< 31 March	2 April >

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7: the author blanked the page with edit summary "I apologize for not understanding the rules before posting here. I wish you all a great day." (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OctoMS[edit]

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

No objective evidence of notability, and more or less spam. The product is made by RJV Creations; unsurprisingly, the article is by single-purpose account User:Rjvcreations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. The project/product in itself is notable; it is a new and innovative PHP framework; the article is objective and no advertising "elevator-pitch" lines were inserted at any point. 2. The product is made by RJV Creations Corp; the article is written by an user with the same name; would it have been less of an issue if 10 people with different accounts would have been paid to write and improve this article? Is the name of the author relevant to sustain claims of SPAM? I think not. 3. Wikipedia is no place for advertising. The product itself is the first result in Google Search for the keyword "octoms". I (we) have no intention of using this forum to attract visibility/users/attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjvcreations (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Rjvcreations: Wikipedia has strict policies on self-promotion and advertising, which you can find at WP:COI and WP:UN. Unfortunately, your edits of the article violate those policies. To answer your question, whether 10 people have been paid to improve this article, or you have been paid to approve this article, makes no difference and is equally in violation of Wikipedia policies.

You also need to read this to find out what notability means on Wikipedia; the term has a specific meaning. To show that the subject is notable you need to find references to OctoMS in sources such as computer magazines, computer news websites (the sort that employ writers and editors), scientific papers, or books. If you can find references, we will not delete the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not a snowball's chance that this thing made up in school one day will be kept. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge bomb[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines tremendously. I think the topic itself, a rebranding of A-ok only used in one college, is inherently unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, and probably doesn't warrant a redirect. No hits on Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives (I used the search term "Bridge bomb" "Newbridge College"). Although I don't think this meets any of the CSD criteria, I'd recommend closing this one early per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up in school one day. DarkAudit (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Nonsense of very local interest with no references. Is this an April Fool's Day prank? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not sourced, possible hoax. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline Speedy as something made up in school one day/no notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lives Of The Wandering (Fictional Book)[edit]

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

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

Seems to fail the general notability guideline; a fictional book mentioned in only one short story. ~~I would have redirected it to the short story's article, but the story doesn't seem to have one.~~ (The same author has since created a page on the story). The article seems to be an example of fancruft and a large portion of it was lifted straight from the short story in which the book is mentioned (the author has since removed that part). A Google Books search for "Lives of the Wandering" "a short break" brings up nothing, as do Google News and Google News archives searches. The judging by the author's username (Sambrooks123456), he has a conflict of interest as the author of the short story (Sam Brooks) in which this book is mentioned. In conclusion, I don't think there's a sufficient case to have an encyclopedia article on this topic. I have also nominated A Short Break (Story) (by the same author with the same conflict of interest) for deletion. My fruitless attempts to find sources: [1], [2]. [3] actually results in a hit, but it's an irrelevant false positive. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The obvious conflict of interest is a problem but more fundamentally, this fails to meet the notability requirements. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete If those Google searches return nothing at all, then the subjects of this AfD do not exist outside the mind of User:Sambrooks123456. As such, both should be speedily deleted as hoaxes. →Σ τ c. 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do exist, as can be seen with through this link provided by the author in one of the articles. However, they're utterly non-notable and haven't been discussed anywhere else. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then if it only exists on Google Docs, it is web content that does not assert significance or importance. Speedy delete as A7. →Σ τ c. 22:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as such. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 21:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dover House of Terror[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources that verify the content of the article. Google searches for Dover "Consuela Martinez", "Dover House of Screams", "Dover House of Terror", or Dover "Bob Flanagan" haunted don't result in anything relevant. The address itself is not mentioned as having any supernatural properties. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 20:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways Flight 191[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Absolutely no long term affect. ...William 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, on account of knowledge of background and results of similar cases, and a dash of ignoring the rules - and NOT because of the date. =) The long and short is simple: I've never heard of a pilot "snapping", as it were, in quite this fashion (which, naturally, doesn't mean it hasn't happened before), so as such, it strikes me as a unique enough scenario to warrant some notability. On account of WP:NOTNEWS, given the uniqueness of this, I'm not inclined to apply it quite yet. All this combined makes for a weak rationale on my part, therefore, weak keep. Yes, I fully understand that my args won't hold water by themselves. Long and short - let's let this ride out a bit before deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You never heard of pilots who snapped snapping. How about Northwest Airlink Flight 5719? Silk Air Flight 185? Egypt Air 990? Royal Air Maroc Flight 630? Those were all crashes where the pilot snapped or had serious issues above the neck. It's notable when they actually bring harm to others....William 21:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really, I had not. At least, until you pointed it out. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: While this fails WP:AIRCRASH and is likely to fail WP:GNG a la WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, I agree that it might be wise to let this play out before jumping at the delete button - it is a rather singular incident, and following the advice at WP:RAPID might be prudent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this would meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging with an appropriate article on the general phenomenon of flight crew going crazy might be the best solution, as I don't see much sign of this story having legs or getting international attention (though deletion seems a bit premature). I don't know if there's an article already existing on the general phenomenon, or an official/common aviation term for this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I happened to look it up here on wikipedia for reference reasons myself which is an anecdote of 1 regarding its utility for this purpose. The story also seems to be picking up a bit in noteworthiness with recent coverage by Time. that said, inclusion in a larger page of air incidents would be acceptable. Avalongod (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This definetly meets,with regards to long term effects, in time there will be enough changes and sources to keep this article. Airplanegod (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just reexamined the article. There are questions to accuracy beyond speculation that Lufthansa's sale of stake was more than coincidence to the incident, but beyond that, the sources presented bring it well beyond up to par with WP:GNG. Moreover, to counter the opening argument, there is speculation that this will have a long term effect. I'd like to reiterate my keep !vote accordingly, and motion for snow close at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident will most likely have some long term effects which are not known at this time. I think that the almost instant nomination for deletion was unnecessary and that some time should be given for the article to develop and the long term effects of the incident to be better understood before considering deletion of the article.Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, "will most likely" falls under WP:CRYSTAL, and three days is not "almost instant". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bushranger's analysis in his neutral vote above, and I think the deference here goes to keeping the article. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple keep. A rather noteworthy incident that warrants an article. It has several published media sources, which qualifies for notability requirements. The way it was written at first was a mess, now it is better written, but could use some more expansion, hence the stub tag. Tinton5 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides easily passing WP:GNG, it's not only willful ignorance to presume such a case will be quickly forgotten, Time published an extensive article of how this and other cases will have long term effects on US pilot training, screening monitoring laws and procedures.[4]--Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Book[edit]

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

no indication of notability. Disputed prod - only primary sources given. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom; googling title and author's last name brings up only the author's linked-in page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to change the title to "Open Source Book: decoding dominant web-technologies" as it is more appropriate so may I do so now or wait until discussion is going on?--Sumit8158 (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference in Hindi at prominent VVIP website from India www.bhartavarsh.asia at http://bharatvarsh.asia/2009/10/31/%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B8-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%95/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.249.60 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not read Hindi (or do I? Let me look at that again... nope!) I should note that simply looking at that link, it's too brief to be anything more than a passing mention, and not the sort of deep coverage that the notability guidelines call for, no matter how prominent the site (and I'm not judging its prominence, because unless something has changed in the last 20 seconds, I still don't read Hindi.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no independent coverage. Interestingly, Google Books seems to be unaware of it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources in the article are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails the general notability guideline. Steven Walling • talk 00:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templars of Kayne[edit]

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

Non-notable product from non-notable company; no reliable sources given. No significant coverage found - Google search on "Templars of Kayne" shows only 15 unique results. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Partly per nom, and partly because on the article's talk page, the head designer of the game requested that the article be deleted. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. It's not even clear the game is finished yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm the game's designer, this should not be launched yet, possibly at all- we haven't even got the prototype back from the manufacturer yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.199.172 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neopolitan Business Park[edit]

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

1. no assertion of notability Widefox (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

→This article is about an advertisement but is not advertising

Kj plma (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A business park is not an advertising subject, no. Also the objection is not the advert but there is no indication of notability. Widefox (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this business park in reliable sources. Al I can find are some rel estate listings. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the page?

Kj plma (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am sorry for any inconsistency but I am now nominating this article for deletion because someone had done great vandalism on the page.

Kj plma (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Vandalism is not a reason to delete an article, and the vandalism has been reverted. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs effectively amount to a real estate listing and Google Maps; insufficient to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - the subject has, thus far, only played youth football. Highly likely to become notable at some point but the consensus is that, as of now, he fails notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syamsir Alam[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played internationally for Indonesia. However, this is false. He has only ever played at the youth level, which is explicitly excluded by WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Matty said. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Rolfe[edit]

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

This article was recreated two hours after having been deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Unity Party of America and delete history per CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hammons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable politician. Recreation of a deleted page which went through AFD. Never held an "international, national or sub-national office." Only three news sources in the article can be found, and Bill is the subject of only one of those, the other two have him as a passing mention. The article where he is the subject is a local news report on his local election campaign, doesn't satisfy significant press coverage. The rest of the available sources are primary sources not reliable sources Coffeepusher (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is Chairman of a national American political party with members in 33 states listed on its website. The Unity Party was officially recognized by the State of Colorado as a direct result of subject's run for Congress. Both party and party's chairman are significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston1969 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Houston1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

none of those credentials satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians. Would you be able to demonstrate that A) he has held a international, national, or local office, or B) that he is a major local political figure WHO HAS ALSO received SIGNIFICANT press coverage. As of now I do not believe that he fills these qualifications.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is also worth noting that the unity party has had one chairman since it's conception, that being him, the founder of the party. this makes the position significantly less notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article has been cleaned up in terms of links.

Subject of course hasn't held public office. The question is definition of "significant" coverage ... subject has appeared on TV in same segment as politician who is now Governor of Colorado, and has been mentioned in media beyond Colorado. At the end of the day, this is the leader of a party with a reach well beyond one state, and this has to be taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston1969 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Houston1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia's notability guidelines states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" these sources need to be independent of the subject. As of now I only see one local source that qualifies and is strictly about his defunct campaign, the "out of state" sources you mention have a one line reference to him and a quote in a "guy on the street" style. Not enough sources to establish notabilityCoffeepusher (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, notability has already been established. This article has been on Wikipedia for years. A past campaign is still a campaign, and a mention in the Denver Post outside a political context certainly says something.

If news websites don't properly maintain their archives, that's irrelevant to the fact that the subject remains notable. Once notable, always notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston1969 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually you recreated the article after it was already deleted, and based on the sources and information you put in that first edit there is a very probable conflict of interest. You defiantly work for the Unity party in Boulder, Co. (you logged out for some of your edits giving us your IP adress) in close proximity to Bill, or you are Bill. Now you are correct that once someone is notable, they will always be notable...except Bill has not ever been notable. There is also no time limit on AFD's, and time on wikipedia is irrelevant.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as previous nominator) The article does not demonstrate that the subject has gained sufficient notability since the last debate. Still fails WP:POLITICIAN. A whole lot of sources amount to supporting single facts; good for referencing the article, but not good for passing WP:GNG. A bunch of the rest are primary; leaving us with just one local news bio piece, which isn't enough.

As for nominating after years, I say the shoe is on the other foot. If, after several years, the article still doesn't show reliable sources sufficient to pass GNG, it never will. gnfnrf (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unity Party of America until he establishes his own seperate notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epom[edit]

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

I fail to see how this small company is notable. Few mentions online on a low visibility and reliablity websites don't seem to cut it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources for this company that was founded in 2011. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an advertisment, not an encyclopaedia article. Company does not appear to meet WP:CORP, although perhaps other sources exist in the Polish language. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devann Yao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted through AfD in February 2010. Since that time the subject has played matches for Ashford Town and Boussu Dour, athlough these teams do not compete in fully professional leagues, meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Article also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cloudz 679 16:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G3' (hoax) by user:Catfish Jim and the soapdish. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asif's theory of charge energy equivalence[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for original research. bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having seen the creator's talk page I realise that this article has been deleted repeatedly and repeatedly recreated, so I've speedy tagged it, per WP:SNOW if nothing else. --bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please kindly correct the mistake that i have made, and please do not delet my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeneil (talk • contribs) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. UtherSRG, I agree with you 100% and I would love to punch this "delete" as I believe that the first indication that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor writes an article on it. Notable subjects shouldn't have to "rent" an editor to get an article Unfortunately, there's currently no consensus for this view. Even with this and even after disregarding the 2 SPAs, the consensus is to keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harold J. Morowitz[edit]

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

While plausibly notable at first, a bit of digging hits issues: he doesn't appear to have acted on his own, but as part of a large group of people for all the notable events the article connects him to. Beyond that, the sources are just terrible. And, finally, the article was created by sockmaster, group account, and likely paid editor, Expewikiwriter (that's an AN thread, forgive me if it gets archived during the AfD). I strongly suspect all claims of notability are highly, highly inflated, and that the person in question is, at best minimally notable. However, the main issue is Wikipedia:CSD#G11 - this is advertising, which would require a fundamental rewrite to turn it into a workable article, and by keeping it, we encourage paid editing. 86.** IP (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...And I just realised this is about the worst day to start a serious AfD. 86.** IP (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined speedy g11 because of the definition in the criteria - which is more detailed than the unfortunately truncated version on the tag itself: g11 is for "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc.". This page is, to my mind, neutrally worded and not liable to CSD g11. This doesn't stop it being promotional in intent, or lacking in notability, or anything else, which is why I suggested AfD. Peridon (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if it's not CSD-level promotion, CSD is hardly the limits of what can be deleted, it just sets some outlines. This article - with its exaggeration, misleading laguage, and the like, can presumably be promotional enough to AfD, without being CSD able, just like an article acan be not clearly non-notable enough for CSD, but still be deleted at AfD. Though I do think the notability is also highly in doubt, once you trim the gross exaggeration. 86.** IP (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD is basically a time and space saving procedure. It's for getting rid of some of the more b***** obvious misfits. Things not suitable for CSD (products rather than the company, downloadable software rather than the website itself, Aprilis imbecilus rather than Jacqueline the Ninja Hamster) go to PROD, and/or AfD. I prefer AfD, but PROD involves less work if uncontested. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but my point (perhaps not well-explained) was to note that advertising is an issue worth discussing at AfD, nothing more. 86.** IP (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doubtful notability, and somewhat promotional. (Incidentally, I don't agree with Peridon: it is not, in my opinion, neutrally written. However, it is not blatantly promotional that I would have nominated it for speedy deletion.) 79.123.72.60 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. His books have been reviewed in reputable publications.[5][6][7][8][9] Google Scholar shows he is sole author of papers with hundreds of cites, and co-author of more. He has been cited as an expert by the NY Times and New Scientist.[10][11][12] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have half a mind to agree with Colapeninsula, but I'm afraid that the taint of Sock Puppetry should not be rewarded with the article staying. If the subject is notable, a legitimate author will eventually write an article. No need to reward sockpuppetry and possibly payola with allowing there works to stand. Thought experiment: we allow the article to stand, the paid author gets paid, gets a new internet provider, gets a new account, and does it again. Not good. Thought experiment: we delete the article, paid author does not get paid, goes away. Or gets paid, but clients then complain that the article about them is no longer there and wants their money back. I'm going to have to !vote delete on the ground of not encouraging bad behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Morowitz is a giant in the field of origin of life. Removing his entry would simply be stupid. I have no idea who wrote this, but it sounds pretty accurate according to what I know. In any case, Wikipedia would be well served to keep this and expand it. I assure you there are many, many other people less notable than Morowitz. Go find them and keep and improve this entry. Phage434 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC). — Phage434 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find reliable sources to demonstrate he is "a giant in [his field]"? As far as other pages are less notable, please see, uh WP:OSE. tedder (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula. To illustrate the point, this in Science has >500 cites and this in PNAS has >400. That isn't something that I come across often. WP:PROF isn't the clearest of guidelines, but I think that shows a "significant impact" (PROF #1). According to this he is/was also editor-in-chief of Complexity (PROF 8). Whilst the article was likely written by a paid editor using socks, that isn't a reason to delete the article - if necessary we can stubify it until an independent editor can rewrite it. SmartSE (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right; though I do think stubifying a bit is needed (or at least some very careful source checking) - in other articles I reviewed, the paid editor had a strong tendency to exaggerate. 86.** IP (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know what you mean. Assuming this is kept, then I'll try and sort it out when I have the time. SmartSE (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also just checked factiva and found many more potential sources: New Scientist called him "an expert on the thermodynamics of living systems" the Washington Post called him "another prominent origins researcher" - both are only in passing, but they show that this is somebody that we should definitely have an article about. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SmartSE. I only spent a few minutes investigating, but found an acceptable number of reliable academic sources that demonstrate notability within his field. That the prose tends toward puffery or exaggeration is a separate issue, and can be dealt with by copyediting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, as clearly notable. There is however something wrong here, and it is that this method of having an article written was needed for a person of his distinction. I assume it was someone acting for him who commissioned it, not the subject himself, but whoever originated it would have done much better to simply ask the appropriate wikiproject or any of the people like myself who works on this kind of article. No one who is notable need pay or should pay to be included in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Morowitz is an influential thinker, cited more than 6000 times and with an h index of 40 (from google scholar). He is a true original, and his use of nonequilibrium thermodynamics in studies of the origin of life is a forceful insight. Dmengelman (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012

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

Keep. I do agree that the article should stay, but sincerely hope someone can find the time very soon to tone down some of the adjectives. I may try to myself, after this decision is finalized.Dcrjsr (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. There is a 50/50 split on whether to delete or merge, so a redirect seems indicated; if there is anything worthwhile to be merged, that can still occur Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash[edit]

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

Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common....William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge all information to 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing (which is where the link above redirects to). Merging prohibits deletion as attribution must be maintained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of particular value to merge. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no valuable information to merge and there is hardly any content to the article and notability is questionable at best.Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with Bushranger that this as well as the other 2 related articles should be merged. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing per above - on its own this crash is not really noteworthy but as a pattern of crashes it is more notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge group of crashes. - Frankie1969 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to have clear consensus whether to merge or delete the article. Relisting to clarify consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1967 EC-121H Warning Star crash[edit]

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

Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common....William 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing, the operator of the aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable no significant information to merge to another article.Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing per above - on its own this crash is not really noteworthy but as a pattern of crashes it is more notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge group of crashes. - Frankie1969 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1966 EC-121H Warning Star crash[edit]

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

Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common....William 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing, the operator of the aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is questionable at best, fails WP:AIRCRASH and is currently a stub and has no real information to merge to another article.Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing per above - on its own this crash is not really noteworthy but as a pattern of crashes it is more notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge group of crashes. - Frankie1969 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X-Day (Church of the SubGenius)[edit]

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

This page is an advertisement for an event that has an annual attendance of only 100 people (as admitted on their own web page), yet attempts to compare itself to Burning Man, which has an attendance of 50,000. The links are all to the group's own web site and one "free press release" site. A Google search for "X-Day" produces links to the group's own site, this Wikipedia page, Malcolm X, and a Japanese manga. Any club can produce an attendance of 100 people on any "event" night, and we don't have Wikipedia pages for every single nightclub out there. This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamEquestria (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 April 2012

Delete I'd say merge with Church of the SubGenius at best, but without independent sources there's no point in merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here today to look up some details on X-Day. If I did, then it's probable that many others have done or will. It's bona-fide encyclopedic content, but really needs some proper sources & citations. Wayne Hardman (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is encyclopedic content about an event that has been mentioned in many newspapers and magazines over the years, as well as on television and all over the Internet. When you Google "X-Day" you get 317,000,000 results, most of them being unrelated ones, but that is because other people have used the term X-Day besides the Church of the SubGenius (for instance, the X-Day manga, which is completely unrelated). X-Day is also the most important event in the theology of the Church of the SubGenius, and is mentioned in virtually all SubGenius publications.

What this article needs is more citations of the many times X-Day has been mentioned in the media over the years, in order to prove its notability. However, it is difficult to do an Internet search to find these citations; for instance, most newspapers only started posting their articles online a few years ago, and it is hard to figure out the right Internet search terms to find legitimate sources that actually relate to this topic while bypassing everything that is unrelated or not a reliable source, especially given the 317 million Google search results for X-Day. But I am certain that plenty of reliable independent sources to prove notability DO exist; they are simply hard to find on the Internet because of all the unrelated information that comes up when you do an Internet search. I would recommend not only that this article be kept, but that everyone debating here, both pro-and-anti-deletion, thoroughly search the Internet for reliable, independent sources about X-Day, and add any that they can find to this article.

Furthermore, I do not think that X-Day ought to be considered as merely an "event" and judged by the notability guideline for events, as it is far more than an event to those involved in the Church of the SubGenius. As a historical example, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is considered a very important event in the religion of Christianity, but it is far more than just a mere event, and is central to the theology of that religion. Even though there are not any reliable historical records of Jesus being crucified from any independent sources at the time, outside of the Bible, Jesus's crucifixion is still considered very notable. While the Church of the SubGenius is a much smaller religion, X-Day has just as great a theological importance to followers of the Church of the SubGenius, even though most of them do not attend the annual celebrations in person. Every ordained SubGenius minister is promised eternal salvation on X-Day, regardless of whether or not they show up to the annual celebrations, and most SubGenii are too busy with other things in their lives, too short on money, or too afraid of what might happen to them if they show up to attend in person. X-Day also has quite a similarity theologically to the Christian Rapture, involving the faithful being all saved at once, and everyone else being Left Behind. And the Rapture is not mentioned in the Bible even once, yet it is notable, as a theological concept, even though there are no records of the Rapture ever taking place as an event. If the Rapture were judged by the notability guideline for events, it would not be notable, since it has not even happened and there are no records of it happening. But the Rapture is notable theologically, and meets the general notability guideline, which is why there is a Wikipedia page on it. Therefore, since it is not just an event but also a matter of religious theology, the notability guideline used in this dispute should be the general notability guideline, not the notability guideline for events. Using a different notability guideline for this than the one used on the Rapture would be treating different religions differently and violate the neutral point of view policy.

In conclusion, none of the criteria at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion are met. The only possible criterion which could be applied to this article is "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", yet nobody has done a thorough attempt to find reliable sources, only very brief attempts that didn't even go past the first page of Google search results. --Yetisyny (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google News archives search for "subgenius x-day" finds articles in the Washington Post, St. Petersburg Times and Chicago Tribune. Notability is clearly met. The present state of the article not having these sources is not a reason to regard the event as non-notable. MartinPoulter (talk)

Keep: In addition to the good reasons cited by Yetisyny, Reverend Magdalen's custody case would never have occurred without the X-day drill. The whole saga should probably be mentioned and references cited in this article, is it was widely covered in the US National press for the years it stretched on. jzp (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a small event, yes. But a small event with coverage in multiple independent sources. Meets WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Lightbox 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, also seems to be advertising. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If there were some, this could be merged into WordPress article, but merging unsourced content is impossible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dmitrij said it perfectly. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept, early closure. This is a well-referenced article for a distinctly named populated place, one even assigned a unique ZIP code (48729). The only advocates for any other outcome, including the nominator, have been involved in, and blocked for, sockpuppetry. Non-admin action; technically this is a snow close, but if that makes anyone nervous, call it a criterion #1 (nominator advocated merger, which is not a deletion outcome) or #2 (nomination obviously not in good faith) speedy keep instead. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deford, Michigan[edit]

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

Reason KaseyVincent (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I Relive that the information on the page is too minimal to require a entire article. I think in should be merged with Novesta Township. The page as of right now, has been attacked too much and the information is trivial at best.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1. Snotbot t • c » 10:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Populated places have presumed notability, existence is verifiable, content is sparse but sufficient, and can be expanded. The page has only 3 edits this year, including my moving the image to get rid of the gap. The last vandalism was December 2009. Dru of Id (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As discussed on the talk page, conflict and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not reasons for deletion. To merge the article, see guidance on merging. Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser
~~Delete~~ I think that the page does not offer enough sources to make it stand out from Novesta township. Look at the page, it doesn't even mention a population total. Yes, any populated place is important, but the page itself looks like it is better served as apart of Novesta Township. Most of the sources on the "town" is only about the location of it. The town has not government and is apart of Novesta juridically. The weather information is that of near by Flint, MI, not Deord, and he source takes you to a website TheWeatherUnderground, which does not provide information on Deford's Climate or provide statistics. I did not nominate this article because I didn't like it, it was that the page itself doesn't not need to have its own article. Not only is all this relevant to the problem at hand, but Deford's history was originally on Novesta's article and removed and placed on this article.KaseyVincent (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: Commenter is also nominator, assumed to have !voted "delete" by nomination. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Delete I have to agree with KaseyVincent. She makes a valid point. If you look back far enough on Novesta's Wikipedia page, you'll see that the history of Deford was actually taken Novesta's page. I do see what Toddst1 and Dru of Id have to say, but the references stated on page are minimal for a town and really only tell you where the town is located, not the stats or population of the town itself. Given that Deford is the only town in Novesta Township and is too small to have a recorded population, I think the article is best served as part of Novesta Township. 66.211.81.156 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser

~~Delete~~ I think that the page does not offer enough sources to make it stand out from Novesta township. Look at the page, it doesn't even mention a population total. Yes, any populated place is important, but the page itself looks like it is better served as apart of Novesta Township. Most of the sources on the "town" is only about the location of it. The town has not government and is apart of Novesta juridically. The weather information is that of near by Flint, MI, not Deord, and he source takes you to a website TheWeatherUnderground, which does not provide information on Deford's Climate or provide statistics. I did not nominate this article because I didn't like it, it was that the page itself doesn't not need to have its own article. Not only is all this relevant to the problem at hand, but Deford's history was originally on Novesta's article and removed and placed on this article.KaseyVincent (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter is also nominator, assumed to have !voted "delete" by nomination. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with KaseyVincent. She makes a valid point. If you look back far enough on Novesta's Wikipedia page, you'll see that the history of Deford was actually taken Novesta's page. I do see what Toddst1 and Dru of Id have to say, but the references stated on page are minimal for a town and really only tell you where the town is located, not the stats or population of the town itself. Given that Deford is the only town in Novesta Township and is too small to have a recorded population, I think the article is best served as part of Novesta Township. 66.211.81.156 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, distinct named populated places, regardless of whether they are incorporated and have their own local governments, merit their own articles. This source alone verifies for me that Deford has or had such a status. At most, it would be merged and redirected to the township or county article; there is indisputably verifiable information, and it is unacceptable that Deford, Michigan would not even be a search term, therefore deletion is not a valid option at all and per WP:ATD this AFD should never have been started. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser
Merge I have taken that into account and opened a discussion on deford's talk page with my argument that it should be merged with Novesta Township. I'm not arguing that the pages sources are incredible or unreliable, but It fails to meet the criteria that it should be a stand alone page. It does not provide any information that sets it apart from Novesta Township. With this in mind, I will advise you to make the rest of the comments on the articles talk page. I now understand that this article shouldn't be deleted. KaseyVincent (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] ~~Delete~~ I disagree. All the infromation on the page is for the most part on Novesta Township's Wikipedia page. I do agree with postdlf about not correctly meeting the article for deletion polices but this page is so minimal that It offers not more insite to the town than what Novesta Township has already states. 66.211.81.156 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: Commenter has already !voted "delete" above. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] ~~Merge~~ While I do believe you are right, there are somethings like the town's history that can be incorporated into Novesta's page. I think that all out deletion of the article is no longer suitable for the situation at hand. I am leaning more towards merging the two pages. I would also like to note that the photo given for the Deford Christan Academy is false. I'm not sure if anyone else noticed that but just look the image up on google search and it takes you complete away from deford. I started a discussion on the articles talk page, like at stated above to help resolve the problem. KaseyVincent (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: Commenter has already !voted "merge" above. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: Commenter appears to be the same individual as 66.211.81.156 (talk · contribs), both sockpuppets of blocked Emily Bernette (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] If that's true, then they should both be blocked, their comments stricken, and this AFD closed. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing duplicates and socks verified by checkuser

Merge I have taken that into account and opened a discussion on deford's talk page with my argument that it should be merged with Novesta Township. I'm not arguing that the pages sources are incredible or unreliable, but It fails to meet the criteria that it should be a stand alone page. It does not provide any information that sets it apart from Novesta Township. With this in mind, I will advise you to make the rest of the comments on the articles talk page. I now understand that this article shouldn't be deleted. KaseyVincent (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I disagree. All the infromation on the page is for the most part on Novesta Township's Wikipedia page. I do agree with postdlf about not correctly meeting the article for deletion polices but this page is so minimal that It offers not more insite to the town than what Novesta Township has already states. 66.211.81.156 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter has already !voted "delete" above. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ While I do believe you are right, there are somethings like the town's history that can be incorporated into Novesta's page. I think that all out deletion of the article is no longer suitable for the situation at hand. I am leaning more towards merging the two pages. I would also like to note that the photo given for the Deford Christan Academy is false. I'm not sure if anyone else noticed that but just look the image up on google search and it takes you complete away from deford. I started a discussion on the articles talk page, like at stated above to help resolve the problem. KaseyVincent (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter has already !voted "merge" above. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commenter appears to be the same individual as 66.211.81.156 (talk · contribs), both sockpuppets of blocked Emily Bernette (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's true, then they should both be blocked, their comments stricken, and this AFD closed. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The non-keep votes are bordering on the absurd. The township is a different entity than the community, which is a historically and currently occupied community.[13][14]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per long-standing AfD precedent, populated places are considered notable. This article only reinforces that precedent, as it has plenty of references. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Populated communities are considered notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert b colton[edit]

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

Page has been moved, delete the old entry. Robert B Colton (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and warn Editor has created a page on himself. Unacceptable behavior. DarkAudit (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vertex (company)[edit]

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

Overtly promotional. Not much indication of notability. Cloudbound (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete plain and simple WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I've removed the material copied from press releases / their web site. A search for sources shows lots of press releases, but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Based on the refined search and sourcing listed below, I see there are sufficient sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are a big call center operator, etc. Not a glamorous industry, but they employ many thousands doing it. I've added some sources to the article. Plenty of other articles to be found in Google News under Vertex + "call centre"--> [15] --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

coverage does not look in-depth. As deep as it goes is describing job cuts. LibStar (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough media coverage to be notable. See article, google, [16][17][18]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. Article claims that this business is a leading call centre operator that also offers a variety of other business process outsourcing (BPO) and customer management outsourcing services, which apparently is the deliberately vague, evasive nonsense for "telemarketing and debt collection". References do not establish notability; the only one that really counts is the Economist story, which has a single sentence announcing that this business bought another in India. Other references are to announcements of routine transactions involving mergers and personnel hires, or to business directories. None of this is significant coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, more than the usual amount of coverage here, but the article desperately needs pruning to remove all the management buzzword gobbledygook. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Don't worry Prakashpanwar, lots of admins have had "their" articles (but see WP:OWN) deleted at AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R. H. Sankhala[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable academic, deleted before by AFD, CSD-G4 declined presumably as not a close enough paraphrase of original article. Subject does not meet any of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or, indeed, WP:GNG. Recommend WP:SALT Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if its as per the Wikipedia policies to delete it. What I know about notability is that notability of researcher is through his published works and as per my knowledge, Journals etc normally do not cite references of a research paper by a non-notable person. If these are the Wikipedia policies, delete it immediately. And if you are considering to do a discussion, firstly cite all the sources which were added by me and other people, as I fetched them with a lot of hard work. Prakashpanwar (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic publications by themselves do not establish notability for in the sense it is used in Wikipedia. Please have a read of WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. It is possible for a researcher to have published as first author in multiple, high-profile scientific journals, such as Nature and Science and still not satisfy notability guidelines. What is required are multiple sources that profile the academic himself/herself. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:PROF #1 specifically prescribes notability on the basis of citations to one's work, regardless of any "sources that profile the academic" or where their work was published, and this has a very long precedential history here at academic's AfD. I don't know if this particular person passes on PROF#1, but will try to check. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting... can you point me to any examples? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from yesterday. There are hundreds of such cases in the academics AfD archive. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, this is a better one from last month that was based specifically on journal citations. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, I was wondering how open to abuse this would be. If we're talking in terms of thousands of citations, I'll hold off submitting my own vanity bio for the time being... :) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If thats so, show me some references of you being published in any journal, not specifically the Science journals. Publication in the journal is not so easy, friend. I have my researcher friend, who did his Ph.D now, but still has only 1 research paper published. Tell me where your article is cited. Prakashpanwar (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD:A7. There's not even a claim to notability here, nor was there any attempt at an assertion of notability in the original article. If this is still here in 24 hours, I'll speedy it myself. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The version of WoS I have access to goes back to the 1970's and does not show any papers by this person. He was part of a multi-author 1957 paper in Biochem. J., which seems to have 13 citations according to NCBI. The article lists another paper, but Sankhala is not listed as an author here. There are a few other papers listed here, but none of this jumps out as an obvious clincher for any of WP:PROF. Given that there are no WP:RS for corresponding biographical info and no real claim to notability within the article, the case seems pretty clear-cut. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A search in the Web of Science for "Sankhala R*" (that includes some other persons, but no matter) gives 7 publications, cited 123 times in total, [[h-index]) of 2. That indicates that the bulk of the citations come from 1 article, which is indeed the case (reference 2 in the biography): cited 117 times. There are 5 authors and Sankhala is neither the first or last, but just the second one. In all, way below what we usually accept here for a highly-cited field as biophysics/biochemistry (even taking into account that this person published in the 50s and 60s. I have no objection to CSD:A7 as proposed by UtherSRG, either, except that going through AfD it will be easier to prevent this from being re-created. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur...let it run its course in AfD. This seems to be a memorial page of some kind and is likely to show up again. Agricola44 (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy delete', should have been speedied before, does not meet WP:PROF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have received an email from the biochemist's son, who has sent me with his father's biodata by email. He was also the elected member of Biochemical society and did good research. I can send it to anyone if they provide me with the email. His son is an officer with the Indian Administration, see DANICS. Prakashpanwar (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify... Membership of the Biochemical Society is by subscription and is open to anyone working in biochemistry, from undergraduate and up. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The thing why I am stressed on this article subject is that it has a negative remark when applying for the Administratorship that your one article has been deleted. I saw this line in the biochemist's bio "I am an elected member of the above society since 1954". What I think notability is that when an article has been cited by different renowned journals, books,etc. Its not a layman thing. This is what I believe. Provide me with an email address to which I will send this scanned piece which I got from the biochemist's son. Prakashpanwar (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about the impact this might have on an RfA. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gambir, Gambir[edit]

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

This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambir,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All populated places are notable. Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you have to be kidding - find something that justifies WP:N, WP:RS, for such low level populated areas, Gambir is notable not its component parts Satu Suro 09:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per long-standing AfD precedent, verifiable populated places are notable, partly because Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer and partly because sources can almost always be found for these articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the precedent according to that argument is that sub-level localities can be kept (at a rough count that allows something like 7,000 extra stubs with no reliable sources, no notability, and literally place cruft to pollute the Indonesian project - as if Indonesian soccer players arent a scourge on the Indonesian project you want kelurahans as well? Nah strongly object so such an assertion that even a gazzetteer does not have sub level settlements as a valid addition. Satu Suro 08:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that this encyclopedia exists to provide information to readers, not for the convenience of editors, and information is not pollution. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply - information in non-notable village subdivisions that are created by fly by editor which are never improved apart from having postcode and size info - is hardly of benefit to any reader... Satu Suro 10:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as named geographical feature/inhabited place. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place=keep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gambir, Jakarta. I was about to close this as WP:SNOW per WP:OUTCOMES - Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source - but in checking Google Maps...this isn't an independent community. It's a sub-division/neighbourhood of Jakarta. And (WP:OUTCOMES again): Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to just be a neighborhood, though. According to the article, it's an administrative village, which are official subdivisions of districts, which are official subdivisions of provinces. Since Jakarta is officially a province, its districts and administrative villages are official units of government. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kebon Kelapa, Gambir[edit]

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

This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebon_Kelapa,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All populated places are notable. Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you have to be kidding - find something that justifies WP:N, WP:RS, for such low level populated areas, Gambir is notable not its component parts Satu Suro 09:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per long-standing AfD precedent, verifiable populated places are notable, partly because Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer and partly because sources can almost always be found for these articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - assured that you find sources for the 7,000 Indonesian kelurahans you want to add to wikipedia, have fun and dont forget the precedent in itself is contra logic, even for gazzetter meanings - component villages fo places do not necessarily show up on a conventional gazzetteer - we have alresdy tried to explain gambir is fine, its sub components are not valid verifiable apart from post codes and the potential for reliable sources or genuine notability is zilch for 99% of cases - please could we default the major conversation to Gambir, Gambir Satu Suro 08:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long standing precedent that real places are inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gambir, Jakarta - were this an independent community, it would be a WP:SNOW keep per WP:OUTCOMES. However, it is not - it's a subdivision/neighbourhood of Jakarta, and, as such, should be redirected to the city it is actually part of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petojo Selatan, Gambir[edit]

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

This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petojo_Selatan,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All populated places are notable. Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you have to be kidding - find something that justifies WP:N, WP:RS, for such low level populated areas, Gambir is notable not its component parts Satu Suro 09:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per long-standing AfD precedent, verifiable populated places are notable, partly because Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer and partly because sources can almost always be found for these articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place=get kept. inherent notability is part of the five pillars: gazetteer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gambir, Jakarta - were this an independent community, it would be a WP:SNOW keep per WP:OUTCOMES. However, it is not - it's a subdivision/neighbourhood of Jakarta, and, as such, should be redirected to the city it is actually part of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Pulo, Gambir[edit]

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

This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duri Pulo,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All populated places are notable. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you have to be kidding - find something that justifies WP:N, WP:RS, for such low level populated areas, Gambir is notable not its component parts Satu Suro 09:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per long-standing AfD precedent, verifiable populated places are notable, partly because Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer and partly because sources can almost always be found for these articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep real place gets kept. these places are sufficiently important to Indonesia to merit their own post codes; what does the nom have against them? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gambir, Jakarta - were this an independent community, it would be a WP:SNOW keep per WP:OUTCOMES. However, it is not - it's a subdivision/neighbourhood of Jakarta, and, as such, should be redirected to the city it is actually part of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cideng, Gambir[edit]

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

This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cideng,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All populated places are notable. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automatic notability only applies to census-designated places. The Indonesian census generally goes down to the district (kecamatan) level; an administrative village (lurah) is below that and should not automatically pass WP:N Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a verifiable populated place, which means by long-standing AfD precedent it's considered notable. Contrary to what Crisco said, the precedent doesn't distinguish between census-designated places and other settlements; in fact, many of the AfDs which led to the precedent were about US communities that weren't CDPs. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a request for centralising this multiple conversation at Gambir, Gambir - please Satu Suro 08:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several villages named Cideng near Gambir according to the GEOnet Names Server; no doubt this one is among them and although it would be nice to know which, the absence of precise coordinates is no reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gambir, Jakarta - were this an independent community, it would be a WP:SNOW keep per WP:OUTCOMES. However, it is not - it's a subdivision/neighbourhood of Jakarta, and, as such, should be redirected to the city it is actually part of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petojo Utara, Gambir[edit]

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

This stub is basically a mirror of the Wp:id stub http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petojo_Utara,_Gambir,_Jakarta_Pusat - it has no evident WP:N, WP:RS or WP:CITE to justify a stub. The higher level article about Gambir should contain the information. Satu Suro 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All populated places are notable. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you have to be kidding - find something that justifies WP:N, WP:RS, for such low level populated areas, Gambir is notable not its component parts Satu Suro 09:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per long-standing AfD precedent, verifiable populated places are notable, partly because Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer and partly because sources can almost always be found for these articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments by TheCatalyst31 and Lugnuts and my comments on the nom's wholesale assault on these articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gambir, Jakarta - were this an independent community, it would be a WP:SNOW keep per WP:OUTCOMES. However, it is not - it's a subdivision/neighbourhood of Jakarta, and, as such, should be redirected to the city it is actually part of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Pilgrim (model)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments at first AFD. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior nom, my prior comments there and the fact that she is a part of American pop culture history.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AfD. Any editor who would simply nominate something as "non-notable" that previously survived AfD, without explanation, needs to leave the project forever.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a keep close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Waltz[edit]

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

No sources found. Non notable Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that she is a three-time Playmate alone would make her one of the most notable of Playboy's models. —Lowellian (reply) 06:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the 3 appearances aspect is a sufficient notability hook here. Needs to be sourced out. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect , but to where? subject still fails both WP:GNG & WP:PORNBIO. So she was a centerfold 3 times, did this fact receive any coverage by a RS? If so I'd change to keep.Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the three=time-Playmate claim isn't a terribly strong basis for notability, there really isn't a clear enough redirect target, and the subject is clearly a plausible search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just not finding a lot of sources here, which means she fails WP:BASIC and WP:PORNBIO. She kept a pretty low profile after her modeling career. A possible merge target would be Playboy Playmate. Valfontis (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954. The best claim is "three time playmate". But there's effectively zero results aside from this. So she fails WP:GNG. ~~There's no real need to redirect if we don't have a place to put her name; given the lack of sources, deleting is a much better idea.~~ tedder (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to "delete". If not kept, we can redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954 since she appeared twice that year. The 1955 entry, which already exists, can include a link to the 1954 entry. Every other not individually notable playmate gets redirected.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have seen if that page exists. I struck and changed my !vote to redirect. tedder (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' per tedder. Fails the GNG and should not be kept as a separate article, but her name is properly included in the list of Playboy Playmates and as such can reasonably redirect there. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am in favor of keep over redirect, with the three appearances nudging her over the line.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Clear redirect case per precedent and consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majken Haugedal[edit]

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

Non notable. No sources found Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I believe the precedent on Playboy centerfolds has been redirection to annual lists of the same, outside of the handful that meet GNG through other activities.. This seems to have worked fine. Carrite (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect fails WP:GNG & WP:PORNBIO Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While I gave this one a pass when I performed my first round of redirects, the community consensus in the later group of Playmate AFDs took a slightly more stringent line. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Redirected per precedent (should this be added to WP:OUTCOMES)? The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Olson[edit]

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

No sources, non notable Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968 per precedent. Does not meet GNG as free-standing article, consensus established is that appearing as a centerfold is not of itself sufficient claim to notability to support a free-standing article. Carrite (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I should have just redirected this in the first place. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Clear consensus for redirect per standard procedure/past AfD results and all votes, snow closure. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melodye Prentiss[edit]

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

No sources found, non notable Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968 per precedent, consensus being that appearing as a centerfold is not of itself sufficient to support a standalone article. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would like to Keep article like this, but based on prevailing sentiment, this is the type of article that we should Redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect fails GNG and WP:PORNBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While I gave this one a pass when I performed my first round of redirects, the community consensus in the later group of Playmate AFDs took a slightly more stringent line. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968. Snow redirect. Merging can be done from history (with proper attribution). To address Milowent's comment: redirecting is a valid outcome of AfD. While boldly doing it is always (and oft should be) an option, accusing somebody of a "useless nomination" doesn't further the collaborative goals of the project. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jordan[edit]

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

Can't find any sources, non notable Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1968 per precedent. Does not meet GNG as free-standing article, consensus established is that appearing as a centerfold is not of itself sufficient claim to notability to support a free-standing article.

Redirect fails WP:GNG & WP:PORNBIO Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, redirect and keep all content. Thanks for another useless nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's useless, why bother to comment? Sorry about submitting some of these that have been nominated since the guidelines changed. I'll be more careful to find prior AfD's in the future as I go through the next 4 decades.Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bother to comment to stop you from wasting our time, we've had a few rounds of these mass nominations in the past. Don't waste time on AfD, none of the content is going to be deleted. The only question is whether some folks merit an individual article or not, per one of my comments in the Lynne Austin AfD. You certainly could spend perhaps some hours doing redirects and merges and organizational improvements to playmate articles if you wish, that would be worthwhile.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While I gave this one a pass when I performed my first round of redirects, the community consensus in the later group of Playmate AFDs took a slightly more stringent line. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987. Snow redirect; merging, if desired, can be done from history (with attribution of course). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luann Lee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero sources found in google archives. Minor parts in media and very few of them. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987, as precedent is that merely appearing as a Playboy centerfold is not of itself sufficient to clear the notability bar. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect fails WP:GNG & WP:PORNBIO Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content, redirect if necessary into the list article as done before.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per my comments in the prior AFD. This one seems to have slipped through during the cleanup after the mass discussion last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TIKKAVARAPU PATTABHIRAMA REDDY[edit]

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

Pattabhirami Reddy Tikkavarapu already exists. So I believe this should be deleted. Shriram (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been moved to the proper home (per WP:ALLCAPS) and a malformed redirect was left behind in its place; I fixed it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. For future reference, such redirects usually qualify for speedy deletion under R3. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Where to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Anti-violence groups[edit]

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

The minimal content of this article doesn't match its title. I'd say that a redlink is better so some future editor can actually write something about LGBT non-violence groups D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the also minimal LGBT rights organization, or maybe LGBT social movements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into LGBT rights organizations, which is the best fit for this marginally notable concept. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what? If you can't answer that, might as well change your vote to redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no content here. Nothing links to this article. Undoubtedly this is a broad topic and a huge amount of content could be put here, but this article would best be created in the future as a fork from another article which has a large "LGBT anti-violence group" section in it. Right now no article has been identified which even has content like this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to LGBT social movements where LGBT rights organization should probably also redirect. There is very little in the way of content and I think that these particular groups are better covered in the larger context of LGBT social movements or the Peace movement rather than in a separate article for the time being. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hisanori Shirasawa[edit]

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

This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. 1988 AFC Asian Cup Japan squad was selection of the university student. Hisanori Shirasawa has not yet played for the senior national team. Japan Football (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was originally prodded on the same above grounds. I contested as article clearly stated that player has played three appearances for the Japanese national team. The proposer has now removed that from the infobox whilst nominating this for AFD.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to National-Football-Teams he wasn't capped for Japan. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to RSSSF he played two games for Japan at the 1988 AFC Asian Cup, and as such passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is the AFC cup not a senior international competition as our article on it gives me the impression it is. Because A) that would need changed and B) if it is a senior international tournament then they have played for Japan as the source shows he played in that tournament. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played at senior international level. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AFC Asian Cup is an official FIFA sanctioned senior competition. If countries chose to enter youth/university teams, that is their choice, but any caps those players have at the competition would still count as caps at the senior level, and would therefore warrant notability as per our established guidelines. TonyStarks (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Following clarification that this is a senior cup. Source [19] shows three appearances. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RSSSF reference clearly states he represented Japan against Iran & UAE & therefore passes WP:FOOTBALL ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that his appearances in the 1988 AFC Asian Cup are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Minoguchi[edit]

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

This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football because it is about a footballer who has not yet played in a fully-pro league and senior international competition. 1988 AFC Asian Cup Japan squad was selection of the university student. Yusuke Minoguchi has not yet played for the senior national team. Japan Football (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And at 46 I doubt he ever will! Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to RSSSF he played two games for Japan at the 1988 AFC Asian Cup, and as such passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played at senior international level. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AFC Asian Cup is an official FIFA sanctioned senior competition. If countries chose to enter youth/university teams, that is their choice, but any caps those players have at the competition would still count as caps at the senior level, and would therefore warrant notability as per our established guidelines. TonyStarks (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Senior cup and player made two appearances per [20].Edinburgh Wanderer 22:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - RSSSF reference clearly states he represented Japan against Qatar & UAE & therefore passes WP:FOOTBALL ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - the consensus is that this person fails to meet notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Scheff[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO due to lack of "published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A Google Books search for "Eleanor Scheff" turns up nothing, as do Google News and Google News archives searches. The article creator also has a conflict of interest as the grandson of the subject; see this link. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't see any sources online, but she's so old that it's likely you'd need to refer to print newspapers/magazines. Not convinced she had a sufficiently major film career. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any independent sources online that prove this individual's existence, let alone notability. If there are print sources, the article's creator should be prepared to state them. --Drm310 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is clear. However, should he later get playing time in an MLS match or other fully pro league the article can be recreated with sources chowing that. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Riggs[edit]

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

PROD contested by User:TonyTheTiger with the explanation "If this guy played in the MLS, he gets a page". However, the subject has not appeared in any MLS matches (or in any fully professional league) and so the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as PROD'er. As stated in the PROD and the nomination, he has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT and he has not received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on checking his MLS profile he has not played in a fully pro league nor does he appear to meet WP:GNG.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Choice (political party)[edit]

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

Non-notable political party. This local party has only ever received a tiny handful of votes, and has never had any elected candidates or come close to electing any. I can't find any coverage of it in reliable sources beyond the trivial. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, more or less. This is an interesting, well-written and well-sourced article that is neutral in tone. Yet I can't help thinking that another wiki might provide a better home for this piece. As far as I can tell from the article, it doesn't meet the criteria of national scope or impact recommended at WP:ORG. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am writing this in a pub in Croydon, I asked another Croydonian and we are agreed that the party is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments for information: National scope missing maybe, but has contested national elections, albeit not from every seat in the nation but from a group of close constituencies. As for reliable sources, try the party's registration and annual returns as the Electoral Commission (which is as reliable as it gets!) and the Notice of Election etc issued by the Returning Officers for the elections - again, as reliable as it gets. Emeraude (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the information in the article is true; only that the subject of it is notable by Wikipedia's standards. As WP:ORG says, 'An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.' Emphasis on significant coverage: trivial coverage in political databases is not enough. As for 'has contested national elections', its best result in a general election was in Croydon South in 2001, where it got 0.4% of the vote. In local elections, it did once get 453 votes in one ward, but even that amounts to only around 10% of the vote. We have to draw the line somewhere, and a party which has never elected even a single councillor is just not important enough to deserve an article. Robofish (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in British national press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A selective merge to Croydon local elections might be appropriate. Not independently notable. Fences&Windows 18:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it would be generous even to describe them as a micro-party. Per above, I wouldn't mind a very selective merge to/mention on Croydon local elections, but given that the party seems to be outpolled on a semi-regular basis by the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, even that is being generous. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this organisation fails to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C3: Center for Conscious Creativity[edit]

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

Advertisement. Does not establish notability and has no 3rd party sources. Conflict of interest author contested prod. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many problems as an article, and no sources. But looks like has a chance of being able to meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTABILITY - "Center for Conscious Creativity" and "C3: VisionLAB" gets no gnews hits except for press releases; the high-ranking ghits aren't those that establish notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nat and Nom. Clearly a (poorly written} puff piece. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenpei to barabara shibijin[edit]

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

Non-notable Japanese film. It hurts... Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: An AfD could hurt too. Now that it's April 2, I just wanted to ask whether this was another April Fool's AfD, like some of the others Six Sided Pun Vows started on April 1.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this result from Google News in Japanese, but I'm not sure that it actually counts as reliable. There were a lot of promising Japanese refs from Google Books, but they were all either passing mentions, unavailable, or the snippet was so short that I could only guess at the information inside. I am thinking that there must be reviews in Japanese papers and magazines from the 1950s, but I can't verify this without going to the library to check. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that this was NOT a joke nomination. I believe that a possible connection to a 17-year-old video game doesn't exactly make this film notable. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 12:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a film that is rather regularly mentioned in discussions of Japanese horror or schlock cinema, or in histories of Shintoho. Just a quick journey to my bookshelf found an entry on the film in Weisser's Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia: Horror, Fantasy, Science Fiction and the film selected as one of "Japanese Ghost and Horror Film Masterpieces" in Bekkan Taiyō's Nihon horā eiga e no shōtai. It's also covered in Nihon tokusatsu gensō eiga zenshū [21]. Journalism at the time took it up, with Kinema Junpō, the major film magazine, publishing a review in the September 1959 issue (the separate "shōkai" is here). The National Film Center of Japan has even featured it in their retrospectives (see here--note that being "featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema" is one of the conditions of WP:NF). It would not be hard to find more. Michitaro (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also was able to find multiple references to this it is clearly a well known film. The stuff about the game person is just connecting trivia which belongs in the article about the game person, not in the article about the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Reich[edit]

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

This person is not notable; he (she) was newsworthy for a few months for falsely confessing to killing JonBenét Ramsey. That falls way short of notability standards per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Briefly notable for one event, all meaningful coverage is related to the false charges against her. We err in favor of privacy. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly worth the screen display. Mdoc7 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lets be reasonable now. Their are alot of good references. and clearly if he was a non-notable man "on his own merits", then this kind of well referenced article would be able to be done. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to surpass ONEEVENT. Article could use improvement and updating though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with JonBenét Ramsey. Fails guidelines on news (person famous for one thing). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to JonBenét Ramsey - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I'm normally a deletionist, but this feels like a well-sourced and formatted article related to a very newsworthy (well, at least, "popular in the news") case. I see no reason to merge or delete this. ... aa:talk 20:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He also made national news in 2007 when he was arrested for a domestic argument ^[1], in 2008 when he left the country ^[2] in 2010 when he was trying to start a child sex cult ^[3] and when he got a sex change. ^[4] Laladoodle92 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ramsey. - Frankie1969 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think Africa Press[edit]

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

Shows no evidence of notability in reliable sources. Article was created by a single-purpose account and lists only the organization's website, minor links to its content, and mirror hostings of the organization's press release as its sources. Khazar2 (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real evidence of notability. It does look like a PR piece, constructed mostly from primary sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is PR. I had a look and wasn't able to find any independent mention of this group. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malena Morgan[edit]

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

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear failure to meet relevant notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legalise Cannabis Ireland[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mentioned in passing in the Irish Times is the most noteworthy coverage. Tagged since 2009 without significant improvement. Sjö (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well that is enough for me, go be creative not destructive Vjiced (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vjiced.Red Hurley (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of stories are mentioned in the Irish Times that aren't necessarily Wikipedia standard. Plenty of other lobby groups exist in Ireland that don't even get a mention here either. You have to draw a line. 79.97.57.207 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Let's have a smoke on that, oops, sorry, not an April Fool's joke, but perfectly timed! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. The only reliable source cited is the The Irish Times, and it's not clear that it is about this spcific organization. Sandstein 08:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet Kosambi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot establish notability as per WP:MUSICBIO - meets none of the parameters listed. WP:SIGCOV - There is no significant coverage of this artist. Cannot add any reliable reference. All Google search results list one event or music download sites --Wikishagnik (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Wikishagnik (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One should be wary of relying on Gnews, Gbooks for articles about non-western subjects as they don't cover much media outside the Western world. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is enough English language coverage of Notable Indian artists, (tv) serials, musicians etc. Their are several respectable newspapers and magazines that have a well defined editorial process that avoids trivial issues and are available online and show up on google. E.g. NDTV Home and Music, CNN - IBN, Times of India etc. try searching for any Indian musician not reported for notability in Google and you will find many more such sources. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find this: Sa Re Ga Ma Pa participants on the Times of India site. So it is only established he participated in the contest. Not enough though so for now Delete. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking for references to prove he was winner of "Marathi Sa Re Ga Ma Pa"? I found one Marathi reference. This English article has a passing mention of his but does say that he was the winner. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately the Marathi article cannot be used as a notability parameter for English Wikipedia. The other article too cannot be used as it does not give any specific dates for concerts. Even if we consider both articles mentioned in this discussion the muscian still does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. --Wikishagnik (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not depend on the language of sources, so a Marathi article is perfectly acceptable as long as it is reliable and independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets the WP:MUSICBIO criteria of "Has won or placed in a major music competition". -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This will be long so have some patience. I have not been able to find any reliable third party reference for this article. Their is a Wikipedia page on Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007 and it does have this artist mentioned but two of the three references mentioned are dead links, the third is a music download site, but I guess that's a separate issue. I did not visit the website of the contest because that would not count as a reliable reference. I have not found significant coverage of the event or this participant yet. The Marathi article cannot be verified by me. --Wikishagnik (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, in case its not clear. The subject was particiapnt in Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007. But he was winner of Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Marathi's season. The Marathi show is based on similar format and arranged by same production house, but only in Marathi language. Similar Bengali show also exists. The winners of these regional shows get/used to get direct enteries in the National i.e. Hindi competition. Marathi and Bengali dont have their own articles yet. However, one season of Marathi which was for children has its own article at Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Marathi L'il Champs. I have voted Keep as he was the winner of marathi show, not participant in Hindi show. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is becoming a question of whether the Marathi show itself is "a major music competition" - if so, as winner, Abhijeet Kosambi qualifies under WP:MUSIC 9. If not, then as mentioned above it becomes a question of whether individual Sa Re Ga Ma Pa contestants on the Hindi show are notable purely on the basis of having participated in that show (as that's the only thing verified by decent sources). Even though it was more than 4 years ago and the subject hasn't done anything of note since, I'd go with a weak keep. Most participants from that 2007 show seem to have articles, and to deny notability on this basis feels like a double standard as regards American Idol and the like. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Marathi" is a "major music competition". Its aired on Zee Marathi. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, not knowing the setup, it looks more like a regional spinoff or a qualifying heat for the national Hindi show than a major music competition in its own right, but just to be clear, I'm arguing it doesn't matter either way because being on Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007 is (barely) enough for me. I'm just saying that if SRGMP Marathi is deemed by consensus to be a major competition, then there'd be a strong supposition of notability per WP:MUSIC point 9 which trumps those arguments. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Street League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Street League

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

Fails WP:GNG and I believe this fails W:NFOOTY as well. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot t • c » 19:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in India as a probable search term/blue link, but I don't see any evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability and the common sounding nature of the term don't make it a good redirect candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Fertel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD removed (procedurally?). Concern was: Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR; article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing); page was previously deleted at AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hedging a bet of a G4 on this one. Speedy Delete G4 (repost of previously deleted material); so tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, procedurally, of course. You can't reprod (see red notice) something that has already been to AfD ("An article may be PRODed only once".) Speedy is OK though. Valfontis (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite a G4 in my opinion - similar in some ways but not identical. To be in the "100 best-selling self-help books in Amazon’s “Happiness” category" doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm. Self-published through his own company. Of the references that I can access, only the Baltimore Sun one seems to be anywhere near to an RS, and does give some background to his getting into this field. (The others are by Fertel, or otherwise promotional, or mere mentions/quotes.) Peridon (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BASIC. Lacks depth of coverage in multiple, independent sources that are not blogs or PR blurbs. Most citations are about his program, not about him. I'm wondering if we shouldn't WP:SALT this one (and possibly Marriage Fitness) as well. If he achieves genuine notability the article can be recreated by someone not in his camp. Valfontis (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that this article is an unsalvageably unencyclopedic essay that should be deleted. Sourced information on the topic can be added to The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two, but the consensus is that nothing in the article currently meets the criteria for merging. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our memory and its capacity[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, reads like an essay. Partially duplicates The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two; any new content might be incorporated there. —teb728 t c 01:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a little confusing to read, due to the structure, I suppose, but I'm going to ride with the nom's statement of duplicity and essay factor. Moreover, in reading it, it almost sounds like there was promotion of an expert. But again with the confusing thing. Maybe I need coffee to read it.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with all that has been said above, this is a mess that at this point does not seem rescuable, due to its essay-like topic (title). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The ref titles make it look exactly like 7 +/- 2. They may contain some useful content, but this article is not for an encyclopedia. Chris857 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement is NOT a reason for deletion. If need be starta merge discussion and redirect OR clean it up.Lihaas (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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