the true threat to Wikiledia. Deterence ^Talk 13:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who have called for deletion have actually given reasons grounded in project policy or guideline, so that quite handily punctures your "whimsical" claim. If we really wish ti speak of whimsy, Your point of view rests squarely in the "it's useful" realm of fantasy. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know you're out of touch with the big-picture purpose of Wikipedia - it's an encyclopedia! - when you think an article's usefulness in providing informative content lies in the "realm of fantasy". Deterence ^Talk 14:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia covers what is notable, what is important. Not every scrap of every event that happens in a day. When you can learn to differentiate between the mundane and the newsworthy, you'll be a better editor. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides useful information to anyone doing research on terrorism in Europe. The article does no harm. I am at a loss as to why so many people are hell-bent on censoring this information. Deterence ^Talk 21:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM. People are not "hell-bent on censoring" anything - they want to stick to WP:NOT in order to keep Wikipedia from wandering off its core mission as an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, my reasons for voting to Keep this article are entirely consistent with WP:ITSUSEFUL (I have provided reasons) and WP:NOHARM. Perhaps you could have another look at those policies. Further more, your link to WP:NOT doesn't actually say anything. The fact remains, this is an encyclopedic article that provides referenced informative content for anyone doing research on terrorism in Europe/Sweden. Deleting this content will do Wikipedia, and the readers of Wikipedia, a disservice. Deterence ^Talk 23:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the biggest point between War on Terror and Sweden, but the 2010 Stockholm bombings was an incident. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that there's practically nothing to base it on. Four men have been arrested. That's pretty much what we know for certain. The rest is rumours and speculation. /Julle (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I disagree with Tarc every time he opens his mouth, but I agree with him on this. There is the constant issue with editors of niche subjects that feel that every little blip in the media that involves their niche demands a new article be written about it. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Period. Trusilver 06:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously... without a doubt. This article is about a total non-incident and fails WP:NOTNEWS utterly. This reminds me of the aviation wikiproject and how its members want to make an article every time a plane hits an especially hard bump on the runway. Trusilver 17:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Also odd to me that none of the news links are local to the event. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the poor administrator who has to read through all this -- I can't see any link to it above, so just in case the ANI discussion about the canvassing that occurred is here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#Canvassing_for_an_AfD. — Scientizzle 14:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I suspect we'll be hearing a fair bit more about this and will be notable. We have enough coverage that has been sustained over the last few days that I imagine this will overcome WP:EVENT. Does it now? That's a hard call. Certainly there was coverage as recently as 4 hours ago [12]. I generally !vote to keep if I'm darn certain it will continue to have sustained coverage. I'm not darn certain, but I'd take an even up bet that it will be. So weak keep. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: no indication this will have any lasting coverage or effect. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:46, 19 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feck[edit]

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

Article about a word that provides very few encyclopedic details or context. "In popular culture" sections are deprecated, and most of the rest is lexical data that belongs in a dictionary. The only part that is remotely encyclopedic is "Debate about the word's level of offensiveness", but a couple of small paragraphs is not enough to sustain a full article on its own. Powers ^T 11:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article needs to be expanded, but there is lots more to cover. This is an interesting word with lots of social context; definitely encyclopedic IMO. West Eddy (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already present at Wikitionary, yes, but this page also contains some interesting and relevant material which would not be present there. Plus, it actually has some decent references. Several Times (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If someone wants to expand it, there are these sources. I especially like this source. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per reliable sources researched by User:Gene93k, which qualify the topic's notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming you mean SL93, I don't see very much significant coverage there. The one SL93 "especially like"s, in fact, is just a footnote. Powers ^T 12:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hotchpotch of dialect words with different meanings, contrary to WP:DICDEF. Note that it doesn't have the meaning recorded by the OED of a rumen. Warden (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article isn't just a definition, but also list notable cases where the word got news coverage for being said on television, etc. Dream Focus 02:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2011 (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. Courcelles 23:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Pashov[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The player has played 27 games in the Bulgarian B PFC .. however, is it considered professional or not? The name of the league suggests it is (Professional Football Group) but the league is not listed in WP:FOOTY's list of professional leagues. However, in the article List of professional sports leagues, it is listed as being professional. TonyStarks (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since Wifione confirmed that B PFG is professional (just as I suspected), the player is notable. Keep. TonyStarks (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found the sources. It's the second level football league, and BPFG is a fully professional national football league that is operated by the Bulgarian Professional Football League,[13][14][15][16][17][18] and Mr. Georgi Pashovi, a ubiquitous member too,[19][20] who has also played in the past for PFC Litex Lovech too,[21] the current champs of the Bulgarian A professional league.[22] Thus I believe Georgio fully qualifies on NFOOTBALL. But I should request the closing admin to necessarily mention that in case the article continues to fail the GNG over a reasonable period of time, it should come back. Wifione ^Message 10:58, 19 September 2011 (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, unambiguous copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic reforms and social disadvantages[edit]

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

This article is very short to establish a proper context. Moreover, this article seems like a repetition of the Wiki article Economic reform. The only reason I haven't pitched this article for Speedy Deletion is because the content in this article, although trivial at face value, sounds nearly academic, and therefore there are reasons to debate. Ratibgreat (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. G12 CSD copyvio of (http://finance. mapsofworld. com/economy-reform/poverty.html). The URL has word spacing due to blacklist/Spam filter notice. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zomboy[edit]

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

Only 5 hits on google news for Zomboy [23] and not one is about this fellow, fails WP:NOTE The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 09:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to go with a delete here... I can find some coverage on this artist (e.g., here and here) but little that isn't either a press release or a direct interview with the artist in question. Nik thestoned 09:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO, and insufficient coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A trawl through the internet reveals a lot of mentions but no third party reliable sources that indicate notability. Fails WP:Notability (music). It can always be created if greater notability arises.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail our notability guidelines by a large margin. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. I'm unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 02:00, 15 September 2011 (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 User Anish Viswa wishes, I can userfy the article to the user's respective page. Kindly direct all userfication requests to my talk page. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arivaal Chuttika Nakshatram[edit]

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

Film not yet released; this is a bit crystal bally! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First of all, release is not a criterion for a film to have an article in Wikipedia. Upcoming films can have articles, if they are confirmed projects already in various stages of production or post-production. Even a film like Hobbits slated for 2012 December release, has a article in Wikipedia. Additionally, we added 6 reference links to website reports about this film, to prove its validity and verifiability. A simple search on this article in Google gives a lot of pages of results, indicating the notability of this article. The film is currently under production and will be completed in 2-3 months, during the period, we can add more details, production details, film poster etc. So, we don't think this article in any way, falls under 'Crystal Ball'.
Anish Viswa 08:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While future films might have an article, per WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." According to the only source that mentions filming dates, the filming will not commence until November. Also, all the sources are just the same rehash of the PR announcement. No reference goes into any detail about the film. Bgwhite (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. PamD 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Return for a short while to author User:Anishviswa. This planned film IS getting coverage and IS pushing at being one of those allowable exceptions to NFF per article's ELs (which would have been better used as citations):[24][25][26][27][28][29] Considering the persons involved, it is far likely that we will hear more and not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. Suggest a user-fy. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Sorel-Cameron[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. none of the books he's written have received significant acclaim. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Only three novels, which, TBH, aren't really notable or significant in anyway. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2011 (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 Australian Geographic Society. v/r - T P 01:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Geographic Society Adventure Awards[edit]

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

Contested PROD, No indication that this is a notable award.Fails WP:GNG Mt king ^(edits) 04:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Australian Geographic awards are notable to Australians, as they recognise the extraordinary achievements of Australian adventurers. I created this list because I found the amount of detail listed on the Australian Geographic website about each achievement to be lacking - especially in the earlier years. The article is sufficiently referenced and accurate. I have strong objections to the article being deleted, however would support a merger with the parent article. Bezza84 (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It asserts notability and it confirms it with many references. I see not reason to delete this article. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which refs - the refs are about the named persons ? - look at the links at the top of this page, and I can find nothing that addresses the subject of the awards in significant detail as required by WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 07:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references to individuals clearly consider the award important enough to mention. I am surprised that the award itself has not been noticed more, but I have not really looked. For now, a merge will keep the material until it can be recreated as the article gets larger and more specific references are found. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think the awards themselves are notable. BTW Australian Geographic Society is only a small article, so I think it'll be better if the two get merged. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds Useful, though i dont see a reason for deletion a Merge into the Australian Geographic Society will benefit both. Considering the size of the Australian Geographic Society this merge as discussed by Sp33dyphil should be worth considering. Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 12:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to Australian Geographic Society, which will also improve and expand the Australian Geographic Society article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 01:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chyawanprash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing here which is verifiable to any reliable source. An attempt at reducing the article to only verifiable information left a single sentence about a scientific study, the merits of which the source does not explain. Hence the article does not belong as it clearly fails WP:V N419 BH 04:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although a lot of the original article was awful, it sure looks like a good article could be written about this stuff - there are dozens of peer reviewed papers about it on gscholar, and tons of other secondary source coverage. Although unverifiable claims shouldn't remain in articles (and the earlier version had a bunch of stuff that failed V and NPOV in it) deletion isn't usually used to deal with problems that can be fixed through ordinary editing. Kevin (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article can be sufficiently improved such that it passes WP:V and doesn't fall afoul of other policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE then that is a satisfactory outcome. As is however the article doesn't have anything useable in it so unless improvements are made we need to delete it and start over. N419 BH 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion isn't for problems that can be solved through ordinary editing. You should feel free to shorten the article as much as is needed to get it to conform with our content policies - I already deleted like 80% of the content in the article. You don't need a consensus at AfD to shorten an article in such a way. If it has to be cut down to a single sentence for v, or, or npov - that's fine, it can be a single sentence. We don't have a policy against stubs. A brief examination of the secondary sources that cover it shows that it passes the WP:GNG. Since it's a notable topic, there's no need (and in fact, no policy allowing us) to delete it. Kevin (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage exists to make this substance notable, a simple Google search on any one of its spellings is enough to demonstrate this. I've thrown in some references to help it stand up (though a rewrite still wouldn't go amiss...) Yunshui (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems worth keeping. May be some one may rewrite to put it better if needed. Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 16:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per these sources. SL93 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out if you're being incredibly arch, or just don't know how URLs work... In the spirit of AGF, I'm assuming the former. Yunshui (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the search because I don't need to cater to lazy people who can't read sources on the first page of a search. SL93 (talk)

Keep It is a household name in India. Shyamsunder (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did. Little or no progress on improving the article has been made in the six years since the previous nomination, so "normal editing" clearly wasn't improving the article. Furthermore, I do not have the necessary knowledge of either alternative medicine or Indian culture to fix the article. Therefore, my only choices were to tag the article and wait another 5 years before someone did anything about it, blank the article and be reverted, or nominate the article for deletion since only one sentence in it was sourced and I couldn't determine the validity of said source. I feel my nomination is therefore completely within process and the page in original form was a valid candidate for deletion per WP:V. N419 BH 05:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When nominating, please consider being more specific in the rationale for deletion. The way the nomination is worded, it appears that you're only referring to content within the article, as there's no mention of stated required search for reliable sources. Using the statement "There is nothing here which is verifiable to any reliable source" as stated in your nomination implies that you are referring to the content within the article, rather than the availability of reliable sources through the required source-searching before nomination. The statement in your nomination that the article therefore does not belong is not congruent with following the procedures required before nomination, again, because it is based upon the content within the article rather than a search for reliable sources. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2011 (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. Userfication requests on my talk page please. They will be encouragingly entertained. Wifione ^Message 09:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phased vector control of induction motors[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic essay; it looks like it was copied and pasted from a patent application. PROD was removed by the author without comment. VQuakr (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability - a patent is most certainly not evidence thereof! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based on the results of research and set experiments. The theory has been proven on a prototype. This is a new matter that is why the patent has been issued on it. The article material has not been copied from anywhere and has been written by the author of the article. Vector motor control was introduced not that long ago. Phased vector motor control is superior technology as it better emulates three-phase voltage to control an induction motor. I will put in more links to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonov777 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the subject been written about in independent, secondary sources? Whether the theory is sound or unsound is not directly relevant to whether the subject is notable. VQuakr (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is the same as Space vector modulation but the vectors are different. Phased vectors give closer emulation of three-phase waveforms to the ideal. Also, the used zero vectors eliminate shorting of motor contacts. These are the main enhancements/differences. Looks simple but gives good results. I tried to give more details to show the scientific side of it and the results of the experiments. If it doesn't work I can cut it short to leave just the differences between Space (traditional) and Phased vector controls. These are notable facts disclosed in the patent. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonov777 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-worked the whole article leaving bear facts. I have also included a bunch of internal links to related subjects. Hope now it is in compliance. Please let me know if anything else is required correction. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonov777 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 11#Phased vector control of induction motors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. JIP | Talk 05:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've wikified the article a bit. I don't really know enough about the subject matter, but it seems to fail the notability guidelines - minimal coverage outside of the patents, which aren't sufficient sources for notability. Perhaps if the references I've listed under Further reading could be incorporated into the article it would pass. Yunshui (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topic by itself would appear to be notable. For example, it gets much attention in this book (which has a wider scope): Nguyen Phung Quang; Jörg-Andreas Dittrich (2008). Vector control of three-phase AC machines. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-79028-0. The book contains many references to articles on the topic that are reliable sources. That having been said, the present article is not a suitably encyclopedic article on this topic: it describes one particular (non-notable) approach in detail, without proper explanation of the underlying principles and without relating it to the wider picture. Nothing is lost by deleting it. (A possible alternative is redirecting (without merge) to Vector control (motor) – unfortunately not a strong article either. However, the article title is not a plausible search term.) --Lambiam 18:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more notable sources under references and further reading documents. Please consider. Thanks. Antonov777 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related to a wider picture by showing problems of traditional vector control (taken from brushed DC motors article) and how Phased vector control solves some of them. Thanks. Antonov777 (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment the problem here appears to be that this is largely a synthesis of materials around the subject to support it, rather than sources directly about this subject. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this found in any textbooks? What is it called exactly? I keep trying different things in Google book search. [30] Dream Focus 10:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a problem here that the talk page for the article has been deleted, twice in fact, both times on September 11. There are copyvio claims on the main article that should have an explanation on the talk page. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
userfy (or delete) Given that it is not possible to properly review this article with the talk page missing, and given that the nomination has not advanced a reason for deletion, and given that there is a !vote that calls a technical paper an essay, and given the evidence that this topic is notable even if the content doesn't show it, and given the proper cooperation of the principle author to improve the article, I suggest that it be userfied. My concern with userfication is that the current material is sufficiently incomprehensible or too technically advanced, that there is only a small chance that the article will be improved to the point of being useful. Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 12:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Csincsak[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Only third-party sources are from People and US magazines about his appearances on bachelor/ette shows, which has nothing to do with his athletic career. Snowboarders aren't even listed on WP:ATHLETE, but, regardless, his unsourced rankings don't seem to be particulary notable. Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite with appropriate sources; notability is as a reality tv star, not as an athlete. Covered by numerous news outlets and magazines. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep: Much though I loathe alleged "reality" TV, the fact remains that the subject was a regular for an entire season of a prime-time TV show. That suffices to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, quite aside from that the 263 Google News hits [31] probably would turn up quite enough articles to satisfy the GNG. The article is a poorly written mess, but that's a content dispute inappropriate for AfD. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 09:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Many reliable sources establish notability of the topic, see this link for Google News Archives here. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep per ῲ Ravenswing ῴ and Northamerica1000. Yunshui (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 01:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Style[edit]

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

Non-notable small business; citations are to press releases Orange Mike | Talk 02:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. A product specialist, representing branded and OEM suppliers. Their product portfolio includes consumer electronics and convergence technology accessories. If, after reading the lead paragraph, I haven't a bloody clue what they make or do, the article has problems that go beyond mere notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Press releases and obscure industry awards don't cut it. As Smerdis points out, it isn't really clear what this company makes. Yo Gabba Gabba AV cables? The Interior (Talk) 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I see adverting that unambiguous, even it it were on a subject that could possibly warrant inclusion (this dosen't), it makes me angry. Fails notability, fails neutrality. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Even ignoring the sockpuppets, there is no consensus to delete. v/r - T P 01:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RocketHub[edit]

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

During this article's history, a speedy deletion tag has been improperly removed five times by various anonymous IP editors, and the article has had anonymous promotional edits. Article appears to be carefully sourced to avoid scrutiny in spite of numerous speedy delete nominations. Since the CSD tags have apparently never been up long enough for an admin to notice (and I would have declined based on the sourcing), I have semi-protected the article and brought it up here for further reveiw. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. National and international press coverage in Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times, CNN, The Economist, Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal etc.; culturally significant in the amount of artistic and entrepreneurial projects enabled.

Useful.

Notable.

It looks good.

Passes Google test

Existed for nearly a year

Pageview stats are impressive - on pace for 6,000 in last year. - http://stats.grok.se/en/201105/RocketHub

Multiple editors.

Good amount of information.

Reliable sources.

It's in the news.

Global.

Lots of sources.

Obviously plenty of reasons to keep. Article unfairly targeted. - VladVuki

Note. The comment above was written by the creator of this article. Coverage needs to be more than minor. Google test, globalization, pageviews, appearance, and length of existence are not relevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Note I am only one of many of the creators/editors. Coverage is actually quite major - e.g. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/crowd-sourcing-a-brand/2011/03/08/ABHm6GS_story.html and USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-07-Crowdfunding-a-career_n.htm - all points mentioned are relevant according to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions - VladVuki

Let's look at the sources in the article:

American Songwriter: decent coverage although it appears to be promotional.
Tribeca film: trivial mention.
Tonic: blog coverage, irrelevant.
Then come 3 sources from Rockethub, self-published.
The Economist: trivial mention.
Mi2N: Press release, another type of self-published source.
Another reference to rockhethub's web site.
Grammy365: another blog posting.
The Wall Street Journal: trivial mention.
Mi2N: another press release.
Another reference to American Songwriter: Trivial mention.

Contrary to VladVuki's assertion, the New York Times, CNN, and Huffington Post aren't cited at all. The only significant coverage is from the first reference to American Songwriter. That hardly qualifies under WP:SIGCOV, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. We don't have that here, in spite of the length of time this article has existed. The Washington Post one looks OK, but the USAToday one is more trivial mentions, not an article covering the company. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage has been sufficiently established in multiple sources. Obviously article needs to be edited to include additional citations in New York Times, CNN, Huffington Post. USAToday article includes quotes from subject and notable specifics.

NPR: trivial mention. Include the others and I'll be happy to close this AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional examples include: NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/03/02/134194007/crowdfunding-cuts-out-most-of-the-middlemen; Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-19/fringe-festival-impresarios-find-angels-online-via-rockethub-kickstarter.html; Crain's New York: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100907/SMALLBIZ/100909929#; etc. - VladVuki

Keep. The site has had more than a few mentions in reputable news sites as indicated in the citations. Unfair target of deletion - same level of insightful/informational content as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeL1976 (talk • contribs)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." - WP:OTHERSTUFF

However, in this case it doesn't seem to be part of a cogent argument. If other articles are also deletable, that is not a reason to keep one of them because others exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective argument by Amatulić based on opinion. - VladVuki

Delete This looks to be purely promotional with nothing noteworthy about the organization. West Eddy (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An especially weak Keep. The site has had more than a few mentions in reputable news sites as indicated in the citations. Unfortunately, they're hidden underneath a mess of purely promotional fluff and press releases. So it does appear to notable according to WP:WEB but should probably be reduced to something more stublike. Several Times (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague description: a grassroots online crowdfunding platform for creative projects. Did you notice the buzzword? I thought you could. Article would appear to be written by a publicist who's made a superficial study of Wikipedia, which explains its extended attempt to claim inherited notability by celebrity name dropping. References appear mostly to be blurbs on trade related blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come on guys. This is a no brainer - they have a ton of credibility, major press, social impact, etc. And the mere fact that RocketHub helped keep James Portnow and Extra Credits afloat (http://www.rockethub.com/projects/2165-extra-credits) makes it a keep. - MarkPinler55 —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Credibility doesn't justify inclusion. Social impact doesn't justify inclusion. Helping people doesn't justify inclusion. Press does justify inclusion, but only if the article cites the specific sources. Several Times (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:OTHERSTUFF all those form an overall argument for a keep. AND there are a ton of major press pieces with this company as the lead. ~~Seems like a no brainer keep to strong keep here.~~ - MarkPinler55 —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't say that credibility or social impact justify inclusion. Nothing on that page states anything about what justifies inclusion. Rather, it attempts to explain that an argument for or against deletion should be multifaceted and should consider all available options. Some arguments for or against deletion will hold more water than others; you'll generally find that the best arguments are those supported by concrete examples. I already voted to keep this article and the nominator has offered to close the deletion discussion pending the addition of reliable sources. These sources do appear to exist. We all just want a verifiable, neutral article. Several Times (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Striking MarkPinler55's vote. He's either a puppet or a brand-new user who is somehow knowledgeable enough to find an AFD discussion, vote in a similar way to other obvious sockpuppets, and carry on a conversation using WP's somewhat weird markup language. I'd just delete it like I did the other sock votes but I don't want to orphan the worthy replies made by a good editor. CityO fSilver 20:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Particularly notable are This Bloomberg News Article and this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think there's enough coverage here from enough sources to satisfy notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mercilessly delete promotional and uncited material. This whole subject area is subject to a lot of spammy junk from startups looking to promote themselves, but based on the sources we should have an article about RocketHub. Steven Walling • talk 01:13, 16 September 2011 (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. JIP | Talk 05:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slept on Sunday[edit]

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

Entirely non-notable band, seems to be a case of WP:GARAGE. Can't seem to find anything about them on Googe Books, News or even a general web search, and the article itself makes it pretty clear that they're nothing noteworthy either. It's orphaned (tagged for five years now), and hasn't been edited at all for about two or three years by the look of it. I'd recommend killing it, possibly with fire. GRAPPLE X 02:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, why didn't you just A7 this? It doesn't even try to claim notability. Also, I love how it says they're from Norfolk, Rhode Island, which doesn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There is absolutely nothing verifiable or noteworthy here. West Eddy (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 01:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foerster + Rutow[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small law firm (15 lawyers) of little importance. Non-existent in media coverage. Overall the article smells like WP:SOAPBOX, most of the contributors are single-purpose accounts. bender235 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding the comments made by the user who initiated the deletion process:

(1) Number of lawyers: Irrelevant. Comment: The number of lawyers a law firm has does not affect nor influence the relevance or importance of the legal work done by that law firm.

(2) Media presence of a law firm: Not applicable: Comment: It is fairly untypical to find German law firms mentioned in the newspaper or on TV when a particular case is being written about or discussed. This is due to Germany's strict laws regarding the professionalism of German attorneys which regulate how and when a lawyer and a law firm shall be mentioned (i.e. (Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung (BRAO) and anwaltliche Berufsordnung (BORA))).

(3) WP:SOAP: Unfounded. Comment: This page meets the requirements of WP: Notability (organizations and companies).

(4) Single-purpose account: New users. Comment: Although the contributors are relatively new, they have made many edits to various pages on Wikipedia EN and DE.

Comment: The Foerster and Rutow law firm is well known in legal circles for its research with universities, pro bono work and its international cases involving government administrative offices. These are areas that would not turn up in a Google search. However, these are areas that are known to academics, other international/European/German lawyers and to international/European/German government administrative personnel. --Ryan.germany (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The size of the firm matters, not just for law firms, but any firm on Wikipedia. A firm has to be one of the largest in its industry, or ...

(2) ... be notable for its media coverage. But F+R isn't. And by the way, it is not true that German law firms don't appear in the media. For instance, try Hengeler Mueller, or Freshfields. --bender235 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

(1) I respectfully disagree. I would like to refer you to WP:BIG where it states "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources."

(2) I respectfully disagree. I wrote "untypical". I did not write "never". Furthermore, the articles that your link calls up regarding Hengeler Mueller are when Hengeler Mueller is itself the news. Also, Freshfields is registered as an English law firm, therefore not regulated by the Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung (BRAO) and anwaltliche Berufsordnung (BORA) and as such Freshfields can be displayed, used, mentioned, and portrayed etc... in any form of the media. --Ryan.germany (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My find sources tag in this discussion has been removed by Bender235 without any explanation. Personally, I do not remove parts of discussions without explanations. --Ryan.germany (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a) I smell a rat in that all their stuff appears to be in German, yet there is no transwiki link; (b) there's lots of stuff they've done, but it's not clear how much of it is about them as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The fact that much of their "stuff" appears to be in German is irrelevant. "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." - WP:GNG --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited due to new references being added: Still not seeing independent third party coverage, many references go to pages which don't mention the topic by name or give it significant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources Added

e@rbeit F+R partnered with the German government agency called the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) in a project called e@rbeit. I have added four more independent sources from the University of Kassel, University of Heidelberg, Nuremberg Chamber of Commerce and a technology publication called Innovations Report verifying as such. Partnering with a Government agency in a tax payer project is notable. It is notable not only to the tax-payers but to the society it services in general.--Ryan.germany (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found another press release talking about e@rbeit.

Publications I added another publication to their publications list titled Product Recall, Liability and Insurance: A Global Guide (Foerster, Foerster, Pahl. Product Recall, Liability and Insurance: Germany Chapter). The total number of publications is 24. Google books lists 7, Google Scholar lists 6., Audible.de lists 1 audiobook.--Ryan.germany (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Research in conjunction with universities I found another source of a research project between the University of Bamberg and F+R titled: IR-basierte Unterstützung der Vertragsanalyse (ARGUS). The goal of the project was to create an information retrieval system to quickly analyze the risks of a contract before it is signed.--Ryan.germany (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I found another collaboration between F+R and the University of Hannover regarding computer law.
I found another source establishing a collaboration between F+R and the University of Erlangen about the and training law students about the CISG.--Ryan.germany (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan.germany: Are you, by any means, affiliated to Foerster and Rutow? --bender235 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bender235: I am of the opinion that your question is an attempt at getting me to reveal private information about myself and is considered by me to be tiptoeing the line as an attempt at "outing" me (see WP:OUTING). This would be a direct violation against the guidelines set by Wikipedia.--Ryan.germany (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not trying to reveal private information. You don't have to tell who you are, just whether your affiliated to the subject. Just so we know whether you're in a conflict of interest. --bender235 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your direct question regarding any affiliations that I may or may not have is what I would consider border-line harassment. And I am asking you kindly to please stop. Any answer I provide either be it affirmative or negative reveals pieces of my identity. Here is a quote directly from WP:COI "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this COI guideline." Furthermore WP:COI states "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article..", therefore this AfD debate is not the forum for investigating a COI. This AfD debate is for discussing the quality of the sources that are submitted and if they meet Wikipedia's standards. If in the end this entry is deleted because the sources are lacking, then so be it. But leave me out of the debate.--Ryan.germany (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Running through Google News Archive, Google Books, and Google Scholar, I can find no significant third-party coverage supporting notability. Neutrality^talk 20:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles was changed sufficiently that I relisted it for further discussion. Myself, I have no firm opinion--I regard law firm articles as an unsolved problem, because in many cases, including this, the references are a little more than trivial and a little less than significant. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2. Asking if there is COI is not outing--COI could be from any of the partners or associates, or hired staff, or a pr firm, or for that matter a close relative. Normally, if there is truly no connection, but the ed. just knows of the subject, the ed. says so. If the ed. is associated, they can say so frankly without saying in what manner, and frankness is often appreciated. It's wrong though to judge on the basis of the failure or refusal to answer, or to press someone to answer. But in any case people will actually judge COI on the basis of the article: if it is the sort of promotional article usually written with COI, then COI will be assumed. If the article is sufficiently well documented and properly written, then COI doesn't matter. Perhaps it should never matter in itself, but in practice it gives a certain presumption of at least the need to look at the article very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrites I have rewritten parts of the entry and added more sources in the hopes to make a better WP article. What I see here is a law firm engaged in research with government agencies and universities, published notable books on many different areas of law and worked on cases that recieved international attention (do a Google search on Xcell Center). --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of law firms (each much more notable than Foerster + Rutow) who are engaged in academia. That is nothing that merits notability on its own.--bender235 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are actually proving my point and if you have a source for your claim that only dozens of law firms are engaged in academia, I would be interested in linking to it. However just assuming that your facts are correct, that only dozens of law firms out of tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) law firms in the world are in engaged in academia is quite notable. Many folks have the opinion that law firms are profit driven/focused entities (I am choosing my words carefully not to offend); I could imagine that these folks would be surprised to learn that dozens of law firms are engaged in academia. --Ryan.germany (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the big and notable German law firms, like Hengeler Mueller, Noerr, Gleiss Lutz, Beiten Burkhardt, Görg, or Taylor Wessing. Foerster and Rutow is not even close to these in terms of notability. --bender235 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the usual objection to a listing like this, is that they should have articles also. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Hengeler Mueller, Noerr, Gleiss Lutz, Taylor Wessing? These are notable, Foerster + Rutow is not. --bender235 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [32]. you would expect at least a passing mention. LibStar (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks significant coverage thus fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG. If this does get kept, I am going to remove large sections, such as "Awards" as none of the awards seem to be that notable (ie have own WP article) and the same with "Notable Publications" as none of them have own WP article. Mt king ^(edits) 07:08, 18 September 2011 (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. Although arguments were made that sources exist, two of three sources are blogs. WP:GNG requires multiple significant coverage of the subject. Trivial mentions as organizing an event in an article about the event are not significant coverage of the subject. Consensus is strongly in agreement that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and keep !voters have failed to prove otherwise. v/r - T P 02:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terence John Marsh[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage relating to this author/photographer. The articles says that he won awards, but I can find no evidence of that. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks references in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as sources are not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here.West Eddy (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My research has turned up many sources. I added a couple already. Author of many publications, contributor to popular magazines. Director of a popular festival. --Ryan.germany (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming it's all true, the sources do not prove he's generally notable. Has he been interviewed in, or the subject of an article in, any general-interest periodical? I've found very little online about the subject, literally one line in a conference booklet. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle. A mere glance at his website shows that he works as "Terry Marsh"; if Bearian chooses to google "Terence John Marsh" it's hardly surprising that Bearian will find next to nothing. True, if you google the combination of "Terry Marsh" and one of "walking", "writer", "photography" or similar you won't find much either; but you will find enough to back up the claims presented straightforwardly within this modest article, or most of them. There's probably more within blurbs for his numerous books by publishers that are not controlled by him. Incidentally, although the article warns that A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject, this charge appears to be based on no more than this unwise but pretty innocuous pair of edits made four years ago: it's time for this flag to be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Diary[edit]

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

Seems to only have been picked up by a few websites. The GameZebo "review" includes a giant buy now button. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now 4 reviews in the article, including Rock Paper Shotgun (written by this guy). I think you're being a little harsh on Gamezebo, the casual game review sites tend to have buying options for the games, but I don't see how that's any worse than mainstream game sites having adverts draped over the background of everything. The games are cheaper so they push the game itself rather than adverts. GamerTell has been accepted as usable in previous AFDs (can't remember which, off the top of my head) and I've used Jay Is Games extensively for indie games. Someone another 22:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JayIsGames is not a reliable source. The review is written by "Dora" and if you have any questions about the site you can contact either "Jay" or "JohnB" [33]. I do not believe Gamezebo has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and I can't even find evidence they have editors. The game has not won any awards, has received very few reviews in reliable sources, and has received zero news coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JohnB is John Bardinelli, a freelancer who took up the position of review coordinator on Jay is Games in February 2006. It is unfortunate that the site does not require reviewers to use their full names, but JiG is a well established indie game site with a sizeable, dedicated team. Gamezebo was launched by a former Yahoo! Games executive in 2006 ([34]), and started off with reviewers who had been published in several reliable sources (see the bottom of this), for instance Marc Saltzman of USA today has written numerous reviews there. It's not as good as a full editorial policy, but Gamezebo isn't some wannabe, it's a commercial site which has filled a gap in the indie game scene. Someone another 11:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just unfortunate, it's the sign of an unreliable site. From what I've seen, JayIsGames is not reliable. Gamezebo is really borderline. In any case, there is no news coverage of the game and it hasn't appeared in any print sources I've found. I do not believe the game is notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sources appear to be reliable and so meets GNG. We could take it to the RS noticeboard I suppose, but Jayisgames would seem to provide reliable reviews about video games. Gamezebo certainly does. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANTIhuman[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no evidence this unreleased album is notable Pontificalibus (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article ANTIhuman is in line for deletion, i have provided evidence of the information on the article.

The album is unreleased but i have found much information to provide this article.

Under these search terms listed on the deletion page: ("ANTIhuman" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTIhuman) i found evidence in the search.

( http://www.smnnews.com/2011/01/25/death-of-desire-issues-antihuman-album-update-2/ )

This is the last link on the Google search page.

Delete I don't like it. Warden (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS; unreleased albums are generally non-notable. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of Notability. Polyamorph (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2011 (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 Command Records. v/r - T P 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Command test record[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. There are several kinds of such LPs--I don't see how or why this one is special. Anything that is really relevant (and can be sourced) could be included in LP album or Command Records or somesuch. I just don't see this particular product meriting its own article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These records were a thing of their day, and there might be a case for an article on them in general, discussing the different approaches used. (Not volunteering...) I can't see much case for an article on just one brand's product. I did decline a speedy, on the grounds that the red-linked performer criterion probably couldn't apply to a record of tones and anonymous feet crossing a wooden floored room from left to right, and then back again (assuming that's on this one). The performers on the B side are notable, but they are just there as fill up and promo. Peridon (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No objection to folding the article into the Command Records article... --Marmelmm (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Fails WP:GNG by itself. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge One of many stereo test records. Are there multiple independent and reliable sources, such as Stereo Review or Consumer Reports, or HiFi columns of other magazines or major newspapers, or technical books of the time, with significant coverage (not mere listings)? Edison (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I note that the author of the article (Marmelmm) is happy with this. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not sure how much there is to merge, but why not? Might not be independently notable, but is certainly a part of Command Records' history, worth at least a bullet point. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Sven Manguard summed up my thoughts on the subject. Gongshow ^Talk 02:18, 15 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in Canada[edit]

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

WP is not a directory. What's next, List of nightclubs in London, List of coffe shops in Australia? TBM10 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Also, the article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines.

While I can go along with this list being encyclopedic, the problem with starting it is maintaining it. There are hundreds of courses that could be listed, and the list changes somewhat every year. Unless the list is deliberately NOT made comprehensive, it will become outdated over time, just like linkrot affects external links. And if it's decided not to be comprehensive, do we just use whatever people add to the list? How will we ensure that no bogus entries are added? PK T(alk) 11:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I suspect the majority of golf courses are members of their respective provincial golf associations. These membership lists should be maintained regularly by the golf associations. If so, the lists should serve as references and link rot may be minimized. If we are diligent in requesting citations for entries of golf courses that aren't provincial association members, I would hope bogus entries would be nil. Hwy43 (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OR Convert to category for maintenance purposes. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is nothing more than an index of articles subdivided in the most obvious way. As long as we have articles on notable golf courses, listing them by the country of location is rather beyond question. This is far from the first time that WP:NOTDIR has been wrongly invoked to delete a completely standard list, and here its invocation is nothing more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE with WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST thrown in (also wrongly: see Category:Nightclubs in London, List of coffeehouse chains). NOTDIR only has relevance here regarding the kind of content this list should have: this list should not function as a business directory giving contact info, hours, rates, etc., and normally we don't want lists to be indiscriminate by including every one of the list's subject that exists regardless of whether it's notable. I could see an argument that we do want golf course lists to be comprehensive, however, because they occupy quite a bit more real estate than your typical business and there are necessarily far fewer of them per locality...but that's a matter for talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There seems to be a lot of these articles floating around. Why aren't they categories? I'd say convert to a category if need be. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mostly all blue links. Fine list. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly split into provincial list articles in the future as lists by provinces become comprehensive and near complete. Hwy43 (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep golf courses are more sizable, rare, and discriminate than nightclubs. Many golf courses are notable, and we can restrict this list to notable entries if necessary. Some nightclubs are notable, and in some regions I'm sure a list of notable nightclubs may make a lot of sense too. Dzlife (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a strict restriction to notable entries and this is encyclopaedic. As previously noted, this list is not in violation of WP:NOTDIR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no policy-based reason for deletion articulated. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in Portugal[edit]

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

Lack of notability and references. WP is not a directory. TBM10 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Also, the article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines.

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources in the Portuguese Golf Federation website (haven't checked one by one but it is more or less the same list). Unsure on whether we need a huge list of mostly redlinks. - Nabla (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article should not be deleted for not passing general nobatility guideline, because it passes specific WP:NOTDIRECTORY notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is nothing more than an index of articles subdivided in the most obvious way. The nom and sole delete !voter are confused as to how notability guidelines apply here. They would only have an argument if there were no notable golf courses in Portugal, something that has not been argued here and which appears to be untrue based on the bluelinks. "Unreferenced" is also not a valid deletion argument at all; what matters is whether the content is verifiable, and I have a hard time believing that whether a golf course is located in Portugal is something that cannot be verified. As long as we have articles on notable golf courses, listing them by the country of location is rather beyond question.
This is far from the first time that WP:NOTDIR has been wrongly invoked to delete a completely standard list (not just by this nom), and here its invocation is nothing more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE. NOTDIR only has relevance here regarding the kind of content this list should have: this list should not function as a business directory giving contact info, hours, rates, etc., and normally we don't want lists to be indiscriminate by including every one of the list's subject that exists regardless of whether it's notable. I could see an argument that we do want golf course lists to be comprehensive, however, because they occupy quite a bit more real estate than your typical business and there are necessarily far fewer of them per locality...but that's a matter for talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:DIRECTORY. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all red links. the fact that you can't use this list for much more than working out these small courses exist. there are probably 10,000s of golf courses worldwide, are we going to create lists for each geographic region they're in? LibStar (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Libstar, you have not presented any valid reasons for deletion. The cure for "almost all redlinks" is to make articles for those that merit it, and remove those that don't. Even assuming that none of the redlinks merit articles, I count ten bluelinks, which is definitely enough to anchor a list. The "use" of the list is to help browsing and navigation of articles, and to aid in article creation by identifying missing topics. This list could also be further annotated so as to compare the courses by area, date opened, etc. As for your rhetorical question, it's reasonable to assume that a corresponding list would exist at least for every country that has notable golf courses. Don't worry; no one will force you to work on those. postdlf (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that someone is concerned about the (possible) worse quality of WP if we have thousands of bad articles or concerned about the (possibly) unrealistic perspective that it is possible to write "everything about everything" is a valid and reasonable concern. No need to downtalk. - Nabla (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep per the points of WP:NOTDIR under the proviso that only golf courses which have been demonstrated to be notable are included on the list. If there are not enough to form a decent list, the list is not necessary. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no policy-based reason for deletion articulated. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in North Dakota[edit]

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

WP is not a directory. What's next, List of coffee shops in California, List of shopping malls in Japan? TBM10 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for the golf courses listed in the article, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first nomination is here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I added some references for notability. Interestingly, I just found out that N. Dakota has more golf holes per capita than any other state in the U.S. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator articulates no policy-based reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan Explorer[edit]

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

Non-notable software. No notability was shown in the last AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altap Salamander. SL93 (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.--Xyz or die (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (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. v/r - T P 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brostep[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism - "horny raw dong music" is a little strange as a description. Indeed the website purporting to support this very matter says "Because no one knows what the fuck brostep is, and they are judging a sound by its label" - I would suggest that as no-one knows what it is then we can hardly OR it into existence. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several references have been provided, but they all appear to be blogs, forums, Twitter, etc., with no reliable independent sources. If more reliable sources appear in the future, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last time I checked, Twitter and Yahoo! Answers are not reliable sources. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove those references, the soundcloud reference is absolute gold.. The article isn't biased or condescending in anyway shape or form and it is even backed by one of the most mainstream Dubstep producers.. What is the problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avoidpi (talk • contribs) 05:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. To the above, Soundcloud certainly isn't a reliable source, as defined by our guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly needs more solid references? How do I find references for a particular sound? There are plenty of blogs and such that all have the same opinions on its place in Dubstep.. Would adding more references to actual Dubstep producers help the article? I know a few who have addressed "Brostep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.66.190 (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEDAY. Wikipedia isn't the place for something someone non-notable decided it would be fun to talk about on twitter. No reliable sources, nothing that makes even come close to passing WP:N. Trusilver 07:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a sub genre though? This definitely does as, like I've said many times, it is recognized by the community and the artists themselves.

You will notice that throughout our discussion on this subject we throw out a lot of policies, but are not terribly clear on what they mean. Wikipedia operates under a lot of guidelines, some of them are fairly flexible, others aren't flexible at all. One of the very inflexible policies is our policy on notability. To quote a section of that policy: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Things that do not grant notability include sources like Twitter, Facebook, message boards, blogs, etc. Notability also requires secondary sources. This means that it's not enough that something allegedly exists, it must be reported on by sources that are separate and neutral from the primary source. Trusilver 05:19, 16 September 2011 (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.