< 10 April 12 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merged with Shutterstock. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Chou[edit]

Jim Chou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability offered. I expected that the CIO of Shutterstock would have been interviewed or something, but nothing shows up in my searches. I'll gladly cancel this AfD if anyone can find reliable sources, but I'm not seeing any. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the single line of content with Shutterstock and left a redirect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 12 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) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GLTT[edit]

GLTT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. I've no knowledge of this ever being used for anything, and the project is essentially dead. Specs112 t c 23:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:24, 12 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) 00:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC (block cipher)[edit]

ABC (block cipher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I can verify the author's involvement in the cryptographic community, there is no indication for notability of the algorithm at all. Note: Not to be confused with ABC (stream cipher), ABC (Accumulated Block Chaining), and ABC (Advanced Block Cipher). Honest statement by the author in his paper: "The author assumes that the expanded SAFER diffusion layer is MDS (Maximum Distance Separable) which, if proven, would be the only new thing in this paper." – Suggest deletion. Nageh (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:23, 12 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 speedily deleted under CSD A10. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amponanometer[edit]

Amponanometer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article at Multimeter. This would not be an appropriate redirect because there is no evidence that the word is in use (Google search only brought up this page). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 22:47, 11 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) 00:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Roth[edit]

Veronica Roth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crowder, Courtney (2012). "Chicago novelist sells film rights". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Kung, Michelle (July 23, 2011). "'Divergent' Author Veronica Roth on Her Film Adaptation". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "Divergent by Veronica Roth - review". The Guardian. September 13, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 01:51, 14 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 and redirect. Unanimity amongst the commentators that this school fails our notability standards as do most (but not all) elementary schools. Normal practice is to redirect such elementary schools to the school district and I see no convincing reason in the discussion not to do so in this case, particularly as a redirect meets, in my view, WP:R. As DGG states, elementary schools get little vandalism and I have added this one to the '000s on my watchlist in case it does! The only mergeable fact is the grades and I have added that from the primary source so there is no need to maintain the article history. TerriersFan (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priestman Street Elementary School[edit]

Priestman Street Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No point. There is nothing in the target article about it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Brunswick School District 18 is a better target. The usual outcome for this type of school is to redirect to the relevant school board or community. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to that, but there are a couple of hundred "articles" about Canadian elementary schools that are redirected to their boards. Putting a redirect in place is an easier course of action than a deletion. PKT(alk) 15:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it easier? I think unnecessary redirects can waste editors time. They have to maintained forever (or at least until we become extinct!). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of maintenance needs to be done on redirects? Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. OSborn arfcontribs. 20:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly protection from vandalism. See also User:Alan Liefting/Redirects are costly. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see such a problem. Redirects can be set up like that. I've probably set up well over 100 of them, very easily. Conversely, I can't delete anything. I can only Wikipedia:PROD or Wikipedia:AfD. PKT(alk) 01:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, do you mean merge to New Brunswick School District 18, in which case it is already listed there? Generally the article is not policy compliant (or good) because the list of alumni, which makes the bulk of the stub, are all non-notable. Sionk (talk) 12:34, 14 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) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tre'mendous[edit]

Tre'mendous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of this article is in question. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:18, 12 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) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Branchline (magazine)[edit]

Branchline (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. This is a non-notable magazine. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a minor zine. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 12 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. Hasn't, as yet, played in a fully professional league. There is obviously some interest in the name coincidence but the clear consensus is that the coverage that this has produced is insufficient to meet the relevant notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Messi Nyamsi[edit]

Lionel Messi Nyamsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aricle about a footballer who has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. All coverage is due to his name, and not significant, meaning the article fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does BLP1E say that it requires an article for the event? – Kosm1fent 08:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took it to be implicit in the sentence "In such cases [as this], it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article", that in order to act on BLP1E, an article about the event in question is required. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but I also see the first bullet, which reads "We should generally avoid having an article on a person [...] if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", which does not imply that it requires an article for the event, and in fact, coverage on this footballer is only in the context of having the same name as Lio Messi. – Kosm1fent 03:24, 18 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) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesogin[edit]

Pesogin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, no independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:13, 12 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) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farrans Construction Ltd[edit]

Farrans Construction Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 12 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. Even after disregarding BO's WP:JUSTAVOTE, there is a weak consensus to delete. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IM5[edit]

IM5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boyband, doesn't appear to be coverage in any sources (that aren't related to founder Perez Hilton) - Created by Single Purpose Account - Speedy A7 correctly applied as the but removed in good faith as editor believed that article establishes the band to be notable based on who created it. Fails WP:MUSIC as well as WP:GNG. Non-Neutral, Nothing verified, probably falls under a WP:PRODBLP as well Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I could find more with more time. To be sure, IM5's notability may well be the result of a huge publicity push, but they do get coverage. I have no love for manufactured talent such as this, but it is the current trend, and this particular version, with the backing of notable backers, is inherently notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are reliable sources, The one that looks most reliable is artistsdirect but that has been considered not reliable atWP:RSN - Additionally #2 is not independent since they are developing IM5 for Fuller, Perez and King. Notability requires reliability non-trivial mentions (which these all are), and independence besides which they still fail WP:MUSIC, and still have the problem of the inability of creating a neutral verifiable article from these types of sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 12 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 merge to Outer Space Treaty. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Preservation Treaty[edit]

Space Preservation Treaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such treaty. No evidence of notablitity of the proposal. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:35, 12 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) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC for Kids Video Hits Vol. 2[edit]

ABC for Kids Video Hits Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this video release. This was deleted in a 2008 AfD. I suggest WP:SALT if this is deleted again. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 12 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) 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC for Kids Video Hits[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ABC for Kids Video Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this video tape. SL93 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 12 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) 01:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transient (acoustics)[edit]

Transient (acoustics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as it describes a term which is a misnomer for the phenomenon it describes. It's a misnomer that is occasionally used but not common enough to have notability. There are also no reliable sources or references Vexorg (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A transient is indeed a real life occurance, but the point is what this article is describing isn't a transient. it's a bit like describing a bicycle as a car. Vexorg (talk)
More like describing a Vespa as a Moped, really. But seriously, this term is very broadly used (possibly even the most commonly used) term for an acoustical phenomenon. If there are reliable sources that discuss this use as misnomer (rather than an alternate definition, as noted over at Wiktionary), then they should be included in the article. Deletion is not the correct action for a common misnomer. VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment very unusual to see the nominator casting a 'vote' in an AFD. Greglocock (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It happens all the time. Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'm the editor who is adamant on keeping this article, as I'm the one who requested that it be restored after it was PRODed a while ago, leaving a stack of redlinks. I also posted a heads-up to those involved in the PROD, one of whom then immediately re-proposed it for PROD and has now posted this AfD. No objections to that, but I do rather object to the claim that I cannot find any reliable sources. I've posted one, and I see that there's now another from another contributor (thank you). What we are lacking, however, is any source for the claim that this is a misnomer. I trust this will be corrected. Andrewa (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are the editor that is adamant in keeping this article. While we all know that some people so use the term 'transient' for an attack portion of an audio signal, we all know ( including you ) know that the term is a misnomer when applied in this case. The inclusion of reliable sources is irrelevant as there are always people with the mentality that would fight for an article claiming the Sun is made out of dark chocolate if they found enough reliable sources. just becuase Wikipedia's guidelines are flawed it doesn't mean one has to follow them like an automaton. It's your choice. You can either follow the flawed Wikipedia guidelines or you can think for yourself and help create an Encyclopaedia that has better value for humanity. Your conscious. nothing ever got improved by herd mentality. :) Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is (by your own admission) used, and if there are (as in this case) some reliable sources, then the article should be kept. "We all know that the term is a misnomer" - in that case, what you should do is discuss on the article's talk page what the correct term should be, and move the article according to the consensus to the correct title, or reach a consensus on the article's page on the correct meaning for the term - in either case, deletion is not the correct approach to this editing disagreement. If you can find reliable sources which indicate that this is indeed a misnomer, then provide them and we can add that verifiable information to the article.
As to your disagreement with the consensually-agreed reliable sources criteria... you have two choices, from what I can see - either start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability and get the consensus changed, or start your own wiki- or other-based encyclopedia, with your criteria for inclusion! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term adamant might be more correctly applied to yourself. I've sought consensus, for example by advising you and the other supporter of the first PROD that a restore was requested [16] [17] which I did not need to do, and offered several options including dropping the whole idea of undeletion [18]. You on the other hand seem to shift ground, for example going from demanding sources and claiming I can't find any to now saying they're irrelevant and that you can but won't because you don't need to, and there is worse on the article talk page (where I am allegedly obsessive [19]). Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it was worth creating this proposed deletion entry just to hear the name Greglocock. May I extend my fullest respect for your comedy genius! Vexorg (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, the nom really wants this deleted, not merged, deleted and nothing else will do. This is their third try (the first PROD succeeded, I'm puzzled that the 22 incoming links didn't alert anyone that there was something going on, but there you are). There has been no willingness to consider creating a meaningful redirect, just the opposite, the reaction to my attempt was to delete its target paragraph [20] (which I hadn't created, it was already there). Nom wants to change Wikipedia and the world, see Talk:Transient (acoustics). No argument with any of that, it's just that here ain't the place. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply LMFAO at being accused of wanting to change Wikipedia and the world. Wikipedia is indeed flawed, but just goign along with those flaws in an automaton manner is even more flawed. Vexorg (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is, a merge and redirect isn't a useful compromise, because it doesn't address the issues which are the reason for this AfD. Is that a fair statement? If it's not, then perhaps we can work out a strong consensus after all, one that you can support. That's the best outcome, in all ways: It satisfies everyone, and more important, it's likely to be the most encyclopedic outcome too. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 17 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 close as speedy delete. ... discospinster talk 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacie Porilla[edit]

Lacie Porilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost certainly a WP:HOAX. Unreferenced, and not a single mention of her online, let alone any WP:Reliable sources in English or Spanish to support any of the claims made for notability. Article's creator has a history of disruptive editing. Scopecreep (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, thank you. Now tagged db-hoax. Scopecreep (talk) 20:54, 11 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 merge to Shiatsu. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equine Shiatsu[edit]

Equine Shiatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable topic. I propose that this article should be merged into Shiatsu - possibly a short note to say that some practitioners have adapted Shiatsu for use on non-human animals including horses. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 12 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_Family_Guy_characters#Bruce. Protecting for a week, if it gets reverted after that then it will be longer Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce (Family Guy)[edit]

Bruce (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable minor character, never a major or important role in any episode and has more then enough coverage at List_of_Family_Guy_characters#Bruce. User:JohnnyLurg keeps readding the page with no edit summary and ignores my query on his/her talk page. CTJF83 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, especially while the only source provided is a wiki. If the article is retained then that will need to be dealt with in any case. Doniago (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:17, 12 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 Our Version of Events. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Kind of Love[edit]

My Kind of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song, article is almost entirely WP:OR, no sources, bad formatting (e.g. WP:CAPS). A UK chart placing of #178 does not assert notability as far as I can see. - eo (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is the upcoming single from Sande - so it is a notable song. References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Version_of_Events for the release as the fourth single and music video. http://www.radio1.gr/music/forthcoming_uk_singles.htm for the release as a forthcoming single. --User:Bachmannlover
  • I'm not completely sure, but from what I can find, I don't think it's been released. There's a blurb from three weeks ago on a fansite stating that "My Kind of Love" was chosen as her next single. Around that same time, it was reported that she is shooting a video for the song. But I can't find anything about a specific release date. Knowing that would obviously be helpful, but whether it's already been released as a single or not, there's also the issue of an apparent lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. All of this together suggests that it's probably a bit too soon for an article.  Gongshow Talk 00:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The song hasn't even been announced as a single yet. --ƒɾɛɛᴅᴑᴍºᵀᴬᴸᴷ 09:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Striking vote from blocked sock. Spartaz Humbug! 18:03, 11 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:51, 11 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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Unnecessary content fork that is merely copy-pasted from the university article, with no indication of how this subject is independently notable. Additionally, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination for deletion and recommended a redirect, making this articles for deletion discussion moot. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PUP Pylon[edit]

PUP Pylon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing to merge with Polytechnic University of the Philippines as the article in question is very short and may be non-notable at that, thus it does not warrant a separate article of its own. Article has already been tagged with a WP:PROD in the past. I just checked the Polytechnic University of the Philippines and seeing as the article in question has its content copy-pasted beforehand, I propose to just redirect the article to the main PUP one. Xeltran (talk) 19:11, 11 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. I have, of course, ignored the SPAs who offered no new perspective on the issue Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vedat Akman[edit]

Vedat Akman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable academic. Does not meet WP:PROF (neither of the two journals of which he is editor is notable itself)" (both journals are now also at AfD), dePRODded without any stated reason. In the absence of evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note See also the related AfDs for EMAJ and CINEJ. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 20:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BEA TV seems to be a TV station associated with the university where Akman works. In addition, the "reference" for his involvement with this TV station is a program page that does not even mention him. Searching that web site for "Vedat Akman" does not give any hits. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy of relevant discussion from article talk page:
  • BEA TV is a channel associated with the university where Akman works. Searching their site for "Vedat Akman" does not give a single hit. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tick the name of the program "Türkiye 2023" you are ticking the wrong phrase also Maxihaber is not associated with either BEA TV or Beykent University. The Foundation that owns Beykent University also the owner of the BEA TV but they are separate legal identities and totaly separated from each other. So please search before making assumption or talk to someone that knows the region. Thanks. --ozkazanci (talk)
  • It seems to me there is evidence of his hosting the programme - Türkiye 2023 ( [22] and [23] and more...), but I am not clear what the status (viewing figures and the like) of this programme - TV channel are or indeed of the source: maxihaber. If it is anything like a national channel with viewing figures in the 100s of thousands then this would seem it might be enough for notability but we have the suggestion that it is the only cultural and educational channel (like the PBS in USA) in Turkey. Can anyone help with providing sources about this? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Maxihaber again is not associated with either BEA TV or Beykent University. Maxihaber is an independent online newspaper check the owners please... Celik Foundation that owns Beykent University also the owner of the BEA TV but they are separate legal identities and totaly separated from each other. So please again search before making assumption or talk to someone that knows the region. I know it is difficult to chase all the details but truth lies in them. Thanks. --ozkazanci (talk)
  • This and this suggests that it is a campus-wide TV channel, not a nation-wide one. This suggests that there is a link between the university, BEA TV, and maxihaber, making it a non-independent source. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • please check your facts if interested. Your info's are not correct. they are not related. Especially Maxihaber is owned by a totally different owner no association what so ever... read above my explanation please. --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment You are right that an academic can be notable without meeting WP:PROF. Akman does not meet WP:PROF, but could meet WP:GNG and that would make him notable. The only claim for that, however, are his TV appearance(s). To accept that as anything substantial, though, I'd like to see better independent sources. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi again, well forexample his books helped visually disabled(recorded)at Library for the Visually Disabled of Turkey(link to recording http://www.turgok.org/kitaplar/1335), Assistive Technology and Education Lab. for Individuals with Visual Diabilities (recording of the book link: http://www.getem.boun.edu.tr/subDetails.asp?ID=9418) He donates earnings from his books to charities such as Theodora Foundation (http://www.theodora.org/TUR/en/100-TUR-en.html) Theodora Foundation is to help ease the suffering of children in hospitals by helping them laugh and have fun. ("Gercek Basari Oykuleri II" Book By him which tells the story of Theodora Foundation as well, the book's copyright fees is being donated to Theodora Foundation-Turkey)... Forexample BEA TV that he appears is an national TV actually the only cultural and educational channel (like the PBS in USA) belonging to Beykent University which he emphasises on social responsibility and education in his programs... like that well if you look deeper you will see a lot of that… He is involved in many social responsibility projects which he does not advertise around... Thank you. --beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Response to your response I checked the link you put on reliability it say "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. " so my question is you dont find Pittsburgh University or Pittsburgh University Press reliable ??? It is a highly ranked research university or do you have a different opinion about reliability because if we consider the link you gave for reliability if Pittsburgh University is not than Who, Which ??? I am really confused about where this is going... I am a first time user so please excuse me. Thank you. --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC). — ozkazanci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment PUP is a reliable source and it confirms that the journals exist. Now all that needs to be established is that the journals are also notable and meet either WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The Turkish site has the following explanantion for blanking the article:(Genel 9 - Telif hakkı ihlali yaratan sayfa: https://vedatakman.com/?lng=tr)

Some questions - answers to which might help: can we provide any evidence that Vedat Akman's academic work is notable according to our WP:Prof criteria? Is it well cited or reviewed in multiple independent reliable sources? Is the TV show a "notable" show? Is it a nationally broadcast show with many viewers (What kind of channel is BEA TV - is it like PBS in the US) and do we have any evidence of this from reliable sources? What is maxihaber? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Some answers - Pittsburgh University Press is as reliable as Cambridge Press (look at the university ratings) that should clearify notability as well because he is the editor in chief and founder of two journals there... TV show is broadcasted on cable D Smart 245 very popular well known nationwide cable network and program is available on Setallite nationwide TurkSat (it is not a university campus tv channel) you can look at the frequency detail on tvs web.... Maxihaber is an independent online sectorial newspaper very popular especial with IT firms. Well again all sources are in Turkish so you need to speak Turkish to really to verify but if you like I can post you Turkish links there are many... Plus this not his first TV programs he did programs with Channel E Turkey's first Business channel sold later and became CNBC-E, he had program on TV8, Karadeniz TV which are national tv channels... hope this answers question. Thanks. (ozkazanci (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Again: PUP being reliable confirms that the journals exist, but does not contribute in the least to notability. And entities don't need to be owned by the same organisation in order to be (in)dependent. If Akman is so notable/beloved/well-known as you say, then it should be much easier to dig up reliable sources showing this than apparently is the case. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: it is easy to show if you have spoken Turkish because most sources here are in Turkish. English speaking population or publications not much here yet. All general information is available in Turkish. If you are interested I can post the Turkish links selectively... but what you are saying about entities being not needing to be owned by same owner to be in(dependent) very suspicious and shows you dont trust even the basic facts which you can also check yourself if you dont believe others points... Owner in Turkish is "Sahibi" you can look on internet but what I said is the fact so I am very confident you will find the same answer I gave earlier. Trust seems to be a real issue here and being on the side of proving everything for some reason is not easy task I thought we share points and check them ourselves and if we dont understand something we ask but it is like prove this, prove that and than prove more I wish I was a lawyer but I am not and I dont think this person needs one either. I stated my opinion about him which is positive. If you dont agree I respect it but the level and expectations about the discussion should be on reasonable boundries please. Thanks.

(ozkazanci (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.183.2 (talk) [reply]

  • Reply: My view is Turkish sources can be fine - and in any case Google translate can be used to help those of us who can't read Turkish - but the key thing is the sources need to be reliable and indicate notability. I think we don't have these in the article yet. On the TV channel I think, as I argued before, it might have been useful to have some verifiable indication of the notable nature of this channel earlier. On the journal I think it is not yet wp notable as it is too new and is not yet well enough established with it not yet being well cited and the like. If there were to have been proper sourcing to indicate that he was nationally notable via the TV channel it is far more likely there would not have been a problem with this article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)) PS: Nicely sourced articles on the TV channel and maxihaber might be nice! I have already look at doing this myself but I couldn't find much to do it.[reply]

Ps. He is also the founder and honorary president of JCI İstanbul Crossroads International Film Festival which is at its 7th year now. http://www.jciistanbulcrossroads.com/eng-2011.asp this years winning film was fantastic. I found this link on internet but probably someone will cancel that too so before that happens please look at the history of the festival. It is a great event last year winners came from France. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossroads_Uluslararas%C4%B1_K%C4%B1sa_Film_Festivali Bye. (ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

  • I am sorry that you feel this way, but the sockpuppet investigation did show that you had been using two different usernames (and you !voted with both, a big no-no here; somebody else also used two usernames, but !voted only with one; in any case, it seems that the sockpuppet accusation was not completely unfounded). I have been trying as much as possible to point you and your friends towards the applicable policies and guidelines. You might also benefit from a look at the lists of deletion discussions linked above, just below the nomination, to get an idea how debates like this are done and what argument carry weight and which ones don't. As for your privacy concerns, if you had used just 1 alias and had not edited when not signed in (so that your IP was visible to all), there would not have been any problem. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:38, 17 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. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedat Akman Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CINEJ[edit]

CINEJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "New journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals", dePRODded without stated reason, but with addition of two non-selective databases. Hence, PROD reason still holds: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note See also the related AfDs for EMAJ and Vedat Akman. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PKP: Inclusion verified: http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs-journals. Open Archives Registry: Inclusion verified: http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites. UIUC OIA registry: Inclusion verified: http://gita.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/searchform.asp. WorldCat (OCLC) OAIster: We registered our journal, but we’re working with OCLC to have the journals display in the results. Ulrich’s: http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/94665581 and http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/3116753. Have to request a correction to the record, though, because they incorrectly list the publisher, which should be University Library System, University of Pittsburgh. EBSCO: Verified. Have a signed agreement. http://old.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/: Verified. You can search for them online at that URL. Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=suggest&owner=1: Submitted but the journals do not yet appear. Do know they have a back log but will look into this further. Electronic Journals Library: Previously submitted but have submitted them again. EBSCO databases already included. CABELLS-USA Submitted and under review. JournalsSeek Submitted and under review. ABI/INFORM-USA Submitted for review. Index Islamicus: submitted for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alenbohcelyan (talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment None of these databases really is selective, so being included in them is not really a distinction and does nothing to meet WP:NJournals (and even less to meet WP:GNG). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Absolutely correct. But you give not a single argument as to why this particular journal would be an exception. There is not a shred of evidence that any of the (few) articles published by this journal has made any measurable impact yet. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As much as I know CINEJ collaborated with important project such as BREAKING THE STEREOTYPE with Dr. Veronika Bernard (University of Innsbruck/ Austria) and set up conferences together in Italy /Rome, Turkey/Istanbul, and Austria/ Vienna and published a conference book together as well. Also collaborated with National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty, Rome/ Italy on the same Project. CINEJ seem to appear in incredible organizations around the world. These people are so dedicated and a chance would be great, I hope… Thank you.--beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Yep, the journal exists, it's available for free on the web and so libraries will include a link on their websites. Sorry, but that is nothing out of the ordinary and absolutely not a sign of notability in the WP sense. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noppp, no of course not... libraries are selective in their collections mostly if have agreement with EBSCO or Worldcat which are expensive listings and services they may choose from their collections because of their membership still even than libraries are selective and certainly they dont put everything that is free on their collections please look more carefully... it seems it is very common at wiki making assumptions... --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC). — ozkazanci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Not really. Linking to an OA journal basically costs nothing. For books we sometimes take library holdings as an indication of notability. Generally, hundreds of holdings are needed for that, anything less will not do it. So adding a smattering of library holdings to the article on this journal really does not do much towards establishing notability (and even less so because it actually doesn't cost anything to do so). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to your response... please look at the link on reliability at wiki which states "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. " so my question is you dont find Pittsburgh University or Pittsburgh University Press reliable ??? It is a highly ranked research university or do you have a different opinion about reliability because if we consider the link you gave for reliability if Pittsburgh University is not than Who, Which ??? I am really confused about where this is going again... Thank you. --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, I think PUP is reliable and their website confirms that the journal exists. But existing is not enough for notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark...Hi, I am asst. Prof. Sitki S. From Beykent University. I lost my password so I continued with this nickname previously it was sitkisonmezer. For the record, sorry for any confusion. I am writing this message from our Taksim Campus location we have 3 campuses. I reside in Ayazaga Campus usually... Unfortunately, I find wiki very difficult for first timers. I feel very uncomfortable... I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the future of CINEJ and EMAJ which I both support but I think I should complete my discussion on all pages because I really said all there is to say. Thank you. Best wishes. Sitki S--ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
But with respect to some of the arguments: I think library holdings are very relevant for open access ejournals, and I think I can prove it. As a librarian, I would not --and never did --add free material to the catalog unless there was good reason. It takes actual work to add anything to the catalog, & continuing work to keep it up to date, and an academic library does not aim at facilitating access to worthless material, even free worthless material. In fact, since the faculty don't need the library to buy Open access journals, even if the faculty want the journals, there won't be many requests to catalog them. For example, look at this very title: Examining WorldCat for library holdings, I see it's cataloged by only 3 US libraries Viginia Commonwealth, Iowa and Stanford. (Were what Guillaume2303 said correct, we would expect hundreds of US holdings). The traditionally best film schools, NYU and UCLA, don't list it.
As for listing by Ebsco, they have very liberal standards, since the large number of journals to which they provide full text access is a selling point, but they also want to maintain a serious reputation. And even DOAJ, which wants to promote OA publishing, has at least minimal standards, since they want to promote the idea that OA ejournals are a respectable mode of publication.
Judging the journal by library criteria, I'd wait for another issue. The editorial board is from a limited range of universities, and so are the contributors (in fact, they're from mostly the same universities--quite common, since the usual way to get good people to contribute to a new journal, is to offer to add them to the editorial board, and then ask them to help by contributing an article.) The journal has the sanction of a good university press, but in a special project. The rules of the project seem demanding. According to its web site, their "Selection Criteria: We are seeking partners who: Ensure quality through a rigorous peer-review process; Support Open Access to scholarly research; Are supported by an internationally recognized editorial board; Possess the staff resources needed to ensure timely publication; Solicit new original scholarly research through an open call for papers; Practice selectivity regarding published content. All of our peer-reviewed journals are also published in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh Press. "[24] I think this is sufficient to differentiate them from the sort or irresponsible e-journal publishing that is unfortunately become so common. But as far as I can tell none of the journals are yet established, and only Études Ricœuriennes / Ricœur Studies has a truly first rate representative editorial board.
Personally, I would support a more common-sense view of any journal notability--I think our standard of requiring indexing in a major selective index is overly rigorous, and we would do better to consider any journal published by a reputable scientific publisher or university or notable society as notable if it has actually published an issue. But I don't think that currently has consensus. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 18 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. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedat Akman Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EMAJ[edit]

EMAJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "New journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals", dePRODded without reason given, but with the addition of some non-selective indexes. hence, PROD reason still stands: Delete Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note See also the related AfDs for CINEJ and Vedat Akman. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PKP: Inclusion verified: http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs-journals. Open Archives Registry: Inclusion verified: http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites. UIUC OIA registry: Inclusion verified: http://gita.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/searchform.asp. WorldCat (OCLC) OAIster: We registered our journal, but we’re working with OCLC to have the journals display in the results. Ulrich’s: http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/94665581 and http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/3116753. Have to request a correction to the record, though, because they incorrectly list the publisher, which should be University Library System, University of Pittsburgh. EBSCO: Verified. Have a signed agreement. http://old.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/: Verified. You can search for them online at that URL. Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=suggest&owner=1: Submitted but the journals do not yet appear. Do know they have a back log but will look into this further. Electronic Journals Library: Previously submitted but have submitted them again. EBSCO databases already included. CABELLS-USA Submitted and under review. JournalsSeek Submitted and under review. ABI/INFORM-USA Submitted for review. Index Islamicus: submitted for review.

  • Comment on the two above !votes: even if the journal would be accepted by all the databases where it currently is under review, it still would not meet WP:NJournals: none of these databases is a major and selective one. Cabell's, DOAJ, Journalseek, OCLC, etc all basically try to be as inclusive as possible. This is all way too soon. Wait a few years until the journal has had time to establish itself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a few more points EMAJ neither CINEJ are citiation index journals but they are peer-reviewed semiannual indexed journals published by a very reputable research university in USA and listed with indexes such as EBSCOHOST, CABELL'S Directory (recently accepted) which are well known indexes. These journals are part of OJS system which is the same concept wikipedia uses... Because they are free does not make them un-exclusive ??? I don't recall wikipedia listing about which is exclusive or major and selective ??? if there is such a list by Wikipedia please direct me too it so all scientific community can benefit from it. But you make it sound like your point is absolute like there is such a list with wikipedia that cleary states which indexes are so... Major and selective according to you or is there a list which clearly states EBSCOHOST or DOAJ or CABELLS and many others are not ??? Please dont make your opions sound so binding on all scientific community or wiki... --beykenthoca (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.248.168 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clarify more there is also a lot of criticism on those what you call exclusive indexes (mostly citation) because it has become a big business... that is why we chose to start and stay with OJS Open Journal System its free and available to all like wikipedia plus our journals are published with one of the leading research universities Pittsburgh University Library System (supporter of OJS)and Pittsburgh Press which we are very proud to work with--beykenthoca (talk)
  • Comment And also have any one looked at the Peer-review Board ??? I think that will tell a lot about the quality of the journals.--beykenthoca (talk)
  • Comment please consider some caveats to guidelines announced at proper wiki page on the topic which states " 1.Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field... " Thank you. .--beykenthoca (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.248.168 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point, there is no evidence at all that any article published by EMAJ has made any impact at all. And some selective and widely accepted databases are the Social Sciences Citation Index (including many business and management journals) or Scopus. There are many more and using them to assess the notability of a journal is unconroversial among participants in the Wikiproject Academic Journals. Outside of that project, their use is not always accepted, but people that don't accept inclusion in the SSCI as indicating notability will not accept any indexing (and certainly not trivial ones like DOAJ) as evidence of notability. But if you can show that EMAJ meets WP:GNG, that would be sufficient, too (but in my experience, very few journals clear that bar). At this point, EMAJ clearly fails both NJournals and GNG and you have not provided any reason why this particular journal should be an exception to all that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As much as I know EMAJ collaborated with important organizations such as Institute for International Research (IIR), International Strategic Management Conference (ISMC) and International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management (ICLTIM) and received papers from them plus conference proceedings from these organizations were also published by Elsevier in its “Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences” publication, which is indexed by the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI) of Thomson Reuters as well. President of the Conference and some board members of ISMC are also with the editorial team of EMAJ too. Well they are very active people in the scientific community. EMAJ team is really very solid and EMAJ deserves a chance…--beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not inherited, so regardless how notable and important the organizations that EMAJ collaborates with, that does not show that EMAJ itself is notable. Nobody wants to deny EMAJ a chance. If it is as good and important as you say, then it will soon be recognized as such by many higly-cited articles, good independent sources, inclusion in selective databases, etc. As soon as that happens, we can write an article about it here on WP. But just now, we need a crystal ball to see whether or not this new journal will succeed. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I say it here, too: the PUP site confirms that the journal exists, which is not the same thing as conferring notability. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:40, 17 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 Crowd funding. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdraising[edit]

Crowdraising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a neologism. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 12 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) 00:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyoulster United FC[edit]

Ballyoulster United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of meeting football notability criteria or general notability. Only source is the club website. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 12 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 Move to List of terrorist incidents, 2012. While there isn't strong agreement in the discussion below when you look at the bolded votes, there does seem to be strong agreement within the discussions that this article diverges significantly from the format and inclusion criteria of the dozens of articles covering 1970-2010, for no particular reason. Deleting the article wouldn't accomplish much, as it contains a lot of information which does fit the long-standing inclusion criteria. I'll move this article over the redirect at List of terrorist incidents, 2012, and I'd encourage interested editors to remove entries which do not fit the long-standing inclusion criteria in the 1970-2010 articles. I'd also encourage the same work to be boldly done on the two 2011 articles. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 17:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012[edit]

List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" has developed into a score card for those committing non-encyclopedic mayhem to keep track of and coordinate their efforts via Wikipedia. The entries include a variety of motives, (political, criminal or other unknown), a variety of actors (state or non-state), and a variety of incident types (conflicts and attack) so long as the incident involved the use of a weapon (armed). This is contrary to the long-accepted inclusion criteria listed at List of terrorist incidents. Moreover, the list alters the 1970-2010 pattern of stand-alone sub-articles developed for the "List of Terrorist Incidents" topic (See the older articles linked from Template:List of Terrorist Incidents). In addition, "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" misappropriated the ((List of Terrorist Incidents)) template so that List of terrorist incidents readers are brought to the "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012." While the "List of terrorist incidents" topic generally was found to provide encyclopedic information, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents, the "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" goes well outside of encyclopedic information. "List of Terrorist Incidents" and its related 1970-2010 articles have long term consensus. "List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2012" exceeds the scope of the long consensus developed in connection with "List of Terrorist Incidents". The article should be deleted. As for redirecting to List of terrorist incidents, 2012, the creator of the "List of terrorist incidents, 2012" page,[25] User:X17:2l, is blocked indefinately as being a sock puppet. In this case, it may be better to delete and wait for an editor in good standing to create the "List of terrorist incidents, 2012" article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amended my comment. I'd somehow managed to reference only the 2011 ones despite the 2012 one being the actual article at play here; there are 3 of these in total. My justification still stands, copyedits made to reflect the real count. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 5 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, Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 17:30, 11 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 redirect to One Direction and protect the redirects. There is no justification for overriding the result of the previous AfD after so short a time. Any appeal should be made at WP:Deletion review, but off-site canvassing and SPA activity will not help there, either. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Tomlinson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Louis Tomlinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Harry Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zayn Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Niall Horan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Liam Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete: Re-creation of previously deleted articles. Pop singers who aren't individually notable outside their group. Any minor notable details can be, is they aren't already, edited into One Direction. Can I suggest that the closing moderator protect the articles from re-creation? SplashScreen (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If by "more detailed" you mean "all five state the same damn thing", then yeah. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has changed to enhance their individual notability in their own rights (outside of the band) since the last consensus? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey bad news the articles are up for deletion again like before. This time tell every directioner you know(twitter, facebook tumblr) tell them make wikipedia account and go to the pages>>> click this article's entry and write why the page should stay !!! #STRESSED
I just posted it on twitter and tumblr for you, i will tweet seperate people to do it too, they look really good by the way!" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that canvassing or meatpuppetry? Murry1975 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)I don't know why you are posting that, it has no relevance. There are still loads of info on each member, that haven't been added yet, you could delete some of the info in the members section on the one direction page, and keep it on the individual's pages. I know lots of info that hasn't even been added yet.[reply]

If there is off-wiki canvassing going on, then it is very relevant to this discussion. (By the way, you should put your signature at the end of your comments, not at the start - see the way everyone else does it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Most of the info added is from their books, not tabloids.[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)May i just say, There is still loads more info that hasn't been added to these pages yet, They have only just been made. Most of the info is from their books and have been said by themselves, not by tabloids, And the members section of the one direction page will get way to messy and overcrowded if you keep putting more information on it. You could add more detail to the info if they have their own pages. And please do not post tweets i have on my personal twitter, it has no relevance here and i like to keep it private from people.[reply]

Again. Signature goes AT THE END. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter where a signature goes? I don't think so.--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes your post look neater. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't care about making it look 'neat'. --XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indented for you. Murry1975 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, Twitter and privacy. Good one. (I respect your privacy btw, I'm not a huge fan of tweets being made public). I don't think its worth replying to this, but I'll say this: We're trying to measure their notability, not the amount of information available about them. So it really doesn't matter how much information you gather from their books, it matters whether there exists individual notability for them (i.e. do they have notability on their own in reliable sources). So if you try and present sources to satisfy that criteria, then you should be better off. (Note: People who are thought to have arrived here by canvassing are likely to be filtered out anyway). Lynch7 18:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, public tweets can and will be read by the public and reported on. If you don't want them read, make them private. Like Mike, I'm not a big fan of tweets being made public knowledge, but if you're going to publicly post something, expect it to be discovered and potentially remarked upon. Reporting canvassing attempts is pretty standard around here. Secondly, if you're trying to get people to come to this AfD in the hopes that ballot stuffing will keep the article, then that's something that absolutely needs to be mentioned here. I'm sure it's been said already, but these things are not decided on a vote. A million fans could descend on this AfD, but unless they make a good argument per Wikipedia guidelines, those "votes" mean nothing. They could be reciting 'Mary has a little lamb' for all the good that "keep, this band is popular" arguments do, which is to mean that those types of arguments don't really do anything as far as keeping an argument goes. I've seen articles deleted even with a ton of such "keep" arguments and only 2-3 well thought out "delete" arguments. Telling people to go on here to try to sway the votes doesn't accomplish anything except that it irritates everyone involved and unless those fans are going to produce reliable sources per WP:RS, it's quite frankly a waste of your time and theirs. It doesn't accomplish anything. I highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend that you read over WP:MUSICBIO, WP:RS, and WP:AADD to see what would keep an article and what arguments should be avoided at all costs. I also recommend that you look over WP:CANVASS to see why canvassing is seen as a negative thing by many users here on Wikipedia. Sometimes it can be used to help, but when you're asking people to vote one way or another without actually asking them to back their claims up via Wikipedia or actually improve the article, that's when it's seen as a dishonest move by many. I'm trying really hard not to be too "bite the newbie", but you've really got to understand how negatively stuff like this can be seen. Getting caught canvassing and then telling people not to post the evidence of your canvassing isn't really helping you out any.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry if I don't want people on here posting MY tweets or looking at MY twitter. Some of you are being extremely rude. 'New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.' --XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you either make your twitter private, or stop posting asking for people to come over to this discussion on twitter. Either one would solve the problem of people here looking at your twitter. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the tweet.. Nobody even looked at it anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDITZRACHEL (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 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 speedied G10 by Jimfbleak (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: highly pov, accusations of corruption). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Hat east Africa[edit]

White Hat east Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any references that mention this group, under either name. Reference provided does not mention them or hacking at all. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:50, 11 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 speedied G1 by Jimfbleak (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Stevania[edit]

Kingdom of Stevania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable Micronation Shirt58 (talk) 15:41, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forza Motorsport Car Jousting[edit]

Forza Motorsport Car Jousting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a certain way of playing the Forza Motorsport video game. I cannot find significant coverage of this particular variety. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:15, 12 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. Though the bolded "deletes" outnumber the "keeps", sources have been presented in this discussion and there has been no discussion/rebuttal of them. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carratu International[edit]

Carratu International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CORP ThatManAgain (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not really notable, this borders on advertising, rather than anything more substantial. It looks like it's only employees who are editing this too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Dan653 (talk) 21:38, 23 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) 00:04, 27 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, The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 3 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, v/r - TP 14:40, 11 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) 00:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Jenkins (Footballer)[edit]

Rory Jenkins (Footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence that he has played a match for a fully-professional football team per WP:NFOOTY. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 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 per unanimity below -- The Anome (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human voltage[edit]

Human voltage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined. This is an unsalvageable synthesis of original research, where is isn't outright a hoax. "The human body operates on a voltage anywhere from 10-100 mV." is the start of the nonsense, and it gets worse from there. Just because it's got little blue numbers in brackets doesn't mean the sources are being correctly used. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:35, 11 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) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MoviezAdda[edit]

MoviezAdda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Read's like an advertisement. No credible reference provided. The only "news" link available is of an online PR site, where the PR is once again submitted by concerned website's employee only. Fanofbollywood (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 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. Notability established via added sources. joe deckertalk to me 15:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Wimer[edit]

Ross Wimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No doubt an intelligent, successful architect but there is no in-depth reliable independent coverage to substantiate Wimer's general notability. I can find nothing substantial online other than a video interview and a quote in a news article, not enough to warrant an article about him. At best he deserves a mention in the SOM article. Sionk (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional citations to support this article on wikipedia. The subject is internationally recognized as an architect, has displayed work in exhibits all over the world, has been interviewed and created many projects across the globe. I believe notability has been met in this case. If additional information is desired to expand this article, please advise. Kmsom (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the references, they are not about Wimer. They need to be about Wimer to establish his notability. There are only brief mentions about Wimer, if anything. Sionk (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added additional information from sources. It's important to note that Wimer has been interviewed extensively about his projects. He was featured on the inaugural cover of Architect Magazine (refer to http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=785) SOM is a collaborative practice and most published work about people at the firm are related to the iconic buildings that they designed as opposed to about themselves as individuals. I believe notability has been met here, and that the article is relevant + should be retained on Wikipedia. Kmsom (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 12 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) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reign Supreme[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Reign Supreme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 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, BusterD (talk) 12:47, 11 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. Biography of a living person sourced only to the subject's website. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mach[edit]

Peter Mach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You have to be an extremely good luthier to get noticed nowadays. I don't think Peter is there. There is this, but not much else. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 5 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, BusterD (talk) 12:46, 11 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) 02:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Normann Aanonsen[edit]

Erik Normann Aanonsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this musician to evidence notability under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. joe deckertalk to me 03:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 5 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, BusterD (talk) 12:46, 11 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) 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ostap "Joe" Bender[edit]

Ostap "Joe" Bender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is largely a tribute page created by the daughter of the deceased subject. While many claims of notability are asserted, I cannot find any reputable independent sources that meet the standards required by WP:CREATIVE. This nomination will likely upset the author, and I am sorry for that, but I have formed the opinion that the article does not satisfy WP:Notability. WWGB (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 4 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, BusterD (talk) 12:00, 11 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) 02:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley's Youth Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wesley's Youth Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable: Discusses a former charity that ceased to exist in 2001 (although no references to show it ever existed in the first place); can't find any mention of the charity using a quick Google search; the page currently includes one dead URL, but no other Wikipedia articles linking here -- Peter Talk page 22:39, 28 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) 00:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NONPROFIT and unsourced. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 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, BusterD (talk) 12:00, 11 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 administrative/political/geographic entity is claimed to exist, and it is not up to us to determine its status. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No need for a claimed territory. Only needs to be described in the article for the territory claimed. Although it may exist on paper, even the PRC doesn't actually have a Taiwan Province Government, so why have a page for something that doesn't exist? This is the same reason why Republic of Taiwan page has been merged to Taiwan Independence. Besides the old boundaries that the PRC keeps and shows on this page is as useless as the old mainland China provinces the ROC had in old maps. There are no mainland China ROC provinces pages so why should THIS one exist? Mistakefinder (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Or at a minimum, merge to Taiwan Province. Mistakefinder (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about former provinces; that's legitimate because the ROC used to control that territory. What's not allowed is to have entries about PRC provinces that the PRC has never controlled. As an analogy, it's ok to have an article on British North America but not on the American State of England. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might also have to consider that on a governmental level, the National People's Congress appoints "representatives" of Taiwan Province. Even though it's a game of pretend and charades, the game is still being played. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 12 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) 00:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qmmp[edit]

Qmmp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software, no independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 12 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. A7 speedy deletion Davewild (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Crest Country Club Quincy IL[edit]

Cedar Crest Country Club Quincy IL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not evidence of notability, created with phone number and address, obvious advertisement. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 07:43, 11 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 Close, AFD placed in conflict with another one. Defer discussion to the first AFD in the list, please. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurusha Magzub[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kurusha Magzub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm skipping proposed deletion for biographies of living people; there may be some controversy. Claims for Crown Prince of Tehran - which confuses me, I am unaware that a city would have such a chain of royalty. There is also Kurusha Arya Magzub which was deleted A7 a couple of days ago. I am not seeing notability of any sort here. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:56, 11 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) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ballard[edit]

Nathan Ballard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Not the subject of multiple instances of substantial independent coverage in so-called "reliable sources." Heavily spammy in content and sourced in a highly dubious form. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my main concern. Rather it's the spammy tone combined with the very valid question of whether — regardless of the piece's mass of green links showing — this is actually a subject meeting notability guidelines for inclusion at all. It's a close call and something that should be ruled upon at AfD. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's a huge conversation by SPAs above. Maybe they aren't Expewikiwriter. Maybe they aren't socks. But they are all under investigation as socks, and admins judging consensus should probably not be closing this as keep because of that conversation until the Sockpuppet investigation closes. 86.** IP (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 12 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) 01:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HunCraft[edit]

HunCraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating this unofficial StarCraft expansion pack after over a week of no references provided (including on StarCraft page) as failing to pass WP:GNG -- multiple, reliable, independent sources with broad coverage; preferably reviews and critical reception, as this is a video game. Neither regular, news, book, or specialized VG search turned up any usable sources for establishing notability. I cannot really search for Hungarian sources, but searching .hu only sites, I only found this (translated). However, this is just 1 source. I'm hoping more can be found. Article itself is one long WP:GAMEGUIDE. I guess the source above can be used for a short paragraph in StarCraft or somewhere, but is not backing any current content. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Some atricles about it:

This is the most detailed expansion pack for Starcraft 1. Even more deteiled than Retribution or Insurrection. I suggest shortening instead of deletion. Christo161 (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161[reply]

These are primary sources, and cannot be used for establishing notability (WP:GNG). Article length also does not reflect on notablity, only sources do. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were some Hungarian reviews in PC Guru and Gamestar magazines. Are those count? Christo161 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161[reply]

Probably, can you access and cite them? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Hungarian reviews (scanned from magazines):

Christo161 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161[reply]

(edit conflict) Two of those look like interviews, if I'm not mistaken. I'm afraid interviews are somewhat borderline when WP:GNG is concerned, because they are basically developer talking (not independent source). They can be used as good sources for development though. The old2/old3 pages look like a proper review though. I don't really know what WP:VG/RS would say on this source and what their editorial review is, but it would seem a printed magazine should be a reliable source. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this small review also:

Christo161 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Christo161[reply]

I'm afraid this one won't do for WP:GNG, because it is not significant coverage, and it is basically a directory listing with a short, generic description. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:42, 4 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  06:16, 11 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 argument for deletion is the one based on policy: there are insufficient reliable published sources for notability ; DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Murder[edit]

The Impossible Murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. None of the sources meet WP:RS, and I cannot find any other sources that verify the release or distribution of this movie. The film was released directly to DVD, so it was never screened nationally. Furthermore, this is an independent film company, with no other releases. With no verification that the movie is notable, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost anything published or self-published gets on Amazon - the Amazon test for me is if something is NOT on Amazon... This would have to be there, being released by Amazon's self-publishing arm. IMBd? Largely user-supplied info, and isn't a reliable independent source. Peridon (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, anyone can add basically anything to IMDB; it's generally considered unreliable except for very basic details. It certainly doesn't demonstrate notability. It is essentially the same as Wikipedia (at least as far as I know). It's not about it performing well or poorly: it's about whether it meets our notability criteria. Anyone can make a movie and distribute online (same with books, music, etc.). Wikipedia does not allow entries on creative works merely because they exist. The newspaper article talks about the film before it was released, and mentions it being notable because of the technique of release (people being able to guess in theatre about the ending of the movie). But, as far as I can tell, it was never shown in theaters. Thus, the only thing that would have made it notable never actually happened. As such, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Qwyrxian in respects to your statement above: No... not just anyone can add information to the film sections at IMDB. The "edit" tools for their film database are controlled by their staffers, not the general public. While yes, anyone can submit informtion to their film database, film information is vetted before publication. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Atlastorm: Simply being listed in the IMDB database does not allow a presumption of notability. That's found elsewhere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's commonly believed outside the Wikipedia community that an article only has to be true to have a place here. Not so. An article has to show significance to escape speedy deletion (in certain categories), and show notability to survive at AfD. This film hasn't been released in cinemas, but has been self-released on DVD. CreateSpace, as I said earlier, is a self-publishing entity, a part of Amazon, but still self-publishing. The requirements for coverage with self-published books are always considered to be stricter than for regularly published works - the publisher is reckoned to be part of the notability. Rightly or wrongly, that's how we work. Films are less often self-released, outside YouTube of course. I presume that a distribution arrangement was not obtained for the cinema market, and I applaud the courage of the makers of this in going it alone, and hope a regular distribution will result from it. (Can happen...) But until then, it's self-released. No-one is denying the existence of the film. Peridon (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually IMDb has very strict guidelines on submission. Anyway, regarding notability: Notability can only be measured in terms of how many references a film has. In this respect the present entry fulfills the requirements of the number of independent verifiable sources. One can question the quality of the sources, but based on what parameters? There isn't an independent body or scientific method to determine which sources are true or with merit. Consider the point of press releases - most news articles on films are planted via media agencies. Regarding self-releasing, it is a well know fact that a theatrical release can be obtained by four-walling, i.e., paying a single cinema house for each show. Even major motion pictures are self-released via studios, and this alone cannot be a criterion to judge the notability of a film. The key is to differentiate between those films that are self-released a) without accountability, and b) with accountability. Any producer who finishes a film for release and does so in an accountable manner, i.e., if there is a product to sell, where rights are established, via a reliable supply chain, with accountability to customers, and certified by a Censor body deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, those films that are self-released in an arbitrary manner, i.e., without sales (free release), with no accountability to the end-user, where rights are undefined, etc., cannot be said to be notable by its own definition. If one reads the criterion necessary to self-publish via Createspace, e.g., one realizes that a film must be of a certain quality, both in form and content. Simply put, here is a case of a film that was completed and is currently under DVD distribution, with full accountability, on par with other films using the same sales channel, with the same quality as defined by competent standards, considered worthy of release and certified by the Indian Censor Board (the certificate is on the website), and with at least four independent sources to verify its importance. What more can one ask for, really? atlastorm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I would also like to know which of the 4 independent sources atlastorm believes meet WP:RS, because I don't see any; perhaps Mid-Day counts, but it's borderline. None of the rest of the sources seem to meet our guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can speak for Qwyrxian too when I say we'd be quite happy for it to be proven that this film is notable. But we have to make sure that things are first of all correct (yes, the film does exist - Amazon lists it), and second that the rules are upheld regarding notability. Especially in the case of self-publishing, coverage is important. The sawfnew link is a plot summary. The mid-day one is a little promotional, and unfortunately was written before things didn't happen, if you see what I mean. It's still about the best one so far. The one to Sulekha looks impressive, but they are rather better known as a marketing firm rather than film reviewers, and the resulting page looks like marketing - and, interestingly, also quotes April 2013 as a release date. Has a distribution to cinemas been secured? If it has, details would be of interest. IMDb is discounted at Wikipedia for notability. We do use it for checking some things like lists of parts taken - one case had some major roles in school productions or tryouts that went nowhere, and a long list of what were equivalent to Third Footman or Girl in Bar in the real world. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 10 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  06:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening. IMDB is not a reliable source. It may be used to source very basic movie about a movie (like its run length, release date, major actors), but it in no ay indicates notability. Amazon and other companies that are selling the movie absolutely don't establish notability, because they're simply stating the movie exists and they are selling it--anyone can create a movie, book, e-book, etc., and list it for sale on these sites. The censor of India absolutely does not establish notability--it simply says that the government didn't consider it so obscene as to ban it from being published/sold. Createspace is a self-publisher, period, and thus being released through it in no want warrants notability (though it does not preclude it). Sulekha and Popcorn merely verify existence--they do not discuss the movie in anyway (thus, not meeting the "discuss in depth" part of WP:N). Sawfnews does not meet WP:RS. Mid-day is fine, but, as I explained before it talks in depth about something that never happened (a special promotion when the movie was released). Thus, the movies only claim to notability (the only thing that was discussed about it in reliable sources) was a predicted future event that did not come to pass. As a result this movie does not meet our notability guidelines--no reliable sources have reviewed it, it was not released nationally, it was not produced by a major motion picture company, it is not some sort of famous historical film....If, sometime in the future, the movie is fully released, and garners reviews at that time, then the article can be recreated. Until that time, it is not notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 12 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) 07:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spinz[edit]

Spinz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search for scott lykins spinz will show no reliable sources to establish notability. szyslak (t) 05:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 12 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 Obvious keep on the person: books have been written about him., which we have always considered sufficient. As for the bibliography, I 'm closing as very strongly suggested merge, with elimination of minor material. I don't think there is consensus to keep such detailed bibliographies, except for writers (and, analogously, filmographies, lists of compositions, etc. for other creative artists.) DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Borrelli[edit]

Mario Borrelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's an impressively high puffery quotient in this one, but once that gets stripped away, the thing is pretty hollow. We have reams of text telling us what a Great Man this Borrelli cove was, but that cannot mask the glaring lack of independent sources—and no, a random list of books and theses is no substitute for citations; as the information is unretrievable, it's of no account to us. I did, out of curiosity, look over Three Decades of Peace Education around the World in an attempt to gauge the depth of coverage myself, and the results hardly spoke well of Fra Borrelli's standing within the realm of independent, reliable sources. One of his articles and a book he co-wrote are cited, but essentially in passing, and not in any encyclopedically usable form. I have no idea what kind of coverage Trotta, Tafuri & Co. give the late priest, but the burden of showing it's significant enough to pass our notability criteria rests not on me, but on any wishing to keep the article. I encourage anyone to try, but if the effort fails, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 04:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Mario Borrelli bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the coverage of Fr Borrelli in the early 60s was substantial and Morris West's (1957) Children of the Sun. [On life in the slums of Naples and the work of Mario Borrelli. With plates, including portraits.]. Heinemann, 1957 might be sufficient evidence of this for notablity. The article lists a play based on the book and a "This is your life" on TV (9 October 1961) but I don't know much about these yet. There is another biography of him - from Worldcat The tiger of Naples : the story of Father Borrelli and the street boys by Brian C Peachment, Religious Education Press.1978. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:42, 13 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. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fashion 5.0 cover models[edit]

List of Fashion 5.0 cover models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not necessarily. This is a list of models on the cover of a regional magazine published in San Diego County, California in the United States. The magazine itself if bordering on being non-notable for WP let alone a list of the cover models! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no other regional magazine with such celebrity coverage. --Gracophilus (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wetpaint.com is rated as the 1890th largest website in the world according to Alexa.com [1] --Gracophilus (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wetpaint just has a Youtube video and a paragraph. How does that show notability? SL93 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also still doubt it being a reliable source when it's called The Bachelorette Fansite. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Playboy has a list, as well as other fashion magazines. --Gracophilus (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you seriously comparing this magazine to Playboy? SL93 (talk) 20:54, 16 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 Elk (disambiguation). Redirects are cheap. Very cheap. Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elk (mammal)[edit]

Elk (mammal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely redundant to Elk (disambiguation). Not a likely search term, orphaned as well. Essentially a disambiguation content fork. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that a user looking for information on the animals known as elk would type it in with (mammal) appended to it rather than just searching the word itself? It really is not a plausible search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Readers with passing awareness of WP naming conventions might easily try that. Besides, redirects are cheap, especially where the page has existed for some time and there is an edit history and relevant discussion on the talk page. older ≠ wiser 22:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the history and he discussion as a rationale to overturn the speedy deletion, bit those are not valid arguments to retain the page in the long term. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the plausibility of this as a search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:R#KEEP. Deletion is not always the best solution. older ≠ wiser 23:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that make the most sense, or any sense at all? The reason Elk goes straight to the article and and not the dab page is because it is obviously the primary meaning. I find it highly unlikely that anyone looking for information on the either of two animals known as an elk is going to type in "Elk (mammal)." It's not a likely search term, as I mentioned in my nom, or I would have suggested redirection on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to make the most sense to me because the disambig page contains ALL information on this page plus more. The user can select the Elk page that they really wanted from there, sidestepping the whole issue with naming that people seem concerned about.--StvFetterly(Edits) 12:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, but because there are two animals that speakers of different dialects of English refer to as an elk, there has been a lot of controversy about what to call the various articles, and somebody apparently created this in a misguided attempt to clarify the issues after moving the actual article away from this title. Now that it's up for deletion it seems the same dispute is spilling over onto this discussion, which is not actually about UK-vs-US meanings of the word elk but rather about common sense and WP policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 11 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 and a trout for the dumbass who non-admin closed it in 2008 :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Gable[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Becky Gable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that she meets the notability criteria for martial artists or actors. In fact, there's no sources given that even support the claim she's a martial artist.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 13 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. Bmusician 06:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Tilton Gorrell[edit]

Henry Tilton Gorrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable World War II correspondent. The entire article is sourced from the subject's own memoir. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 5 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, Bmusician 01:20, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Kendo Kobukai[edit]

Dublin Kendo Kobukai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unsourced article about a club with no supported claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:58, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gold[edit]

Jeff Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. He was briefly executive vice president of Warner Records, and... I don't think anything else he's done is even likely to come near the notability guidelines. All the sources are horribly trivial mentions, and some of them (such as http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/rhino-records-documentary-premieres-in-los-1005324232.story ) doesn't even mention the information supposedly cited to them. But then, this was created by paid sockmaster group account User:Expewikiwriter, so it's somewhat understandable. 86.** IP (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that does not appear to be true. The official source is http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search which lists a "Jeffrey Gold" sharing a third of an award, and nothing else. The body text of the article doesn't even include the name "Jeffrey" making me think that this is not the same person. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 18 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. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Karate Black Belt Association[edit]

American Karate Black Belt Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing that shows this organization is notable. This article was deleted via PROD over a year ago. The only two sources for the article are passing mentions of the organization in articles about individual martial artists getting promoted. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military for sale by owner[edit]

Military for sale by owner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, likely promotional. Calabe1992 02:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Intended to help" is not what we do here. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is to provide information, is that a suitable term? --Rhim15 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a lot more experience on Wikipedia than I do, can you please give me advice on how to improve the article and keep it live?--Rhim15 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short answer: You can't. Nothing out there seems to use the term. I see nothing that makes "for sale by owner" different if military families are involved. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:GNG. As I pointed out above, I couldn't find anything reliable using the term "military for sale by owner". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the term be under the For Sale by Owner article?--Rhim15 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Glomming it onto another article doesn't fix the fact that no sources discuss the "military" flavor of "for sale by owner". Regardless of where the info is, it needs reliable, third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 12 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) 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Lockett[edit]

Devin Lockett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was: Minor actor with no real notability. (Almost all of the sources are dead links) Eeekster (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 12 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) 07:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BiomedRx[edit]

BiomedRx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was: Notability not established (most of the sources are either dead links or unimpressive). Eeekster (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 12 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) 00:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Slayton[edit]

Natasha Slayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded. Not sure if a secondary character in just one film and a voice acting role in a 13-episode cartoon are enough to meet WP:ENT. No other significant roles, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 12 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) 03:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factor world[edit]

Factor world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term seems like just a new name for an already existing model. Also, there are no "content" editions since the creation of the article in 2006. Google of the term leads to nothing relevant. Hence, Delete per WP:NOTDIC and WP:Notability. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 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) 00:00, 4 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, Bmusician 01:23, 11 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 assertion that this fails WP:CRYSTAL was not adequately refuted. No prejudice against re-creating the article if/when this becomes a reality. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 20:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Science Engineering Eligibility Test[edit]

Indian Science Engineering Eligibility Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing official at all about this. Any needed material could be added to the IIT-JEE article till there is reasonable media coverage. There has been some media coverage, but most of it is about proposals, and nothing concrete is there, least of all a name for the test. Lynch7 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 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) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"When it starts" is the key here. Really, all this rhetoric about how many students are writing it is unnecessary. Once it is officially declared, then it makes sense to have an article on it; otherwise it'd just be crystal ball gazing. Lynch7 06:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This clearly is not wp:CRYSTAL as its not an unverifiable speculation ) the subject of the topic has disturbed a hornets nest, and it has been a topic of extensive debate and discussion in both print and live media. As far as the "Indian Education" subject is concerned this topic is highly notable (specially for Indian readers.) Thats all i would say. regards -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:50, 9 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, Bmusician 01:22, 11 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Sawant[edit]

Vivek Sawant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. Only reference is to a youtube video seemingly posted by his company. Award referred to does not seem to be notable. noq (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 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, Bmusician 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything to indicate he's a bank president, or any connection at all with a bank, so your response seems not to be based on this article. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 18 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 Romsey#Events. I agree that there is nothing additional here worth merging. And I'm not sure the minor fights are encyclopedic content, although the refs to those articles should be included.. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beggars Fair[edit]

Beggars Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a simple street fair; nothing really notable about it, as far as I can tell. JoelWhy (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 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, Bmusician 01:20, 11 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 merge into an article for the district, which has yet to be constructed. I suggest it be done by moving this article to the appropriate title, and then adding material. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ira C. Allen Mansion[edit]

Ira C. Allen Mansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not a notable politician, military officer or diplomat. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; WP:MILNG; WP:MILPEOPLE; WP:DIPLOMAT; WP:NRVE. Five bedroom bedroom B&B built by descendant of notable person seems more WP:SOAP. Vttor (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historic? Can you tell us what historic event occurred there? I followed the ref link provided (the only one) and it does not refer to the Mansion, but to the Fair Haven Green Historic District. The house is "historic" in the same way every town has an "historic" district, when really all they mean is relatively old. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that somebody failed to read the article, but it wasn't the nom. The house is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. From the article: "Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually. The remainder are contributing resources within historic districts." This house is a contributing property, as the lede sentence in the article plainly states. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was submitted for discussion about the merits of delete or keep. The article was created subsequent to the Lt. Col. Greg Parke article. The Parke article would certainly qualify as non-notable and was submitted under WP:PROD, and I was looking here for a solution to the underlying commercial intent of the Ira C. Allen entry that was created as Parke began his new commercial endeavor at the mansion/B&B. Using the search tool provided by the article it can be established that the Fair Haven Green Historic District exists but I can find no entry for the Ira C. Allen building. The creator of the article provides no WP:RS. What is known of the history appears to come, in some parts verbatim, from the Parke business website found under External Links in the article. True, it's a nice old building but that doesn't in and of itself establish notability. Perhaps a substantial edit plus merger to the Fair Haven, VT article might do but I don't know. Vttor (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly do "WP:POLITICIAN; WP:MILNG; WP:MILPEOPLE; WP:DIPLOMAT; WP:NRVE" apply to this building? ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to downgrade my vote to Keep for now, only because I've been unable to find the mansion in the NRHP search. I'll keep looking to see what I can find. But let's be clear that this article doesn't satisfy any WP:CSD requirements, nor are any of the guidelines cited in the nomination statement relevant to it. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRVE applies. And this is not a speedy deletion. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so that we're clear, I didn't nominate this article for Speedy Deletion. You'll find that the text I used was related to that which I used at the Greg Parke article. Sorry for any confusion but I see the two articles as more than merely tangentially related and didn't want to pretend otherwise. My purpose was to get discussion and determine some sort of consensus. I'm not that experienced and so hadn't realized that moving on from just WP:PROD so that discussion would occur would then lead to a voting process. It is my view that notability has not been established, thus WP:NRVE. Given the link to the business, its history page and the history as described in the article, WP:SOAP is also a consideration. I hope that helps to clarify. Vttor (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you didn't nominate this article for speedy deletion. My comments were in response to Tom Reedy's deletion rationale, which is "Good God! How did this not get speedy deleted?" ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 23:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion but I think you spinning this up more than it needs to be. Tom Reedy's remarks were an aside. I'm presuming that yours about me, "The nominator has apparently failed to read the article," and that the "mansion is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places," thus far unproven, were similarly intended. Now the meme that a speedy deletion was being sought has bled over to the Article Rescue Squadron from which you've sought solace (below). Could you turn this down a notch or two? Of course, if I've misunderstood the tenor that these discussions are intended to immediately escalate to, my regrets. Thanks. Vttor (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 23:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[56] Is it mentioned in the book Insight Guide: New England? I see "Marble Inn" and "marble mansion" but not Marble Mansion Inn. Can't search inside properly to see what it says. If its not on the National Register of Historic Places or some notable state list of significant places worthy of mention, then it might not be notable. Dream Focus 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems off from the description in the article by about a decade. The room numbers also seem a bit off - 13 from the article you've found vs the 22 mentioned in the Ira C. Allen Mansion . Marble is a common material used in this region for the construction of homes during the 19th and early 20th century, so there are plenty of varying sizes and styles which could account for the apparent differences between the structure in the article and the one you found via Insight Guide: New England. Can one notation from what appears to be a travel guide confer notability? Thanks. Vttor (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like sources taken from a snippet book view. I see too many of those types of Google book search sources, and they should be banned. We don't figure out what we want to say and then go searching for a source to back it up; an encyclopedia article is a comprehensive summary of the most reliable information about a subject. I really tire of editors who think that sourcing an article from the internet is scholarship and editors who think Wikipedia is some kind of marketing tool for their benefit. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd need to concur. At the ARS that now has been gone to, in lieu of meaningful discussion, I mentioned that I'm seeking a text, I believe it's published by the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation, that may be helpful. Snippets may serve as a starting point but without the full context any number of conclusions may be drawn. Reliance solely on the content available on the Intertubes is overrated. Vttor (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate vote. You're the nominator, you've already voted by nominating this article for deletion. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 14:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unstruck. So we are clear, no one is "voting"; no straw poll is underway. My stated "purpose was to get discussion and determine some sort of consensus." My present position reflects what I have learned both here and at the list of content for rescue consideration that you went to for assistance. Or are you the only person who is allowed to learn and change your opinion of from *Speedy Keep to *Speedy Keep? Please refrain from seeking to alter my opinions by any means other than discussion. My mind remains open to factual presentation. Who knows, you might even convince me to *Keep although that seems a remote possibility, at best. Vttor (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vttor, please familiarize yourself with the norms of AfD before accusing me of altering your opinions. When an administrator comes to close this discussion, they're going to look at the bolded votes. As the nominator, you're assumed to be arguing for the deletion of the article. Therefore, inserting another bolded vote may confuse the administrator into thinking that you are a new participant in the discussion. Comment all you want, but please refrain from entering something that looks like a bolded vote, to avoid confusion. Note that I'm not accusing you of doing this purposely with the intent of confusing the closing admin. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 21:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Often what are perceived to be norms versus what is allowed or prohibited can be confused. Since you've brought this up here, please state unequivocally whether one may re-consider one's opinion in an AfD that was proposed by that person. Thank you. Vttor (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply/Comment: Yes, one can, but you need to make it clear as to what you're doing. In this case, the bolded text should have read "Revised nomination !vote to delete or merge" or something similar. You can even withdraw your nomination, which only closes the discussion if no one else has supported deletion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The only problem is the fact that your comments are formatted to look exactly like a vote from a new editor. I have no problem with you letting us know that you've modified your opinion, I only have a problem with the way you've formatted it. The bold text is all I'm complaining about. But, considering that we've sufficiently beaten the dead horse, I think the closing admin has plenty of warning that there are duplicate votes. Btw, the tool you referred to below isn't malfunctioning, it's just getting confused for the same reason a closing admin might get confused (i.e. because the nominator appears to have made a second bolded vote). Anyway, I'm done discussing this, I'm going to move on to something else. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 19:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jorgath: Thanks. I'll be certain to remember that for the future. Vttor (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong: I'm not so sure that adequately explains why your device assigns someone else's so-called "vote" (although I seem to recall reading that such tallies are not precisely what occurs), yours in this case, to me. Your "vote," attached to your signature, has been assigned to my signature. To me that seems to point to a defect rather than mechanical confusion. Since you've moved on, I suppose the "vote" assignment glitch or confused operation will be something for someone else to correct. Oddly, when I "voted" on the AfD that I'd proposed here, no one felt compelled to tamper with said "vote." Perhaps a word of counsel to me as was done by Jorgath or Tom Reedy might have been the more judicious, as well as less contentious, course to take, but then, as you said, you're done discussing this so I'm not anticipating an explanation. Vttor (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a text that may be of considerable benefit to this discussion. It's "The Historic Architecture of Rutland County; Vermont State Register of Historic Places" published by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, ISBN 0-9619912-0-8 wherein it states that "(t)he activity that is the subject of this publication has been financed in part by Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior." The Fair Haven section is covered in pages 121-140. Pgs. 121-127 covers the history of the town and residents. Pgs. 128 & 129 are of maps, Town of Fair Haven and Fair Haven Village, respectively. Pgs. 130-132 describe 105 "Sites Listed in the State Register of Historic Places" in the Town proper. Starting on page 133 is a section about the Fair Haven Green Historic District (map on page 134), with a listing that commences on page 134 of the buildings that comprise the Fair Haven Green Historic District. The building in question is number A33 (page 135), described as "House, 1867, Architect/builder A.C. Hobson. French Second Empire style, stone, Mansard roof, 2 1/2 stories. Features: belvedere, marble, porte cohere, hood moldings, transom, quoins, enriched cornice, enriched frieze, Italianate porch." Also listed on the property are two out buildings: A33a Pump House c. 1885, and A33b Carriage Barn c. 1875. No building in the district is singled out as a separate landmark, while the Fair Haven Green Historic District is labeled as "Listed in the National Register of Historic Places" (pg. 134). Vttor (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, no notability, unless every contributing property in a historic district in every town of the U.S. is notable. According to National Register of Historic Places, that would be about 920,000 buildings, with 30,000 added every year. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changed from keep above, my assumption that this house was listed on the NRHP was incorrect. There doesn't appear to be enough sourcing available to substantiate the mansion's notability. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I am reiterating my opinion that this article should either be deleted from Wikipedia in its entirety or merged to a prospective article regarding the Fair Haven Green Historical District. My reasons for such have been stated above. Absent a written policy, I do not recognize Scottywong's authority as an administrator to somehow freeze my opinion for the sake of his counting device or to strike it for same. Unless some policy has been disclosed that allows Scottywong, as an administrator, to impose undeclared and unannouced conditions to consensus discussions, I must insist that my Delete or Merge position remain, no matter how that might impact his hidden crowd counting tally ticker. Afterall, and somewhat ironically, his device assigned me his own original "vote" of Speedy Keep. Looks like Scotty's tool needs some work. Vttor (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool tool; bookmarked for future use.
See WP:Guide to deletion. "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations." I believe an "or Merge" option would render a listed opinion from the nom acceptable under the "unless the nominator specifically says otherwise" exception, though.
And all admins make mistakes; be thankful you ran into one that will admit it. I've run into a few who won't, no matter what they promised when they first ran for the position. Be forgiving. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd thought I'd been clear and had a grasp of the policy. My inclination is to follow the evidence and decide accordingly, even if that means a shift in my position, which I believe I'm ethically obliged to do. What I find troubling is the unnecessary tone that seems to arise in these dscussions. Experience has taught me that often when someone comes out firing for no apparent reason, there's an underlying cause whch has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I think we find that here. I do appreciate it when I find someone who, from what I can see, is new to his role and has the fundemental character traits necessary to become an asset in that role.
Thank you for the kind counsel. Vttor (talk) 17:15, 13 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. Suggest that someone figures out whether its a term or a genre or a theme or a tone genre or a style genre, write the article with that in mind, and then revisit this at AfD later if necessary. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark metal (genre)[edit]

Dark metal (genre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing has changed since last time, when I wrote "Previously deleted, non-existent genre. There appear to be no sources discussing it as a legitimate subgenre of heavy metal. The term is certainly in use, as a swift Google will attest, but the phrase is generally being used as an undefined/undefinable catch-all for an unconnected selection of bands that don't conveniently fit into other genre boxes. Searches of Google Scholar, News and Books also pull up hits, although the search is complicated by hits to "dark metal" in other usage. I found this in the New York Times, but the article is clearly talking about bands like Anthrax, Megadeth and Slayer." Previous discusions here, here, here and here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as nom, actually things have changed; this version has no sources at all. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any treatment of "dark metal" as a distinct sub-genre of heavy metal, beyond it being used as a synonym for either Goth or Doom metal. I suppose there's an argument that this would justify a disambiguation page, but that does not require the retention of this article as the content is not relevant to a disambig page, and the title would need to be changed as well. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. Cagoul (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added enough properly referenced reliable sources for the dark metal genre to *easily* meet the GNG. Just because we don't think it is a genre is no reason not to have an article explaining who *does* consider dark metal a genre AND which bands are in that genre, including the New York Times and many books on popular culture.  The Steve  07:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which of those sources represent significant coverage? The term "dark metal" is used, but that isn't significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Are you seriously telling me that you don't consider a headline in the New York Times significant???  The Steve  02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the NY Times is significant, but I don't see that any of the other coverage is really much more than passing mentions or and adjective. I remain unconvinced at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe it shouldn't be a genre at all. The use of the term dark metal is so ubiquitous, so common in a heavy metal setting that maybe we need an article on that phrase. After all, isn't that the mission of Wikipedia? To explain things that are vague, that have various meanings to different people? Lets face it, we should have an article on adjective+metal, if, as you say, it isn't a genre. The reliable sources demand it.  The Steve  07:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the issue that the title of the article specifically calls it out as a genre, I don't see how any of the sources support writing about the phrase "dark metal". Yes, it's a term that's used. But there's treatment of the phrase as a topic. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while most new genres have their articles deleted (I could list lots of examples), this one appears to have enough sourcing to pass barely per WP:GNG. 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Oops, signing this. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources provided do not actually justify the existence of a genre. In fact the sources provided pretty much negate the existence of such a genre - just look at the list of bands supplied! It's such a disparate bunch. The reality is that "dark" is just being used as a descriptor; try searching for "melodic metal"... you'll get thousands of hits, but that doesn't mean it's a genre! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which only means that it should be under a different name. The term itself, genre or not, is notable - just look at the sources, writers like Chuck Eddy, Robert Palmer (writer) and Robert Walser (musicologist). Your WP:Opinion on genre has no bearing on whether the term dark metal should be kept. So what if its a descriptor with a music type - then that's what we should have an article on... The Steve  01:54, 11 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, Bmusician 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Thesteve: WP:GNG clearly states that for an article to establish notability, there must be significant coverage of the article's topic: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". None of your sources do this; they are what is called trivial mention. You are also being slightly evasive... if it is "the term" that is notable (which also hasn't been established), then the article needs to be about the term. If it is "the genre" that is notable (which is absolutely no way has been established), then the article needs to about the genre. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care one way or the other. Personally, I think most of the sources are referring to dark metal as a genre (although a theme or tone genre rather than a style genre, which is why everyone is confused). I only mentioned it because an article on the term might be more palatable to those of you who can't see it as a genre. Oh, here's another significant source. Its in the byline ("Goth-tinged dark metal proves its crossover appeal") in this one, and "directly addresses the subject". However, there are now two significant and 5000 trivial mentions in google books alone. That's why there needs to be an article.  The Steve  05:01, 12 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) 00:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Side Community Health Services[edit]

West Side Community Health Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this organization meets notability requirements. No specific claim of notability. No third party sources are provided to support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think I've heard of this organization, although I can't say why. Regardless of my recollections, I found some third-party sources and additional content, and I've added to the article. I found a lot more sources that were behind a paywall. I believe it passes the WP:GNG. An additional claim to notability is that it's the largest community clinic organization in the state -- and it has existed for 43 years. --Orlady (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's plenty of independent coverage available. Orlady added some independent references, and I added several more.--MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Largely per Orlady. The additional claim of notability Orlady mentions is probably sufficient. Lord Roem (talk) 17:22, 18 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. consensus seems clear after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc van gale[edit]

Marc van gale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable person using entirely self-published sources. Was a proposed deletion but that was incorrectly removed. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 20:53, 4 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking WP:RS or indeed any refs other than subject's own site/PR. No indication of achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources, no real notability per WP:MUSIC, 204th place on The DJ List is an achievement but not enough (for me) to satisfy the criteria. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 10:29, 13 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. Consensus is that the sources provided don't establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NONPROFIT. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 22:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NONPROFIT i.e: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." also fails additional considerations as it is not a "Nationally famous local organization". Delete Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is consistent, numerous news coverage of this organization going back thirty years. There is also book coverage, such as the following:
And a bunch more in Google Books. SilverserenC 04:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second reference is a passing reference and I can't see very much re the first reference but it seems to just be their submission to a report. In any case, even if there are some marginal sourcing possibilities there's no indication that their activities are national in scope and they are not a "Nationally famous local organization" so it still fails the tests for WP:NONPROFIT. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be completely ignoring the entire second point in WP:NONPROFIT, which says "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." Not only has there been thirty years of Toronto Star coverage (enough to fill more than ten pages of Google News search results), there's also been coverage from the Ottawa Citizen and The Financial Post. There's also other books to consider, such as this, this, and this. Furthermore, this source calls it a countrywide tenants' organization and that it is only based in Toronto. SilverserenC
You're ignoring this line "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards". You have only provided evidence that the article may meet the second standard but you've completely ignored the first ie "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale", as well as the fact that both criteria need to be met. One out of two means the article fails the test for WP:NONPROFIT. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read my reply above again and then read my reply below. SilverserenC 06:31, 11 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Get this done this time. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SeeWP:PERNOM. Cagoul above at least says why, albeit in two words, which i've also already refuted in my reply above theirs. Also, your second sentence seems to imply that this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. SilverserenC 04:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No, you haven't refuted anything, you've just parsed the criteria in WP:NONPROFIT and argued the article meets the second criteria while you completely ignore the first criteria and the fact that the policy states that both criteria need to be met. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my full comment above? It is a national organization. It was merely started in Toronto, but now it has members and chapters all across Canada. SilverserenC 06:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. Your source, which mentions the association once in a book that isn't about tenants or housing but on espionage during the Cold War, got its facts wrong and is contradicted by the organization itself which says:
a) of its telephone hotline service: "If you have any questions about your rights as a tenant in Toronto, please call the tenant hotline" and "The Tenant Hotline is a free telephone counseling service for tenants in Toronto, Ontario, Canada."[57]
b) of its organizing and outreach service: "The Outreach & Organizing team provides information, referrals, workshops, and outreach & organizing services for tenants in the City of Toronto."[58]
c) of its tenant education project: "FMTA Services are funded by the City of Toronto" [59] and its workshops are all in Toronto [60]
d) it's volunteer page says: "The FMTA relies on volunteers for almost all of the work that we do. There are several ways of volunteering that would really be helpful to us and to other tenants in Toronto." not Canada, Ontario or even the Greater Toronto Area but Toronto.[61]
e) its "contact a politician" refers to "Toronto city councillor[s]" but not councillors from any other town or city and when it refers to provincial politicians it refers only to contacting Ontario politicians (the province Toronto is in) rather than those in any other part of Canada.[62]
f) its message board is titled "Toronto Tenants Unite" [63]
g) even the group's domain name is torontotenants.org, not a domain that would be chosen by a province wide or national group.
h) this source identifies the "areas served" by the FMTA as "Greater Toronto Area ; Markham" (Markham is the community on Toronto's northern border) rather than nation-wide.
There is no indication anywhere of any activity by the organization outside of the vicinity of Toronto so it fails the test that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale". Your source, which is actually a snippet, doesn't actually identify any activity by the organization outside of Toronto's city limits which is why all the news sources are in Toronto where for a national or even regional organization one would have sources reporting on activity in a variety of towns and cities rather than just one. Clearly, the author of the book on Cold War espionage made a mistake, which isn't a surprise since the book is not primarily or even secondarily about the FMTA or tenants but about a completely unrelated topic and is by a British based author who is an expert on international and national security and intelligence issues, not by a Canadian or expert on tenant issues. It's like using a book about astronomy as a source for a fact related to plumbing. You say the FMTA has "members and chapters all across Canada" - name a single chapter outside of Toronto and show a source or, for that matter, name a single member from outside of Toronto. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of that original research is nice, but it doesn't mean much. You seem to be thinking that all of the chapters have the same name, when what happened is that they sprouted off from the main chapter. For example, the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenants, made by Dan McIntyre, program coordinator for the Federation of Metro Tenants.
And as an example of my own original research, look here. If you notice where it lists the Federation of Metro Tenants, it says the location is Canada, not Ontario, Canada like it does for the group above. SilverserenC 16:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're speculating incorrectly. If you look closer you'll see a) The Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenant went under in 1998 [64] and that b) Dan McIntyre joined the Federation of Metro Tenants after the Ottawa federation dissolved.[65] which is the exact opposite of your speculation above c) there's no evidence that the Ottawa federation was ever a member of the Federation of Metro Tenants Associations.
Again, please show me any evidence that the FMTA has any chapters outside of Toronto. There's no indication of this on the FMTA's website. Do you see any websites of any non-Toronto tenant associations that say they are members of the FMTA? As for original research- that's only relevant for things being included in the article, it's completely valid when researching whether or not an organization passes the test of WP:NONPROFIT and the FMTA clearly does not. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only special interest groups here grasping at straws to keep this wikipedia advertisement of their organization up it seems. the criteria for non-profits is clearly not being met by this page. They are not a National or even provincial/state organization. Their membership numbers and accomplishments are in question and limited to the city of Toronto. Most of their claims can not be referenced by any reputable 3rd party source. The city of Toronto provides most of their funding. I nominate this page for deletion, barring any new evidence that this group has chapters or has offshoot organizations outside the Province of Ontario. The now non existent Ottawa Carlton association is the only loosely associated group i can think of and was only linked by the fact Dan McIntrye was a part of both, no formal integration has ever been made public.*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uproar k (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 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 merge to AMC Theatres. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Movies by AMC[edit]

Planet Movies by AMC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A business venture that failed and never had an impact while it existed. Only one such location ever opened. The venture's failure in itself is also not notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge only the basic details to AMC Theaters as a not very unique multiplex concept failure as the one theater that took it remains an AMC theater today. Nate • (chatter) 09:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. WP is not an archive of every failed business idea; just the notable ones. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a major venture of a major company is notable whether or not it succeeds, and, given the news coverage of the industry, there are multiple sources. An encyclopedia is a permanent archive. not just a directory of current businesses. At the very least there should be a merge & redirecy, because it's a reasonable search term DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was opened in a single location for not even one year. For a company as large as AMC, that is NOT a major business venture, it's a minor business error. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:11, 18 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. No qualifying sources provided to establish notability per WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Vevrier[edit]

Chloe Vevrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pornographic model and former actress. See WP:PORNBIO. Coverage in reliable sources is scant and trivial to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vevrier is a well known dancer and model for two decades. Please see the article history. Nominations intended as wiki bullying should not be encouraged. NewExLionTamer (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator's well-reasoned arguments. The subject fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG. No substantive GNews hits, virtually all relevant GBooks hits are self-published, typically compilations of Wikipedia articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another impartial judge-! Thanks for getting involved again, your honest evaluation will be most helpful. NewExLionTamer (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, clearly a spurious AFD. --62.163.152.44 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some clear reliable sources that verify her notability then? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:23, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The article refers to her "breakthrough", but mysteriously never says what that was exactly. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be noted that Morbidthoughts and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have been editing this page for several years and only now deem it non-notable.

Perhaps the criteria should be changed to 'model' which is more suitable, more defining of her career and where she would be notable. The reason you can't back-up notability for Chloe under the pornstar criteria is because, well she isn't and mainly known as a natural erotic model.

She has appeared on Metro Tv's Naked New York in 2003 and Ksex radio which broadcasted in Los Angles also in 2003- both of which have video documentation on Chloes' official website chloevevrier.com members area. She has appeared in over 400 magazines and wrote the forward (also appears on the cover) for Tom King's 'Busty' book and appeared on the cover of Lisette Ashton's 'Forbidden Reading' both published in 2006. Additionally, she was a regular writer/columnist for Danni.com from 1998-2002 writing over 25 articles for her 'School of Love' column. She is an active writer/photographer contributor for Bachelor Magazine in Japan. Chloe has reported on serveral erotic conventions worldwide and contributed a documentary report on the World Erotic Art Museum published in September 2007 for Bachelor. She is the longest active, large natural breast model and most published worldwide of all time. You may not find direct reliable link sources for the aforementioned but its factual, the data exists (in print media) and she is a notable person on this planet due to prolific contributions to the field of entertainment.

WP:NMODEL WP:ANYBIO

http://www.gingerlynn.com/ksex/index.html http://nymag.com/metrotv/nakedny/ http://chloefanclub.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Busty-Nexus-Tom-King/dp/0352340320 http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Reading-Nexus-Lisette-Ashton/dp/0352340223 http://models.danni.com/models/mod117.html http://www.weam.com/web/index.php?categoryid=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1love4all (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 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?) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen remodel[edit]

Kitchen remodel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Technically, this doesn't really seem to fit the speedy deletion criteria but this material is clearly hopelessly irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Pichpich (talk) 00:21, 11 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 Withdrawn. It's clear this is going to be kept. Honestly I thought the article was a prank or something at first, but it does seem to have a purpose after all. Especially now that I've given it something resembling an intro. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of lists[edit]

List of lists of lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No context. No purpose. The content is mainly composed of dab pages (for instance, "List of A&M Records artists" disambiguates between current and former) or redirects to categories. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Really has no topic. Does not meet WP:LISTPURP. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On a totally random note, should not the article be a member of itself? It doesn't distinguish that it must be a list of lists of non-lists. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]
      • This is being debated on the talk page. Feel free to weigh in. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has a context and a topic at least as much as Category:Contents has a context and a topic. It has a useful purpose in guiding editors and researchers to lists of lists. Faulty entries on the page do not render the page useless; faulty entries can be fixed or removed, but the page in general is not faulty.—Wavelength (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is achieved by deleting this article, other than conformance to some arbitrary "standard"? There is plenty of handy information here, much of it not found collected elsewhere. The page is viewed nearly 10,000 times a month, which in itself is a keep reason, to my mind. It offends no one, and serves a useful purpose; leave it alone. --Seduisant (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You lose, try again"? Believe it or not, AfDs are actually meant to be about what's best for the encyclopedia, not about winning or losing. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for fun, but on the other hand, we are not Uncyclopedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wavelength. It serves a useful purpose in that it guides readers to lists of lists. At the absolute worst this should be converted to a category. I also disagree with the assertion that it "is mainly composed of dab pages" – only eight of the pages linked to are dab pages. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already the category Category:Lists of lists, but List of lists of lists can be converted to a sortable wikitable.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't noticed that. Anyway, WP:CLN does say that categories and lists should live in harmony :) Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, I'm seeing nothing but WP:ITSUSEFUL, so you at least get a cookie for citing something valid. Anyone else got something you know, based in policy? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:29, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Nobel laureates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(View AfD) There is already a list of Nobel Laureates by Country-List of Nobel laureates by country,so,it's quiet unnecessary to create a new article of Nobel Laureates by a country.Give a proper reason why it should not be deleted.A previous nomination for deletion of the page can be found here.Thank You.--Skashifakram (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(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)
(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)

(View AfD) I am nominating the following pages for deletion-

List of Japanese Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nobel laureates of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Chinese Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Welsh Nobel laureates and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Skashifakram (talk) 07:32, 4 April 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 April 4. Snotbot  t • c »  07:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much.Skashifakram (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep. The previous debate ended on March 23rd, and the result was No Consensus. In closing the debate, Admin Sandstein commented thus: " The nominator may want to examine the discussion to determine whether it might make more sense to nominate some of these separately." This nomination, which includes three of the articles nominated in that debate and one additional one dealing with Welsh laureates, does not do that. My recommendation would be to bring each of these articles separately, so that the merits of one can be evaluated without the others complicating the debate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike the previous nomination,this nomination is strongly supported by WP:BUNDLE,since for every nomination,the criteria is same,viz.,there is already a List of Nobel laureates by country,Thank you!Skashifakram (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! This should be good. All based on nationality. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just make the subject-wise lists sortable for country and then we dont need all separate lists. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Personally I like the fact that List of Japanese Nobel laureates has more detail than the list by country, making it a far more useful list. It would be a shame to lose that. I wouldn't mind seeing all of that detail merged into the larger list by country, however. 66.159.220.134 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of extra information is there can you please tell?Then I will be happy to merge the article!--Skashifakram (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because additional information, such as the introduction, categories, and columns in the list plus the fact that this list takes a lot less effort to drill thru for information on a particular individual. I wish someone would create such an individual list for all other countries and delete -List of Nobel laureates by country instead. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your logic is very poor:
1)Introduction just introduces a subject,it's not a good reason to keep an article.
2)all the information can be merged in the main list.
3)categories? it has nothing to retain an article, in fact, there is no problem in category creation if these lists are deleted.Isn't it?
4)columns!Is it at all reasons for keeping an article?I doubt!
5)Your ‘less effort’ point does not add anything!
6)You are telling to delete the main list.why? will we not lose much information? what's your say!
Now, tell me, is there any good reason to retain these lists?--Skashifakram (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all. the justification of a list is that there is a distinct criterion and the subjects are notable and the list is useful. The first two can hardly be doubted; it is clear that at least some people find this useful; I am among them. Although this is the sort of thing which might be thought of as being above national categories, the prize committees and the literature do make a point of nationality. Obviously we should keep the main list also. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 18 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. postdlf (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nalci[edit]

Nalci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation between two people who don't have articles, i.e. not a disambiguation at all. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a proper reason to nominate an article - it is not a disambiguation page. There is substantial content about the surname and word in the article to justify it's existence, it is a surname stub - like thousands of others. There is a Wiktionary link also, giving further ratification. There is no person linked on the Nalband caste page - there does not have to be. Aris Nalci is a notable link. John Cengiz talk 10:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a disambiguation page, but an anthroponymy page, subject to Anthroponymy standards. "If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created. A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list." Since this page isn't properly sourced, or sourced at all, the two Nalci's mentioned need to have pages of their own. I'm not saying they don't deserve pages, but it makes sense to write the article first. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just properly sourced the article. John Cengiz talk 08:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So in short, the article was incorrectly nominated for the disambiguation reason. It is however a correctly sourced surname article. Possibly a speedy close to keep would be appropriate as there is nothing to debate. John Cengiz talk 15:28, 11 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) 07:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Cicogna[edit]

Gianni Cicogna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. No charted albums or songs. No indications of any significant coverage, nor meeting any of the other criteria of WP:BAND. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable session musician and music teacher, no reliable sources and no indication of notability. Fails GNG and WP:MUSIC. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ talk 10:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, as far as I can see just trivial coverage about him. Cavarrone (talk) 05:29, 17 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. after a relisting, I do not see consensus on the sufficiency of the sources DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Projecturf (software)[edit]

Projecturf (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this software has lasting notability. Author contested prod.

What few sources I found from a search of the name were just routine coverage in a very saturated field of products. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the articles talk page:

"If you conduct the same search for Basecamp, you get the same results. As someone who used Wikipedia to sift through a lot of really awful Project Management software in an effort to find an alternative to Basecamp, I created this page because I found the project management software pages linked from the list very useful. In terms of notablity, Projecturf is one of the more notable pieces of software. I agree that there is a lot of saturation, but looking at the list of project management software on Wikipedia, I see A LOT of items that probably should be deleted (there is a lot of dead, obscure, and lesss notable items listed). I also feel very strongly that the Projecturf entry is not one, and ever bit as notable as Basecamp, Apollo, WunderKit, MS Project, and OmniPlan. Veraxus (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Veraxus"[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find a single review, article, or book mention. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Easily found several reviews, mentions, and articles from top sources and there are plenty of them. ReadWriteWeb Review. GigaOM Review. Appstorm Projecturf Overview. Mpearson65 (talk) Mpearson65 07:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Mpearson65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Those are not reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not only reliable sources, but some of the top sources on the subject. These comments / arguments for deleting this page clearly hold no ground. Mpearson65 23:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Gigaom is a Wordpress blog. The About page of ReadWriteWeb says that it is a blog. On Appstorm, people can submit an app to be reviewed which means that any app can be reviewed and the About page says that it a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • GigaOM and ReadWriteWeb are top web technology news sites with millions of visitors and readers and are syndicated by other top news sites such as NY Times. One of these sites alone is more than enough to provide a reliable source.Mpearson65 08:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpearson65 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ *Comment.
More