< 12 August	14 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WorkDrugs (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Rs chen 7754 23:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Guardian has a surprisingly long article about them. It is a new band of the day thing and it appears the editorial selection of new bands is based on things that catch the writers attention like a user recommending the band. Aside from that, there is blog coverage but not the coverage in reliable sources that would clear the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Don't see any notable chart singles. Also, the references are not reliable enough to make this band notable. Minima © (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability does not appear to be established, and the band article likely fails WP:BAND. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Userfy. Band may reasonably become notable, RS may reasonably expected to appear. All they have to do is ... do notable stuff. And get noticed. In, like, one or two more RS. No problem. --Lexein (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - added source, and reception section. Changed !vote. --Lexein (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLB 2012 Walk-Off wins[edit]

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

too much detail. Note that the page lists 10 wins in the first 8 days, back in the first week of the season, but none later on. That is, it a common daily event, hardly encyclopaedic; and hard to maintain, proven by self-example Nabla (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Way too commonplace and thus not particularly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. This is nothing but trivia, and not very interesting trivia at that. Not even if someone were to maintain the article. Reso lute 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per above. A major mess in the best case scenario. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Event occurs too frequently. Next we will be listing every homerun and the pitcher who threw the pitch. Secondly, article has not been updated since April 2012.Juve2000 (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Completely trivial and insignificant to say the least. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia, basically. Nothing much needs to be added to the nom and Clarityfiend's and Resolute's !votes. Rlendog (talk) 14:07, 14 August 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 minor planets: 16001–17000#001. WP:SNOW/WP:BURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(16001) 1999 AY21[edit]

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

This asteroid unfortunately does not appear to meet notability requirements outlined at WP:NASTRO. Being rather unfamiliar with astronomy's naming conventions, perhaps I'm searching incorrectly, but searching Google Books, News, News archives, and Scholar for "(16001) 1999 AY21" turned up nothing but this, a book which seems only to list astronomical objects rather than giving significant coverage of them. If I've missed anything, please correct me, but it seems that this asteroid does not meet basic notability requirements. CtP (t • c) 23:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 00:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 16001–17000#001 per WP:NASTHELP, or else delete – None of the sources I could find satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. Interestingly, this so-called "article" is almost entirely composed of interface elements with only a single line of actual content. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO. This article contains no useful information that could not be provided by an entry in a list. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 15 August 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. Not a snowball's chance even if the nomination rationaile was valid. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of Wikipedia[edit]

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

The topic is already covered at Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos, what's the point of having this article anyway if it is already covered in the project namespace TheChampionMan1234 23:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos is not the encyclopedia. The question is whether the logo is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. I'm inclined to say that it is. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existence of something in the Wikipedia namespace does not mean there is duplication. Ryan Vesey 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article fully complies with all or any relevant criteria, including WP:GNG. Article is not a duplication of a mainspace page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Meets WP:GNG. Zappa O Mati 20:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Biscuit[edit]

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

Experimental film of questionable notability. A Google news search on "Black Biscuit" Federico shows only one result, a passing mention in an article that has nothing to do with the film, only the filmmaker. Standard search shows a lot of social media, primary sources and blogs, but little significant coverage of the film from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched and wasn't able to find anything that ultimately showed that this film was notable. I got predominantly junk hits with a mix of primary interspersed throughout. I did find one or two things that mentioned the director (who is also up for AfD), but nothing that would show notability for the film. Since it's looking unlikely that the director has any notability, I recommend against a redirect at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the significant coverage needed to establish notability. At best, this would be a redirect to the works of the director, but as noted above, the director's article is very likely to be deleted too. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—References are not reliable enough to make this film notable. Doesn't pass WP:NF. Minima © (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The film's major claim seems to be that it is "the first film to follow the Pink8 Manifesto" - a "manifesto" created by the filmmaker. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lacatena[edit]

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

Recommend deletion due to lack of notability established through the topical notability guidelines for entertainers or the general notability guidelines which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 22:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 00:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at his body of work, it does not appear to have the major roles that would establish notability as an WP:ENTERTAINER. Sourcing in general is mostly mentions of his name as playing the role of Andrew in Step It Up. The best source is this article. Those with Highbeam access will be able to view it. It uses Lacatena as a vehicle for covering Ballet programs. As such, I don't put a lot of weight into it for notability,and in any case, it is only one source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - News coverage is weak, despite the popularity of the movie of "Step Up." Jsharpminor (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable neologism. Every use of it that doesn't refer to an actual company in Minneapolis which is called this is in quotes attributed to Tom Joseph, who is the guy who just made it up one day. Nothing has changed since the first deletion discussion in 2007, which ended in a deletion. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just not seeing it. Does not appear to have gained any acceptance since the last AFD, and I can't find any reliable sources since 1995. Nothing more than a spin on virtual office, which is widely used; there must be thousands of outsourcing companies using the same operating model, and none of them use this term. Kuru (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that the term essentially describes a virtual office, perhaps taken to an extreme. I cannot find any widespread use of the term beyond Bookminders. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 16 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Texas A&M University shooting[edit]

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

Just not notable. The situation, while tragic, isn't going to demonstrate much in the line of enduring coverage. As noted at the ITN discussion, there are car accidents with much larger fatalities that aren't given articles. Imzadi 1979 → 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special, ~~just normal shooting~~. --Stryn (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC) edit: I mean that all the shootings are not significant. --Stryn (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost borderline funny, "just normal shooting". Wow, you guys live in a different world. Amazing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, funny, amazing... and terrible. Obrigado.
Delete for now, although this is still a current event and I'd recommend waiting to let the dust settle first. AutomaticStrikeout 20:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we living in a world in which a campus shooting is not WP:N?Casprings (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given this was not a campus shooting, your question is irrelevant. Reso lute 22:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with AutomaticStrikeout that this is still a current event and a judgment on notability should be made once the proverbial dust settles. I will say, however, that it is presumptive to call this is a "campus shooting" when, according to the news reports I've read, it occurred near the campus, there is so far no indication that the perpetrator or any of the victims was affiliated with the university at the time, there is no indication that the motive was connected with the university, and the university police department is not currently involved in the investigation ([1]). In that vein, the title of this article is misleading, but that's subject to change based on how the investigation unfolds. All that being said, I do agree that it's a sad state of affairs that there is such a thing as a "normal" shooting. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Withdrew most of this comment; although Casprings has not withdrawn his/her above characterization of this event as a "campus shooting", his/her moving of the article indicates that s/he no longer believes this to be the case. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure a flood of keep !votes will eventually come in to save this article, but honestly, it looks like little more than a crazy guy who shot a cop trying to do their job, then shot at anyone else nearby. Tragic, yes, but this is merely a news story of negligible historical significance. It is only getting the news coverage it is due to proximity of a major university, but the university had nothing to do with the incident. Reso lute 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it says really terrible things about our society where people are regarding mass shootings as commonplace. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't common place, but this isn't exactly a "mass shooting" either. The title of the article is misleading as the shooting didn't happen on the campus of Texas A&M, it didn't involve university personnel nor did it involve a university student. It was merely in the same city as the university. On that basis, if kept, it needs to moved to a different title that isn't misleading. (I've requested that). However, this is much like the situation with incidents that involve aircraft. We don't have articles on every plane accident that doesn't result in certain criteria. As an analogy though, a shooting usually has a fatality, but unless there's also some permanent, enduring change that results from the incident, the event isn't historically notable. This story is falling on the coattails of Aurora and the temple, so unless something changes, I don't expect it to hang around in the national news past the next few days. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Past experience shows that stories that receive sufficiently prominent national news coverage, like this one, don't just quickly disappear. Also, in conjunction with the recent Colorado and Wisconsin shootings, this one is likely to be a part of the gun control/gun rights debate in the context of the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, then it should be listed as part of the content of an article on the campaign or gun control. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can do that and still keep the article.--Chaser (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind though, Nsk92, that nobody here can predict the future with certainty. I don't necessarily doubt your predicted scenario will come to fruition, but we still ought to wait and see how this story will develop over time before we come to a lasting conclusion on the fate of this article. Kurtis (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ note it wasn't inside Texas A&M or in the vicinity, the shooting happened in a residential area a two blocks south of the campus by someone who was served with an eviction notice and a cop was among those killed. The title is extremely misleading, this fails WP:NOTNEWS, any coverage will die within a day or two just because it didn't happen in the school sad to say. Secret ^account 00:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article title has been changed Jaranda.--Chaser (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is now covering the shooter mental health, so this might end up a more significant murder then it seems. The news media usually overexaggerate coverage about murdered police officers, murdered children, shootings involving more than four people getting shot, and missing white women and while it's all tragic, in 99% of the cases it quickly dies off, or has no lasting significance thus we have guidelines like WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS in place. But given the new developments, I think a wait and see approach the only solution here. If media coverage dies down, then it could be renominated for AFD. Keep. Secret ^account 01:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources cited in the article (all of which were in the article when it was nominated for deletion) clearly, unambiguously, and beyond question are sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline and no persuasive reason has been presented to disregard it.--Chaser (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. I'm basing my opinion on WP:RAPID; let's wait a few days and see how things develop. At that point, we should have a much more elucidated perspective on whether this satisfies our notability guidelines for criminal acts. Kurtis (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm extremely skeptical that a shooting that made the front pages of Al Jazeera and BBC News will never receive a followup article anywhere in the world. At a minimum, the followup to this will be covered in Texas papers for years--investigation, "could it have been prevented?", funerals, anniversaries, memorials, etc. In any case, as Chaser points out, even the current level of coverage is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, and there's no need to rush a deletion nomination per WP:RAPID (especially for a topic that has already generated 52,000 sources). Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very minor, it would likely never have gotten an article had it been reported the following day, rather than live on the internet. That being said, wikipedia is not paper, and I am quite sure readers will come here looking for this information. We exist to serve our readers, not to please deletionists. The only thing worse than creating this article is suggesting it be deleted. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made top headlines in media outlets such as CNN and Huffington Post. Very noteworthy. The article can easily be expanded. --Activism1234 04:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID:

“

Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary...

”

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Relevant event due to media coverage and in regard to weapon ownership controversy. --Victorvd (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we have here is a story inflated and overblown by a media keeping the Denver shooting fresh in its mind. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, cannot give undue prominence to events and is not a regional television station doktorb _words^deeds 07:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A bloody event at one of ~~the country's~~ America's largest universities during a year that has been plagued with gun violence. I'd say that's notable. -DodgerOfZion (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The incident didn't occur at the university and so far it appears to be completely unrelated so I'm not sure what, if any, argument you are making. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has articles regarding most shootings with multiple fatalities that receive widespread news coverage such as 2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree. Though policy states that just because one article exists doesn't necessarily imply another should, I think that that's is sufficient precedent for this one. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC

Then the proper course of action is for us to delete, merge, or otherwise consolidate those other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will this shooting be notable in 5 years' time? No. Does it pass WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE? No. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a news item, not an encyclopedic subject. If further details emerge that make this noteworthy - a further series of events, interesting results such as national debate or legislation,etc. - then this will be worth an article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the mulitple deaths providing multiple RS coverage. Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000's logic. Oldag07 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As ElKevbo: This is a news item, not an encyclopedic subject. --Makele-90 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, sadly, the kind of thing that happens all the time. The only reason it got attention was the other shootings recently. WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article easily meets the notability requirements for an article. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, as it's not "routine coverage" of something like a store closing or a football schedule. - Sudo Ghost 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Association of Huntington, West Virginia[edit]

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

Non-notable mosque. No claim of notability. No independent refs that actually mention the subject. PROD removed by creator with Reverting possible vandalism ... edit summary. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. 23:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. 23:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no significant coverage about them. I see that some metions in reliable sources, but they are not significant. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill mosque with nothing particularly notable about it. Churches, mosques, and synagogues need to show something unusual, historical, or unique (i.e., something notable) in order to be covered in a Wikipedia page. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a failing notability. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 10:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 1985 - The Millennium Series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 1985 - The Millennium Series

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

Nominating two non-notable editions of the Now series. A bunch of these "Millennium Series" volumes were released in 1999 but none of them have any independent notability. I believe just listing them in Now That's What I Call Music! discography is sufficient. Multiple attempts at redirects have been reverted by an uncooperative and unresponsive editor, but these editions don't have any significant coverage anyway. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles do not even attempt to demonstrate any notability. They just look like lists of audio tracks. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall there was a discussion about another album in the "Now that's what I call music" series not so long ago and the article was deleted. This does beg the question of why we cannot just merge any article on an album in this series with the article Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:21, 14 August 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 to KSHB-TV. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Najahe Sherman[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable secondary sources that provide the enough coverage to demonstrate notability of this UHF station anchor under WP:GNG. Unable to find a reliable source to verify the Miss America contestent / Miss Louisiana America claim, although I did see a hint of the latter claim in an unreliable source. Anchor position is well-enough verified. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TBran dl ey 16:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if there's anything worth merging) and redirect to KSHB-TV. Redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to merging any verifiable content as nom. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as above, and I'm curious as to why this was relisted, with a clear consensus to delete. Ravenswing 06:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BASIC (with respect to Sherman's achievements). AFAIK we don't generally have redirects for all such news anchors. -- Trevj (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be any significant coverage. Silver seren^C 04:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Framework[edit]

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

I don't think this PHP framework is notable. I didn't reached to any result (except its homepage) on Google News search for it. –ebraminio^talk 19:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: also found nothing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:36, 16 August 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 Last Roman Emperor. History preserved in case someone wants to merge content from this article. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Catholic Monarch[edit]

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

Merge and redirect to Last Roman Emperor, which contains at least two sections that are substantially the same; seems to be a content fork. The nominated page was created in 2008 by ADM who was blocked indefinitely in 2010. – Fayenatic London 19:13, 13 August 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 August 13. Snotbot t • c » 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect -- as nom. Or rather sppedy close, as this is not an AFD nom, but a merger proposal, which should be dealt with on the article talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 15 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Ratnage Black[edit]

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

The article is about a non-notable person. It is unreferenced and has been for over a year. It lacks aby content of note. It does note give any explainations about the life of the non-notable subject. Please share your opinions about the status of this page and indicate clearly whether we should "Keep", "Delete", or "Merge" the page with another. To give my opinion, I think we should Delete the page. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, there is one reference in the article, contrary to the nomination's statement of none. Did the nominator even bother to click on the link? (From the page's revision history, the link was existent prior to the nomination for deletion.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – This deletion nomination is unconvincing and has false aspects to it. The nomination states that no references exist in the article, but there was one in place prior to the nomination (it's still there). Seems to be an instance of not even considering source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to commencing the nomination, to the point of not even checking sources already in the article. Let's not delete articles based upon false premises as a rationale for deletion. Better yet, perhaps at least consider the idea of improving the article! Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has two sources (not one, external links count) and she seems quite accomplished in winter sports. It needs improvement and more context, but that's not what deletion is for. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Apart from the RAF article, there is little evidence for the notability of the "RAF Skeleton Association" . Hence, to call it a prominent role is questionable. As for the above comments, I did click on the SkeletonSport web site, but did not see the subject in the pull-down menu. At this point I'm not convinced the article satisfies WP:GNG. The one reference is reliable but not independent. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the main reason for nomination is the complete lack of notability of the subject; it is about a woman who is in a bob-sleigh team - this is not enough to be notable. Secondly, the article has next to no content and has remained like this from the start. The fact that there is one reference, which shows some tenuous link to the subject, is still insufficient to show this subject as notable. No other references of note can be found, Northamerica1000; if I'd been able to find any I would have improved the article. It is a very clear non-article and should be deleted. I predict that, if left, it will be in the same state in 6 months time. Francis Hannaway (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changing my opinion in light of Whpq's comments below re her competing in world championships. If she has done this she satisfies notability for sportspeople. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Just to be clear, I don't see evidence of competing at the World Championships which is a single event, but rather competing at the World Cups which is the top level circuit. -- Whpq (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, The coverage by the RAF does not appear to be significant. Subject presently does not pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SOLDIER. If the subject later becomes involved in the Olympics the subject may eventually pass WP:ATHLETE, however as that is not presently the case the article maybe WP:TOOSOON; in the mean time the article can be userfied.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the main reason for nomination is the complete lack of notability of the subject; it is about a woman who is in a bob-sleigh team - this is not enough to be notable. Secondly, the article has next to no content and has remained like this from the start. The fact that there is one reference, which shows some tenuous link to the subject, is still insufficient to show this subject as notable. No other references of note can be found. It is a very clear non-article and should be deleted. I predict that, if left, it will be in the same state in 6 months time. Francis Hannaway (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Skeleton (sport)#Organizations, as mention of RAF Skeleton Association, adding the reference there; we can mention or not her name as appropriate. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Keep arguments aren't merely threadbare, they bear little resemblance to any notability guideline. Given Northamerica1000's experience at AfD, his comments border on bad faith, since he himself does not seem to have examined the sources presented. One of them comes from the RAF itself - and thus isn't an independent sources satisfying the GNG - and the other comes from the website of a weekly newspaper of a town of six thousand, which he knows well is not of the sort generally considered to satisfy WP:IRS ... even if it discussed the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, which a 95-word filler does not.
The other Keep proponent seems confused over what the relevant guidelines require. The GNG does not require multiple sources; it requires multiple citations from reliable, published, independent sources which discuss the subject in significant detail, which they do and are not. As far as the subject's putative accomplishments in winter sports - an assertion for which Ego White Tray has provided no evidence in this past week - failing the GNG, WP:NSPORTS generally support the notability of athletes competing at the Olympics or at the world championships in their respective sports. The RAF 2008 Bobsleigh, Luge and Skeleton Inter-Service Championships does not remotely cut it.
A Google search turns up little beyond this article. A G-News search turns up zilch. She has not competed in national or international competition in her sport. There is no valid ground to retain this article. Ravenswing 06:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Skeleton is a winter sport. Due to the climate the UK does not feature highly in these. Even the national British Bob Skeleton Association remains a redlink. The RAF Skeleton Association is presumably a club for Royal Air Force personnel intersted in the sport. The subject may be a significnat figure in that club, but it is a NN club. Result - NN . Conclusion: Delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I support the deletion of this article, the above is a somewhat strange statement given that Great Britain won the gold medal in women's skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to set down an opinion at this point, but will make some observations. As a soldier, Ratnage Black is not notable. I cannot find general coverage about her beyond what has been presented. The FIBT web site does not list her as an athlete, but it is unclear just how complete this database is. I don't know if skeletonsport.com is a reliable source. Ratnage Black's race record from that site would seem to indicate that she was competing at Skeleton World Cup events. The World Cup circuit is the top level circuit, so if we could establish some reliable sourcing for competing in the 3 WC events in the 2002 season, I think we would establish inclusion under WP:NSPORT as an athlete competing at the top level of her sport. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It does appear that the FIBT database is either incomplete, or I am incompetent in using it. I cannot find a listing for Alex Coomber, a GB skeleton racer who won a silver medal at an FIBT World Championship. So the lack of an entry in the FIBT database does not rule out Ratnage Black from having competed at WC events. -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the FIBT doesn't carry results or rankings as far back as the 2002 season. This isn't a reliable source, but I don't doubt that the information is likely accurate. Ratnage Black was ranked 30th of 33 in the 2002/3 World cup standings in Women's Skeleton. -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although online reliable sources have not been found, the web pages I dug up do support the fact that Ratnage Black competed in Skeleton in World Cups. The World Cups is the top level circuit and thus meets WP:NSPORT. Offline sources are acceptable, and likely exists. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will be happy to change my vote to Keep if you can provide reliable sources attesting to the same - either from the federation itself, or articles in reliable news media. We have no way of knowing whether these unaffiliated websites are accurate or not, but it's not as if we accept them in any other sport absent serious evidence of fact checking. Ravenswing 23:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I agree that reliable sources are needed. The question is whether those sources are likely to exist. The site web site for manufacturer of sleds used in the sport of skeleton is likely to have correct results, and so I take this as an indication that a search for offline / paper sources is could find such reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If such sources are not produced, an article cannot be sustained until and unless they are. Ravenswing 21:34, 19 August 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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Qashoo[edit]

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

Numerous WP:PEACOCK terms.
Violates WP:NPOV
There are hardly any references, and the references (4 of them, and they are not included in the actual article either) that are there are primarily either an op-ed by Qashoo, a blog, a YouTube video, has no relevance to the article, or a combination.

Activism1234 16:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposer. --Activism1234 16:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates the NPOV policy and has WP:PEACOCK terms. Also, there are no reliable sources to back it up, and the four sources mentioned above have no relevance. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons as above.PantsB (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GNews search produces modest but varied coverage by reliable sources of his activities over the past ten years, a couple of which are cited in an earlier version of this article. But absolutely no objection on my part to reverting to that version, if necessary with revision deletion of the subsequent edits of a one-occasion editor whose "delete all and replace" tactics produced the current version of the article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep because this person passes WP:BASIC. Did any of the delete !voters above bother to search for sources? Here's some I found rather easily:

Lowe, Rebecca (June 3, 2010). "Osama Qashoo arrives safely in Turkey". Haringey Independent. Retrieved August 13, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Lowe, Rebecca (June 3, 2010). "Family quit hunger strike after Osama Qashoo declared safe". Haringey Independent. Retrieved August 13, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Soy Palestino: A Palestinian filmmaker finds much in common with a homeless Cuban musician". Al Jazeera. December 13, 2009. Retrieved August 13, 2012.
"En bøn for jorden". Dagbladet. 16 September 2002. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
"Anxious families still wait for news of the 42 Britons among those held". The Times. 2 June 2010. p. 9.

Also importantly, per WP:NRVE, Topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Lastly, the article has been edited to remove peacock/weasel words and promotional tone. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Northamerica1000's sources are convincing evidence to pass the GNG. Ravenswing 07:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep as meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. While the nominator and others are certainly free to point out some article issues, the easily found sources found and offered through the diligence of other's WP:BEFORE shows the issues that worried them to have been addressable and simply put, addressable issues are rarely valid rationale for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Days (2013 film)[edit]

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

Article about a film with no set release date and no sources. Doesn't meet WP:NFF, WP:GNG, or any other criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this does not seem to meet the new films policy. Perhaps this will be re-made when the film is released. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just isn't notable. There's zero coverage for the film at this point in time. I really do applaud the efforts of the director for trying to create a film and an article (since the deletion of his user page suggests he's a minor), but this just isn't notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only external link is to a Youtube video to the film's trailer, which means that no notable coverage is on the article. Also, no sources. This could become notable later, once time has passed and once the upcoming film has gathered more exposure, but for now it is not. This might be a little bit of a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:25, 20 August 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 WP:CSD#G5. Sockpuppet of KANYABIGEGA Silas (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silas kanyabigega[edit]

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

Delete. Does not give reason why subject is notable, other than having authored a few obscure books; Article creator has a conflict of interest--he seems to have written the article about himself; No useful information, non-notable person. Article seems to exist merely to promote subject of article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing to indicate notability; no reliable sources, just a lot of social media, blogs, YouTube, and self-generated material. I agree with the nominator that there is a strong air of self-promotion here. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 19:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 19:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, no evidence of notability. This should be a speedy since WP:COI, unsourced WP:BLP + promotional material --Tachfin (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Avraham Spektor[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for five years, unable to find reliable secondary sources which meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Language issues may be in play, additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling may be an issue with search. Finding some hits with " David Avraham Spector ", which seem to back the position of head of the Department of Eruvin and Mikvaot, Rabbanut Beit Shemesh ( http://www.connectionsmag.co.il/articlenav.php?id=345 )Not sure this proves notability, but the article could probably be cited to make a case for it. Celtechm (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw, I'm seeing enough here that, while I can't prove it yet, I've been able to add some sources and I smell a high probability that notability can be demonstrated. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chimerical[edit]

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

Contested prod. Grunge band. A minimal assertion of importance is present in the article. However, none of the sources meet our reliability requirements and GNews returns only false positives. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No broad, in-depth coverage in established media. Fails at WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BAND Inks.LWC (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric Lounge Review[edit]

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

Non-notable, promotional — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dozens of self links do not replace valid references. Vanity/advertising article. i kan reed (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not the worst I've seen on the project, but it needs a lot of improvement. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is apparently written by Jordan Russell, the founder of the Lyric Lounge Review website. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotional. City Of Silver 16:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al muzhir arabic kannada dictionary[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, and has a promotional tone. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 19:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 19:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unsourced article (notability thus not demonstrated) and has a strong PoV bias.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of third party reliable sources. Secret of success (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unreadable mess. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies and organizations based in Bridgeport, Chicago[edit]

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

Delete This is not an article per se, but a list that is essentially a violation of WP:DIRECTORY and contains almost no info not covered in the Bridgeport article already. Furthermore, it is an arbitrary list that includes companies not based in Chicago, let alone the Bridgeport neighborhood (i.e. Jimmy John's).Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 19:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as arbitrary and unencyclopedic list, basically just a random slice of the phone book. I see no encyclopedic reason to catalog non-notable companies or organizations that originated in, are currently based in, or have locations in a single neighborhood of Chicago; certainly cataloging mere locations of companies there makes this a NOTDIR violation. If there are any notable companies headquartered in Bridgeport, that can be noted in Bridgeport, Chicago, or if any companies or organizations had a significant impact on the history of the neighborhood according to reliable secondary sources. And if that content were to grow large enough, it could be split off for size concerns. But none of this list fits the bill; otherwise we could just excise the contact info to fix it. postdlf (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an unencyclopedic topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 14 August 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 Simulation. History preserved for use in a merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation in entertainment[edit]

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

Original research. While much of the material in this article is verifiable, the collection of all of these techniques into a single umbrella term of "simulation in entertainment" represents an original idea, falling under the definition of "a new synthesis of published material". The author's AFC submission was rejected for this very reason, but the author went ahead and created the article anyway. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually going to nominate this for AfD myself, although I was waiting to get some feedback from the author first. In addition to the OR concerns (which I share), I don't think there is enough of a single, coherent topic here to warrant an article; I don't think that "simulation", as used in these various contexts, is well-defined enough. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Topic is a neologism and not well focused. I also agree with the AfC conclusion that "A lot of text in the article is probably better suited to other Wikipedia articles such as those referenced in the article." Merge targets include Simulation, Computer-generated imagery, Computer animation, Simulation video game, Life simulation game. Of course this is not going to happen by itself. Ideally the article's author, Jenleavens (talk · contribs) would step up. If not, is there a way to keep this material around until someone else has the inclination? --Kvng (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derrer Michael[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a successful consultant but still does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. All the links provided in the article are either semi-relevant links to the German Wikipedia or links to webpages that are more or less controlled by Derrer himself. Not so surprisingly, the article reads like a LinkedIn profile and I have failed to find in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources that could serve as a basis for a full article. I would also note that the username suggests that the article was created by someone working for Derrer's consulting firm. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not contain citations of the third-party coverage required for passing WP:BIO and does not meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Sandstein 08:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Somewhat surprising that this wasn't BLPProd'ed. Also, the formatting suggests a WP:COPYVIO. -- BenTels (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like these where the article has many sources but that I deem unreliable, I prefer to give the article creator a forum to defend his sources. Pichpich (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProFTPD[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Was deleted previously under the name ProFTPd. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – To me it is more than sufficiently notable. ProFTPD has a ton of book references for satisfying WP:GNG. There are also several journal articles on the subject of ftp security that provide coverage of ProFTPD. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It's a very popular selection among Linux distros and is mentioned in several Linux and Unix admin manuals. But it's going to be WP:MINIMUM at best. -- BenTels (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: ProFTPD, vsftpd and Pure-FTPd form the Top-3 of the most popular FTP-servers in the Linux world. It is not really understandable why the old lemma ProFTPd was deleted in first place. --Tomakos (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I suppose that you meant "among the most popular, feature rich .." by writing "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article". Different to the Windows-world, in the Linux world being "feature rich" is not automatically considered to be something good. So this is not to be understood as promotion, rather than a description of the facts. Other FTP-servers focus e.g. on simplicity - being right the opposite of feature rich. Nothing is better or worst, it all depends on someone's requirements. Nevertheless I have changed this part of the lemma, so that the comparison and the meaning of "feature rich" is more clear to the readers, I hope, and it feels less promotional. --Tomakos (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - O'Reilly and other books, as well as websites appear to give sufficient notability to the article. - Sudo Ghost 19:59, 16 August 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 for inadequate notability. Der yck C. 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Federico[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fabrizio Federico

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

I don't think that Fabrizio Federico is notable enough to warrant such a page on Wikipedia. He appears to have created it himself, and further edited himself into pages tangentially relevant to him (Harmony Korine, The Last Movie and Dogme 95). Surely Wikipedia is not for publicizing of this nature?

He appears to be, at best, a unknown filmmaker from the UK with a lot of ambition. I don't feel however that his current status warrants such a lengthy article (however perhaps further down the line)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 13. Snotbot t • c » 17:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the nominator hasn't nominated an existing article, they must have meant to nominate this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrizio_Federico Seasider91 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable filmmaker who hasn't won any major awards or made anything notable, I have fixed the problem link as well Seasider91 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 19:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search doesn't bring up enough sources to show notability for this director. I found one source (which is already in the article), but predominantly everything shows up as primary sources, junk hits, and other non-notability giving links. Fails notability guidelines. On a side note, the nominator is right in that the original editor has taken it upon themselves to try to put the director into as many articles as possible.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably the best source is the Leftlion article, and that's a community culture / arts web site. That's just not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 16 August 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 Moot, as a redirect has been performed the other way around, thereby resolving the issue at hand. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka[edit]

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

Exact duplicate of Jamiah Rahmania Arabia Dhaka. A redirect to the latter has been reverted by the creator. Delete, then either move the other page or create a protected redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:36, 13 August 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yasni[edit]

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

Article was written by a person paid by the company. Article is, therefore not surprisingly, biased. There are no reliable and independent sources. NoCultureIcons (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 23 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The single ref in the article is poor, but there is also a Zeit article discussing Yasni in both headline and article, albeit in a context with competing aggregators such as 123people and Spock (website), which may be indicative of some local notability. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There might be enough references to write a good and independet article, however this is rather a press release than an article. --Doc z (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website.-PlasmaDragon (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, although there may be additional sources in German available that I can't read. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment First of all, this is a website seen and sometimes used by Wikipedia editors while researching notability. Next, as per WP:BEFORE step B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." I clicked on one link in the German Wikipedia and found this ref. I think that the course of this discussion would be different had the sources on the German Wikipedia been mentioned in the nomination. I've also tried to track down the claim that there is a paid editor involved. The fact that the claim is unsourced should be a red flag. There is discussion on the German Wikipedia, both on the talk page of the creator and the talk page of the German article, which even with Google translate remains unclear to me what it means. At a minimum, the editor alleged to have written a biased article should get an invitation on his/her German Wikipedia talk page to this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to research the German Wikipedia has yielded these sources:

ref1 In this article about "people search engines" Yasni gets the most attention. Yasni is mentioned in the subtitle, the lead picture is of Yasni, and the article has many embedded links that refer to Yasni. These links include the following.

ref2 The initial paragraph cites an incident with Yasni privacy concerns, the second paragraph cites a negotiation with Yasni about personal data, and the third paragraph has Time Online (Zeit Online) asking questions to Yasni.

ref3 2007 news story about Yasni.

ref4 The page won't translate in Google translate, but I was able to copy and paste the text to get the translation. There is only one or two sentences about Yasni, but it is an in-depth technical comment.

ref5 German legal analysis of yasni and 123people

Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here was the confirmation that the author is working for the company. The German article was completely rewritten. Originally it was almost the same content as the English, Spanish and Portugese article - in all cases the article was written by the company. --Doc z (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, which also shows that the nominator is an involved party on the German Wikipedia. I propose that WP:V WP:BURDEN be applied immediately such that the article is as follows. The two sentences in the lead are retained and the one sentence that has a citation is retained, with the six references I've listed in this AfD added in an "Additional references" section. The external link is retained, the categories are retained, the logo in the infobox is retained, and the AfD notice is retained. I request that an editor agree. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gave Yasni a test run on "Johnny Prill" for WP:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (2nd nomination) and found two references. I expect to use it again. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a POV article with POV title, all this content better needs to be merged with the article Death of Osama bin Laden, which already discuss this issue in detail. SMS ^Talk 19:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As noted above, the article is redundant - this is a repeate of a section of Death of Osama bin Laden, except done in a more POV fashion. The POV running through this whole article also raises WP:Soap concerns. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Haven't all the reasons for keeping this article on Wikipedia mentioned in the first deletion discussion? Also, if the info in this article is already repeated in the article about Osama's death, then i think this article is a more appropriate place to keep that info, as it has a generalized title. As noted in the previous deletion discussion, this article follows Wikipedia's norms of notability and has reliable sources. As for POV, the first word of the title of the article is "Allegations". Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep agree with Anir1uph. Neither a POV article nor a POV title. Factual article on a notable topic which is suitably covered in reliable sources, The comments on the 1st nomination still hold here.--DBigXray 07:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. also discussed in full at the previosu AfD. Dont see a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Why is this article nominated for the 2nd time?
Article could be improved. But clearly it is not about a Fringe theory and has substantial coverage in mainstream sources and easily verified. it's been discussed in The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, and the New York Times. President Obama discussed this on 60 Minutes earlier[2]. This is neither a speculative theory nor a baseless conspiracy theory. This article is about well-sourced allegations and that's what it is doing.
There have been multiple accusations by various nations against Pakistan about this exact topic (as demonstrated by the article itself). And this meets WP:GNG also.
"allegations" — well-verified, note-worthy and paramount allegations made by some very notable political figures, yes. Not all POV is unacceptable, Criticism of Facebook or Criticism of the Israeli government or Criticism of religion all reflect a POV but they are existing, as they should be.
If there are other problems, they are surmountable anyway.
This AfD is needless and a POV itself. Read what I wrote below. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) ~~12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)~~ 17:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge The article is precisely described by it's title - a smokescreen of allegations. There has been no formal evidence officially proving the allegations, neither has the United States formally conveyed to Pakistan that this is the case. This is WP:SOAP and WP:FORK. The article is redundant, there is nothing here that cannot be discussed at the Death of Osama bin Laden article. Mar4d (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Death of Osama bin Laden is the right article to cover any allegations. A separate article only for the allegation seems to be out of the line as the title itself explains. Any useful info from this article can be merged there if loss of content is a concern. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable topic which certainly warrants an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are academic sources on the issue, An Unwinnable War: Australia in Afghanistan Melbourne University Press. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These allegations have been widely popular, and are completely due to warrant an article. Death of Laden is a different topic. Also I see no instance of obvious bias in the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Death of Osama bin Laden I believe a section exists about the same thing this seems to be a case of WP:Soap same old same just written in a very pointy manner seems more like a article for pandering the individuals who have a certain pov of Pakistan Westwoodzie (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)— Westwoodzie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this may be semi-related to Death of Osama bin Laden, it has more to do with Pakistan's actions while bin Laden was alive, so a merge there would be inappropriate. These action are widely reported see, and notable, so this certainly warrants an article.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a WP:POVTITLE which has made the scope of the article limited to only allegations on an entity thus making the whole article a non-neutral. Besides this article is a WP:POVFORK, started by a disruptive editor who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive article creations. --SMS ^Talk 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not here to merely rename the article, are you? You're here to outright delete the article, isn't that why you nominated the article for deletion? Titles can be changed, it's a surmountable problem, no need to delete the article because of that.

And like others have already stated,

This article is concerned with Pakistan's actions while bin Laden was alive.
These allegations have been widely popular, and are adequate to warrant an article.
The killing of Osama bin laden is a different topic.

The content and title of this article is very notable. As far as I know, Pakistan is accused of "harboring Terrorists" by several governments, and it's also true that Osama bin laden was found to be living inside Pakistan. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 10:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment above, take note of WP:SOAP. If you cannot find a proper internet chat forum for expressing your personal opinion, at least don't pollute a Wikipedia AfD. Mar4d (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Note: User has modified the comment [3] Mar4d (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Are you really serious? That was completely a decent comment. Sorry if I am getting harsh, your comment applies more to you than others. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys calm down however I am confused I noticed something tonight most of the users who voted "keep" on this AFD here are voting delete on another AFD India and state terrorism with the excuse of it being "allegations" do I sense some sort of double standards when it comes to Pakistan? since this whole article is titled as a "allegation" it should be deleted just for its pov title again I could be misinterpreting everything but it seems some users have a conflict of interest I don't mean to offend you Vibhijain et al who voted in the other AFD just a observation of mine Westwoodzie (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)— Westwoodzie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is how your observation is relevant in any of the deletion discussions.

Now all I could say is that this article is exclusively about well-verified, very notable allegations (since it says so in its title) against Pakistan from very notable people (e.g. High-ranking CIA operatives, VP of global intelligence firm, The President of USA, Foreign Minister of France and other international political figures), it is not predicated on WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or a conspiracy theory. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 06:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant material is already there in Death of Osama bin Laden. This is an obvious POV fork and, seriously, an entire article built on the word "allegations"! --regentspark (comment) 15:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - See WP:SUBPOV.

“Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.”

Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but there's no need to do so when we can give sourced, encyclopedic treatment to both sides, presenting allegations of a Pakistani support system for bin Laden along with information regarding Pakistan's cooperation with the US and its allies in tracking him down. That's why I think this is better addressed in a broader article about Pakistan's role in the war on terror. Yes, this article is large compared to that one, but I think merging could help drive its expansion. --BDD (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but that's the whole point of WP:SUBPOV, isn't it? You can create an article even though its subject is a POV as long as that subject is presented neutrally. Even if the subject of any article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POVfork. BTW, I was addressing the pseudo-POV concerns raised by RegentsPark et al, and nothing else.
There are well-grounded articles whose subject is based on a particular POV (e.g. Criticism of Atheism, Creation science, Biblical criticism, Criticism of Christianity).
So what's the problem if we kept this one when it has political ramifications and is a big issue itself? Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 09:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pakistan's role in the War on Terror#Osama bin Laden. Yes, it's unusual to recommend merging to another article up for AfD, but it looks very likely that that one will be kept. The title of this article does look a bit POV to me, so I think merging is a good option. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The allegations have enough verifiable discussion and support to deserve mention on Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not the allegations themselves are true. Merging seems to be out of the question considering how long this article is. It seems best to keep the article as it is. -NorsemanII (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are good arguments put forward by advocates of both retention and merging; in particular, I think BDD's is a bold and elegant solution to a difficult problem.
That would be my preferred second solution. Whether this supposed support network existed or not is irrelevant: the article is about the substantial corpus of allegations. And it is alleged this support network existed before the Death of Osama bin Laden.
Also: do remember what the article's title started as. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that article is once renamed and nominated for deletion before, yet we're seeing this nomination. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 09:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think it's a POV article, but rather a sourced article about a POV. There's a distinction there, and I don't see any reason to delete or merge the article, especially when the merge target is large enough as is. - Sudo Ghost 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that Pakistan in the War on Terror (my rename) has comfortably survived AfD, I'll again suggest it as a logical merge target. Yes, it needs work, but that's the overarching topic. --BDD (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can add some relevant segments of this nominated article to this page — in fact, I think you should — but that doesn't necessitate the liquidation of "Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden".

This is an AfD discussion, not a merging proposal, did I miss something? Hence, if you want this article to be deleted and then merged, please first kindly specify why you think deletion is necessary. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 06:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're addressing me specifically or everyone who wants a merge, but I'm not the first one to suggest the article be merged. Inasmuch as the nominator said the article needs to be merged, I would have preferred that the WP:PM process be followed. But merging is a valid outcome at AfD, even if I think that fact is regularly abused when PM is more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm humbly asking you — or any other user in favor of deletion + merging — to do is, explain why deletion is needed. Now, if you — or any other user — do not think that deletion is necessary, then a clear expression about that would be nice. That's all. Good day. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you distinguishing between "delete and merge" and "keep and merge" votes? I see both used at AfD, but they usually mean the same thing. I try to avoid double votes like that. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the nominator's proposal. After having had a good look at the article, the article doesn't seem to have a POV issue. Infact it covers well the scope laid out by the article title. And the title is certainly not POV pushing. If the title was Pakistan's support for Osama bin Laden, it might be a bit off. Deleting an article for a bad title is stupid anyway as it is just one click away from changing it. And the diverse content discussed in the article does not warrant merging and condensing the whole of the article to a single paragraph is not possible without missing key details given the extensive independent coverage this topis has received. Suraj T 09:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Location of Osama bin Laden#Pakistan role in hiding. This is just a POV fork of the content there and this is a reasonable location to relocate anything salvageable. That title alone shows this to be an article that is standing on thin grounds as being notable in and of itself as the Manual of Style recommends avoiding the word WP:ALLEGED.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree — WP:ALLEGED actually says,

"Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."

The article is not in contravention of WP:alleged, is it? In this article all the major allegations are supported by reliable sources, nor is it a fringe theory. Thanks. Mrt 3366 ^{(Talk page?)} ^{(start talk?)} 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without any !votes against. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Slater[edit]

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

Unsourced for half a dozen years, there's a few hints of this radio host's existence, but no sources that reach WP:GNG, and a claim of some possible notability (a BBC award), found within a charity newsletter, appears to contradicts the BBC's own records for that award. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 19:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 19:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a couple of primary sources to the article as per this discussion at my User Talk page. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I was able to find, well, I don't think it's quite up to GNG, but it's close, and before I was finding nothing. I've added everything I can find in GNA and Highbeam to the article, and I've looked at every article they returned for the relevant searches. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:11, 14 August 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 Art Bowker. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Art Bowker (writer, cybercrime expert)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no secondary sources, none found via Google Web or Google News. Apparently nobody but Bowker has written anything about Bowker. The author, User:Abowker, may have a conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEOPLE#Academics

My question is what are you google searching on?

Few articles exist on correctional supervision involving cybercrime...those that were are either written by Art Bowker or contain citations citing his work... Do a Google, scholar for the computer monitoring and offenders.... Try juvenile sexing... Computer delinquents....probation and cybercrime. Bowker is not just saying he is an expert in the area but is pointing to articles he has written on the topic...in a wide varied on independent publlications... Additional he has written the only book on the subject... If you do a google Art Bowker, News search and last article from law technology news appears...

http://www.google.com/search?q=bowker&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#sclient=tablet-gws&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&tbo=d&tbm=nws&q=art+bowker&oq=art+bowker&gs_l=tablet-gws.3...6752.13248.1.14481.15.11.0.4.0.1.689.2814.0j6j1j3j0j1.11.0...0.0...1ac.IeKTEnj1IFY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=8053aa8cf94477cf&biw=1024&bih=672

A Google search under scholar reflect his work as well as others who have cited his work

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22art+Bowker%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36

Second... Under the surname Bowker....it fits with the efforts of other with the same name...this avoiding the stub problem..

Some commented that if some else submits it it migh be consider...wow... So if he gets his mother or father to submit it might be okay...interesting...what if he gets his friends and colleagues to do it...what if he opens up different accounts from libraries and does it... Either his work is enough or not..

The citation cites work over ten yrs...published work...

The cybercrime expert can be deleted and just leave writer...which he clearly is...on a topic that less than five individuals have written on.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the problem is not what Bowker has or hasn't written, but what others have written about him. His own articles cannot establish his notability. Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources; this article has none, and as I said, I couldn't find anything significant. Regarding "someone else should submit it": That, of course, means someone else who is independent of Bowker. As WP:COI explains, writing about close relatives is also discouraged. Yes, you could game the system and try to submit the article in a way that we don't recognize, but as this article shows, people with a conflict of interest tend to bend Wikipedia's guidelines on topics they feel strongly about - they should have the self-awareness to resist the temptation. Huon (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference your comment....it is not what he has written but what others have written about him..

Per your guidelines for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEOPLE#Academics,

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

1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. As I noted this person is widely cited by peers and other sources. .

2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Again this is hits this one. The book written that was published. ....multiple articles in multiple independent articles.

4.The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The policy on autobiographies is not prohibited. It is recommended that it not be done but not prohibited. If it is to be prohibited put it in the rules, don’t recommend against it and then justify it under other rational.

As for “gaming” if someone asks someone to write it for them and they agree that would not be gaming. Do you really think that for all those entries out there on people that they have a fan base that just does it for them? Sure there are some but others are created or more then likley bought to be put up. That is how people make sure what is written is what they want out there.

I also took a look at other entries on individuals...one in fact under the name Bowker... Richard Bowker (writer).... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bowker_(writer)... He is a writer of science novel and fiction.... AND.... He got nomination for a award that not well know. This is not to minimize his work but there are no independent sources about him...in fact there is a notation “This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Please add citations from reliable and independent sources. (April 2008)” Which, is kind of ironic that this entry has been unchanged for 4 yrs since it was noted that it lacked "reliable and independent sources."...the very thing that you say is the reason this entry should be deleted.

By the way, I added an entry where Art Bowker is quoted in SC Magazine...in an article written by someone other than Bowker. Additionally, added he is an Instructor with an university. All things that are independent...verify further that he in academics and expert in cybercrime in regards to corrections.

Be consistent in your rules. Put the same advisement that is in Richard Bowker's entry on this one. If this entry does not met the requirements under Academics, then delete it be all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per WP:BARE. I note that Abowker's obvious COI, expressions of grief, and poor arguments do him no good. That having been said ... he appears to have been interviewed and noted in significant coverage by some 'inside' periodicals. Whether that's enough for consensus in unclear to me. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I stated the obvious to you great gatekeepers... That a committed person could get entries in under you watchful eyes. This comment was response to one objection that noted it was an autobio and thereby implying that justified it being deleted...which is not the stated position as noted... Discouraged yes.. But not illegal.. Here is a news flag... Folks hire folks to put things on the web...including here... if the intent was to bypass your rules to get it up that would have already happened

As for grief what the heck are you talking about? And the comment ...."inside periodical" was that suppose to be jab against Sc mag? You grand wizards of info have allowed an entry that has less sources that this on up for 5yrs...with an acknowledgement of same.. See richard Bowker noted above. I know he didn't write it....his publist did.

The point again had the 1st person who made the deletion nom done a google search with the scholar option, which is noted as something that is suppose to be done...they would have seen this person cited by others...one of the factors noted under acdemadia...., are those works to also be cited to show this persons work is noteworthy? Again these articles were not self published.. They were independent publications...not blog entries. Bowker is one of only a handful of individuals who have written on managing offenders computer use, he is quote in print in an independent publication that is accepted in the field of computer security. Here is another that can be added http://crimcast.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/art-bowkers-the-cybercrime-handbook-for-community-corrections-managing-offender-risk-in-the-21st-century/, here is another...http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lawenforcement/2012/05/24/cybercrime-managing-offender-risk-in-the-21-century. But I am hestiate to add them... As sc mag got a wise crack... Blog radio..even done by two criminal justice professor , is probably to shallow for you electronic literary giants... What the heck... Added them I will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the blog radios entries have been added...neither of which are related to Bowker...they are independent...on down by two college professors...the other by an author and retired police officer...

One thought occurred to me... You don't prohibit autobio..they are discourage yes...how do you reconcile conflict of interest with that? The are ok but discourage...but yet you pull out the conflict of interest card..when wouldnt an autobio involve a cinflict of interest...seem like y are pulling the cof card to bypass the lack of prohbition on autobio..

Is this entry supported..yes...is he cited by others yes...is he reflected by independent other sources with no ties to him as in expert yes... Is he an expert in something noteworthy.... Supervision of cyber offenders...your call.. All I ask is follow the rules and be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abowker (talk • contribs) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography is discouraged but not prohibited. What does need to happen, however, is that content must be verifiable through a published source — which frequently fails to happen in an autobiographical situation. The key thing to bear in mind in a deletion debate is that for an article to be kept, it must be demonstrated that the subject is the object of multiple instances of substantial coverage in so-called reliable sources. COI is less important than the demonstration of this published coverage, so long as a subject is dealt with neutrally, in an encyclopedic tone, and the facts asserted are sourced. Carrite (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on several counts... First for not signing the post that are for keeping,., they are all by one person...seems this should be sophicated enough to auto sign since I am login...second thing my spelling and typing...using in I-pad is tough for this...finally I may have expressed a bit of frustration at what appears to be an attitude ... Not that there is one..but to a newbie I must be too sensitive.. In short sorry about the wise cracks...Abowker (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)AbowkerAbowker (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This does indeed seem to be a recognized expert in the area of cybercrime. Whether sources can be mustered is less definite. In the event of a "Delete" result I would hope this would be userfied to A. Bowker pending additional sourcing. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...this is kind of funny...this group has been debating this entry, which got quick attention as it was tied to the Bowker surname.... I thought I had deleted another entry.... Art Bowker (writer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bowker.......which was just move without any deletion notations....and it has less info that this one, which was modified to address concerns raised....LOL. Sounds like time to consolidate as opposed to delete...Abowker (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)abowker[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary duplicate of (and unlikely search term for) Art Bowker, after merging anything worth merging. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to merge per Dori -- the article already exists under the other name -- into Art Bowker, but without a redirect. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wong[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which meet the requirements of WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 16:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 16:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeking sources is made hard by the number of similarly named people out there. But in the absence of locating anything specific about the subject, far less evidence of specific notability, this remains an unsourced BLP and so appropriate for deletion. AllyD (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mark Wong appears to be a really common name, but looking through the news sources, none of them seemed to be talking about this Mark Wong. Silver seren^C 04:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 20:00, 19 August 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 Big Red (drink). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grover C. Thomsen[edit]

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

While the beverage he developed, Big Red (drink) appears to be notable, Thomsen as a chemist appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG with only passing mentions, no in-depth coverage of the man. Classic ~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:BIO1E. Toddst1 (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, it would be, except for how he's not a living person :D. That said, I've never been entirely clear on why BLP1E only applies to living persons, and in any case I can't find any sourcing that addresses the subject of the article directly and in significant detail. Obviously, there's plenty of sourcing that covers the drink. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Red (drink). The drink does seem to be notable enough, but this chemist doesn't have any notability outside of creating what looks to be a tasty beverage. Since the article for the drink exists, it would probably be appropriate to have his name redirect to the product he's best known for. Other than that, there's no individual notability for this guy and it'd be a delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the drink he is most famous for like Tokyogirl79 Seasider91 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Air (Tanzania)[edit]

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

The article is not of significance for wikipedia. The references are not considered as reliable information either. SajjadF (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 15:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nominator does not establish a policy-based reason for deletion. WP:BELONG. Note also that the sources provided are indeed reliable sources. (Also, scheduled airlines are considered by long-standing consensus to be notable.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, speedy keep, non-valid nomination. The airline is notable, and the sources are reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources is just a small newsletter showing that the airline was in Mafia. It does not give enough evidence about thus airline and since the airline does not function anymore, it is difficult to get more sources on it. Please conduct a search and then discuss on the issue. speedy delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by SajjadF (talk • contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not vote for the second time, since you are the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 14 August 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. Issues no longer present. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

تفاحتة[edit]

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

Apparently, this is a Lebanese village (or so Google Translate tells me). But Google Search turns up nothing. It seems to be a good-faith contribution (albeit in Arabic), but I just can't verify it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~per A7~~. "x is a village in Lebanon". That's it. No reason why this is notable whatsoever. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the existence of this place can be verified with reliable sources, it shouldn't be deleted. Per WP:NPLACE: Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source. A7 does not apply, though G3 may come into play if it seems like there is nothing whatsoever with info on تفاحتة. "Pepper" @ 13:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus A7 doesn't apply to places, full stop - only individuals, animals, organizations and web content. I'll just go off into a corner and trout myself. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search for "Tfahth, Lebanon" doesn't reveal anything. Agree with TT&tO on the good faith, but it is unverifiable. Maybe Esraahaidar will be able to find a source? "Pepper" @ 13:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. 15:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and certainly not verifiable in the slightest, shame this isn't covered by a speedy deletion criteria at the moment Seasider91 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename using a title transliterated into roman alphabet, per WP:UE: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English." PamD 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original title of the article was جرجوع and there is an article by that name on the ar:wiki about a village in Lebanon in the Nabatieh District, rough translation of the names seems to be Jarjoua or Jarju, bit more sleuthing by somebody not on their way to sleep should be able to find the english name for it and perhaps some more details with a spot of luck--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching that name on Google Maps turns up "Jarjouaa" 33°26′47″N 35°31′08″E / 33.446429°N 35.518852°E / 33.446429; 35.518852. However, what I am puzzled about it is why it was moved to a different name. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I should have thought of doing that to begin with. ar:جرجوع is the article. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper English title according to Arabic Wikipedia going back to here, through Nabatieh District, appears to be Jarjoo. I have moved it accordingly. I would certainly Keep the article, given it is a legitimate geographical location. Regards, — Moe ε 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, by quick research through the red links on Municipalities of Lebanon and List of cities and towns in Lebanon, the correct spelling is Jarjouh. Google seems to verify that. I've corrected the Nabatieh District article's spelling error. Regards, — Moe ε 17:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perdition (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, initial article used as reference doesn't even mention the song. Google turns up nothing except song lyrics, I made it page 7 before stopping. Page creator removed PROD tag saying (s)he would add "chart statistics," which appear to be non-existent. MsFionnuala (talk) 10:23, 6 August 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 August 6. Snotbot t • c » 11:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Partnership with Microsoft is enough to provide notability, Although it's been 2+ years and there is no sufficient online documentation and there is a lot of broken 404 links. Nevertheless people can't just be claiming such a partnership with a huge organization like that for all that time and not being hunted down. Contact here and you'll be assured on that [4] [5] Hibaghanem (talk)

Delete lacking in sources and the song didn't seem to have charted anywhere. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Partnership" with Microsoft - actual as opposed to alleged - forms no part of notability criteria for songs. The bar for songs is quite high, and no evidence has been presented that it has been cleared. Ravenswing 07:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Polish: Master Hubbard's Special Reserve[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mind Polish: Master Hubbard's Special Reserve

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

Article is about a non-notable Z-budget film that does not even appear to have been reviewed or gained any notice whatsoever. Laval (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. It exists. It screened. It won an award at a festival. But apart from that no media sources have taken notice of this comedy short. All I can find are viewer responses and numerous non-rs.[6] and nothing in any rs.[7] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urm. Do reviews count? If yes, then there appear to be quite a number of reviews, from pages like TV.com, which should be reliable. To win an award should ba a big deal too. Then, there is also an amazon page about it. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having an Amazon page doesn't give automatic notability. It just means that it's available for sale, or was at some point in time. (Plus it's a merchant site, which means that anything they post on there is suspect because it's in their best interests to make it look like something you absolutely must buy.) Also, reviews by Tv.com probably wouldn't satisfy notability guidelines since anyone can sign up and review. I looked on the site, but was unable to find any reviews for this film on TV.com. As far as awards go... it depends. Not all awards hold equal weight here on Wikipedia and most awards aren't notable enough to keep an article by that merit alone. Normally the awards have to be the equivalent of an Oscar, Razzie, or place at a notable film festival to keep an article on that aspect alone. I always say that 99.9% of awards do not fit this qualification of Wikipedia. I'll see what I can find, but I just wanted to clarify on this part.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd say to redirect it to the director's page but he seems to be suffering from some serious notability issues himself. A search brought up zero coverage in reliable sources. There are reviews, but all by non-notable John and Jane Average-People, which cannot count towards notability. The awards don't seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia's standards, as there were no sources actually reporting on the awards other than this Wikipedia page and various merchant or primary sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vernon Powys, 8th Baron Lilford[edit]

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

Not a member of the House of Lords. No other claim to notability. Only reference a self-publicised source. Tryde (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since the House of Lords Act 1999, most Hereditary peers have not held office in the House of Lords. Formerly, all peers were automatically notable as politicians. However, he could 'stand' for election to that body. I think this case is without precedent. What do we do? Bearian (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all peers have been viewed as automatically notable but have been looked at on a case by case basis. If there were evidence of activity in the House of Lords they were deemed notable. There are nonetheless numerous articles on peers that contain only biographical material of minor relevance. In the case of the present Lord Lilford he is able to stand for election to the House of Lords but has not yet done so. As possible parliamentary candidates are not deemed notable the article should be deleted. Tryde (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Burke's Peerage only lists the 7th Baron Lilford, no 8th, so either this article is bogus (I can't seem to find any obituary for the father, but he died in South Africa, so my cursory search may not have found it) or he's so unnotable that a major publication on this subject hasn't bothered to update his status in 7 years. Either way, this is not an article we need. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nom's response comments on 9 August and Grandmartin11's commentary. Specifically, delete as non-notable BLP with no reliable sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cover 2 cover (Morse, Portnoy and George album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 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 Theodore and Friends. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Rivers (song)[edit]

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

No notablity established and unlikely there ever will be. The second reference given is extremely tenuous. The band themselves are notable, but song stubs like this are completely pointless. There is no information to be found here. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This would probably be best served by being merged and redirected with Theodore and Friends. That article is a little light on sources but I'm finding some as I search that suggests that the album itself is notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aminur Rahman,Khosru[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, self-promotional autobiography ([8]) pushed by a single-purpose account, about a person who was a fighter in the Bangladesh war of 1971. His sole claim to notability is that he allegedly was a commander at a special forces operation involving blowing up some ships in a harbour. This claim is sourced to an offline journal of unknown reliability ("Naval Commando Journal"), quite likely some self-published special interest group publication, plus another entry that seems to be a newspaper ("Robi, Mir Mustak Ahmed (2008). Chetonai Ekattor"), again with no indication of WP:RS status. The problem is that we had an earlier claim, apparently sourced to another source of equal validity, which named some other guy as the commander in that operation ([9]). Other, reliable sources were found mentioning some names that may (or may not) correspond to both these individuals, but they describe neither of them as a commander (see discussion here). The author/subject of this article has apparently been trying quite hard and in multiple ways to change the received account of this operation and promote his own (real or imagined) role in it, as expressed here [10][11]. But whichever way it is, even if this article's claim is true, he was still at most the local leader of a small handful of men in one local branch of the whole operation; he was certainly not the commander responsible for the overall planning and execution of anything large-scale; as such, he is very far from satisfying anything in WP:SOLDIER, let alone WP:BLP1E.

Everything else in the article is even weaker: it is said that he was somehow involved in the foundation of an emigré political organization in Germany later in his life, but apparently he has no public function in that organization, and nothing about him can be found on its website.

Everything else, including all of the basic biographic data, political activities etc., is entirely unsourced.

Note that I have stubbed back the article for BLP reasons; the fuller version can be found here [12]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Do not assume that the books and journals are unreliable. Material from 1971 is much less likely to be on line. Based on the references given it is supported by independent reliable sources (AGF that they exist) but we cannot tell if it is substantial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is that the other sources that apparently say the opposite must be presumed to be just as reliable. And given Frankfurt55's evident agenda of self-promotion, and his proven lack of truthfulness (he explicitly lied to me claiming he was not the article subject himself [13], when he had actually signed with his name just a few days earlier [14]), I'm not willing to take his word for what those sources say. Plus, even if those were true, they cover only this one incident, and there is no indication they contain anything like non-trivial in-depth coverage of this individual's biography. The entire rest of the article, including all the basic biographical data, is completely unsourced, which means we have a WP:BLP1E situation at best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, You have mixed up the whole thing and again you are trying to blame me.I told you earlier that I am assuring you that I am not Aminur Rahman,Khosru.I use a PC of Bangladesh club in Germany,the PC is frequently used by other user too. But thats not the point,the fact is that,you are some how trying to blame me for unnecessary reason. You wrote me to-day to go away from Wikipedia.This is a personal attack to me.With respect to you,Wikipedia belongs to Millions of users like you and me.Its not your property,nor you are the boss of this organisation.You have no right to tell me to go away from Wikipedia.Do not do it again. I do not allow people to talk to me in that way because I never misbehave with others.You have no right to say me go away. There are many Admins they never behave like you did with me.I know you can give me block but you deserve no right to tell me go away.Back to the article,If you need my identification,I wrote you earlier why you do not ask me for that.Instead of doing that you are trying to prove me that I am Aminur Rahman,Khosru.Which wont be able to prove ever as I am not that person. Back to your point,you will some how delete the article,an admin who can say me go away,he can do all. Please feel free to do as you want but remembare you can not stop the truth.This shall come out.And also do not revert the articles after the Undeletion of my article by Admin Berlett.He has undeleted my aricle at 6.20 and you have reverted the Operation Jackpot at 6.27 AM .Why you know,you wanted to hide all the sources and references of Aminur Rahman,khosru once for all but that will not be possible.You can not delete all books where the name of commander Aminur Rahman,Khosru are written. The matter has to be discussed through Independent Admins and a fact finding commitee,if they say I am wrong,then I am wrong.But I am sure nothing will happen. But sooner readers and editors willl know about your practise,how you revert other articles soon after you see the your deletion is not authenticated.You can not do it long.I am sure there will be an end of these activities very soon.And please do not try again to tell me go away. Best Regards, --Frankfurt55 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Current state of article shows that subject is not notable, and old version was just a bunch of puffery.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No convincing evidence of the subject's notability has been presented. Ravenswing 07:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Re: "The problem is that we had an earlier claim, apparently sourced to another source of equal validity, which named some other guy as the commander in that operation ([2])." That earlier claim did name someone else as the leader at Mongla, but also said "Submariner Abedur Rahman was in charge of the commando group sent to Narayanganj.". "Abedur Rahman" sounds like an alternative spelling to "Aminur Rahman"? Anyway, even if true, there is not sufficient notability demonstrated for an article about this person. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know anything about Bengali names, but from what I've seen during my various searches here, "Abedur" and "Aminur" are not the same name. All these name components are very frequent though, so it's easy to confuse such references. In any case, Narayanganj is far away from Mongla, so it's evidently a different event. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER as noted by the nom. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and a deeply flawed one; according to its criteria, any general officer is notable, as well as anyone who has commanded an undefined "considerable body of troops" in combat. Are there as few as 10,000 flag officers in the US military, for instance? Ravenswing 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you not think that any general or flag officer is notable then? I certainly do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You think that every general is notable? Every brigadier? Ravenswing 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. As do other editors, hence the essay, which as I'm sure you know is a widely accepted, if unofficial, standard. Not only are they notable for having reached this rank, it also helps to balance many Wikipedia editors' obsession with minor "celebrities", sportspeople and musicians. After all, who is more notable? Someone who has risen to high rank in the forces or someone who has played a single professional game or has had a top 40 single? I know what I would answer, yet the latter two are the ones who are considered to have a "right" to an article here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, & within the field of MILHIST fails WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Block evasion by Frankfurt55 removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)][reply]

You've already !voted.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sánchez[edit]

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

Player has not debuted in a senior team of any kind, it violates WP:NFOOTBALL. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no evidence he has ever played in a professional game, so not notable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He's not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, so this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abenezer Inder[edit]

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

No sourcing that I can find; fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 16:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability. Secret of success (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:22, 17 August 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 over how to apply the relevant guidelines. Der yck C. 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Road Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Naturally a hundred-year-old primary school is likely to have had a notable person or two through it's doors, but this notability is not inherited and I see no reason why the biographies of any of these notable people would focus on their primary school for indepth coverage, as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / merge to Education in Bristol as per current policy of redirecting primary schools to the main education topic in that area, in the absence of any other sources to satisfy WP:GNG by other means (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cary Grant and PAM Dirac — that's quite impressive. Anyway, the topic is notable, of course, being documented in detail multiple sources such as this, this and that. Warden (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Per WP:ORG, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Till I Go Home 05:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable sources and notable school. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The second source only briefly mentions the school in passing ie: not significant coverage. The third is an Ofsted report which is written for every school. That leaves the first, which is a basic news item. Not really enough to establish notability on its own grounds. Saying "it's notable" doesn't necessarily make it so. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's not notable is of course your opinion also. I disagree with your characterization of the sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Ofsted reports satisfy WP:SIGCOV being detailed, independent and reliable. They are written precisely in order to provide a good account of the school as a matter of public interest and so are perfect for our purpose. Warden (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ritchie333. A standard inspection and an article on a directory website do not show significant coverage. Notability is not inherited from pupils.--Charles (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom, I agree that redirect is a useful alternative to deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four highly notable pupils from one little state school. Also Dirac, Polkinghorne and Green are/were all notable Cambridge mathematicians/physicists and it's inspiring to young people that such things are possible. Any bio of Grant, Dirac of Polkingorne (of which there are many) will mention this so plenty of RS. NBeale (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with Education in Bristol. WP:GNG requires significant coverage of the school—the second source is a trivial mention and the third is merely an inspection report. The first appears useful although we need more coverage to meet the notability standards. However no benefit is gained from deleting the article and a redirect seems more appropriate. Till 13:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Bristol has zero sources. We're doing comparatively fine where we are. Warden (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has other stuff exists (or in this case does not) become a valid argument at AfD?--Charles (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plain delete -- We do not do Primary School alumni; only secondary and tertiary. The suggested target Education in Bristol has no section on primary education. If there was a list article on Primary Education in Bristol, we could merge this stub-article there, but as far as I can see there is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But perhaps we ought to when a school produces such remarkable people. Primary education has a big effect on subsequent development. The issue is not "have we done this in other places" but "is this article (sufficiently) against policy" and it seems to me it isn't. (I think I did create it but I have no big stake in the matter. I came across this, as I recall, reading (my friend) John Polkinghorne's autobiography and thought it was sufficiently remarkable to note. I think he mentions the fact - though I can't lay my hand on the book at present. NBeale (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic meets the GNG with sources currently listed. There are additional sources due to its famous pupils, but many will be passing mentions. The Steve 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as WP:OR. Der yck C. 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckle changeup[edit]

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

Unsourced for more than a year, and this pitch is not listed in standard books on pitching. May be a sports neologism. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOURCES Яεñ99 (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I see sources.[15] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that these results constitute a standard use or definition of "knuckle changeup." There is also no indication that these sources support any of what is listed in the article we have. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, like Knuckle slider, I say merge to changeup. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Muboshgu. Sources do exist, but not enough substance to justify separate article, or to differentiate between ordinary changeup pitch. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as knuckle slider, never heard of it in my years of baseball "phanaticking"...sounds like a wiffle ball pitch. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as WP:OR. Der yck C. 17:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckle slider[edit]

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

The knuckle slider is not a pitch referred to in any pitching manual I have read. This article has been unsourced for over four years. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing, link is dead...fails WP:SOURCES Яεñ99 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources available for this article. Appears to be WP:OR. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Not sure where you guys are getting "no reliable sources" from. I don't see alot, but I see enough.[16] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After further review, the sources aren't enough for a standalone article, but do bear mentioning on slider. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Slider. Muboshgu's sources are good enough, but it doesn't need a separate page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge could be appropriate. I'd have to more deeply examine those sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the sources above, none of them discusses a "knuckle slider" in detail. Every source either a player claims that they throw one, or they put the two pitches randomly together while mentioning a list of pitches. Clear cut example of WP:NEO and WP:NOR Secret ^account 04:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Muboshgu. Sources do exist, but not enough substance to justify separate article, or to differentiate between ordinary slider pitch in detail per Secret's comment, but there is more than enough for a one-sentence mention and definition in the slider article as a subvariety of same. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete I'll be darned if I ever heard of a "knuckle slider" in my years of watching baseball games; honestly sounds like a pitch you'd come up with to throw in a game of wiffle ball. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:45, 20 August 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 Apache Incubator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Components[edit]

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

This article have not any reliable source therefore I don't think it was a notable PHP framework. (It is retired now per Apache Zeta Components homepage but no one edited this article to update status of development!) –ebraminio^talk 07:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 15:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apache Incubator: this topic is definitely notable (coverage: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&u=http://www.journaldunet.com/developpeur/php/ez-components-apache-0410.shtml%7C2=The eZ Components PHP infrastructure is revived by Apache (by Le Journal du Net), https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&u=http://www.golem.de/1004/74594.html%7C2=eZ Components become Zeta Components (by Golem.de) and Debunking PHP's bad reputation (by .net magazine) — suggests so), but I don't think that covering now obsolete framework, which never was described in detail, is practical. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Activity 5[edit]

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

Unsourced possible future film. No indication of notability. Previous version had a reference that inferred the existence of the film based on a domain name being registered. noq (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not just a deficiency of sources, there are none! - fails WP:SOURCES. Since it doesn't exist and is not "slated for release" until 2014 (at best or even if at all), it becomes a matter of WP:SPECULATION and is therefore WP:NN. WP:NOTADVERTISING states Wikipedia is not an advertising/promotion house for pending and/or speculative releases. Яεñ99 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources that officially state that there will be a fifth movie and a search brings up mostly theory that there will be a fifth movie but it's all speculation. [17] Will there be one? Probably, as the previous three have done well enough to create a fourth and since they're cheap to churn out, they'll keep going until the movies bomb in theaters ala Blair Witch 2. Speculation isn't enough for an article, so this should be deleted as a hoax article. Besides, the tone of the movie plot isn't even in keeping with the theme of the series and the release date is off from the series' traditional Halloween release, so I'm going to say that this is all a hoax and could be speedied as such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer, the user appears to have added a hoax movie article to Wikipedia in the past, so some action should probably be taken.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(slaps forehead) I forgot about the whole WP:HOAX page and the warning. User has been issued a warning.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close its already deleted or doesn't even exist. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metz Accord[edit]

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

Marginal and non-NPOV conspiracy theory Lectiodifficilior (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm going to need some help on process here, so forgive me if this isn't formatted correctly. The article in question is a conspiracy theory, concocted by a very marginal figure and unsupported by serious, neutral scholarship. The "event" in question does not appear in neutral or academic histories or other reference works on the Catholic church. (Go ahead and look for this in Google Books; you'll get mostly Wikipedia stitch-ups and a few publications from house publications of various ex-Catholic fringe groups.) The author of the theory, as described in the first paragraph, [Malachi Martin], is described by Wikipedia itself as "promot(ing) many unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories involving the Church." While Malachy's contention that recent popes have all been either secret Jews or freemasons, or both, catches the eye more, the notion of a super-secret Vatican-Soviet agreement to silence an ecumenical council is equally absurd. I would cite sources for this, except that no reputable source discusses this non-event. While the author of this entry can cite various works by ex-Catholic conspiracy groups, and some real sources for details nobody doubts (eg., that the Vatican II council invited non-Catholics), it does not cite anything remotely like a trustworthy, neutral reference or history for the existence of the event in question. Incidentally, Martin's theory is spelled out primarily in a novel he wrote!

In short, this is junk. That is has remained on the site for two years is an embarrassment and, frankly, an indictment of how marginal crazies can twist Wikipedia to their ends. If the article is not to be deleted, it must be replaced with an exceedingly short notice that this is a conspiracy theory, believed by a tiny fringe, and with no currency outside that. Even this, however, overplays it. Wikipedia should not allow tiny fringe groups to claim whatever they want and get a page for their efforts.Lectiodifficilior (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the references are in French, but WP:NONENG states they should not be discounted and therefore we may not be seeing the "entire picture" of what the author(s) are saying. Also, the bibliography demonstrates a large number of references, and you have not displayed neutral discourse to the specific validity/invalidity of any of them, but instead refer to the entire process as "junk." When we look at "conspiracy theory", let us not forget (and I include this specifically not to offend anyone, but to demonstrate the misperception of guilt/conspiracy that are often held hand-in-hand) that Pope Benedict XVI was conscriped into the Hitler Youth in his early years, but that in no way supports any prior fidelity or current ideological belief. We all may not like every entry into Wikipedia, but saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and calling it a "conspiracy" does not support the argument to remove the material. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Color me doubtful that the newspaper of the Communist Party of France revealed a secret Vatican-USSR pact. However, if someone can produce the newspaper, I would be glad to read it. That there were discussions about the participation of cardinals behind the iron curtain is clear. You can read about them in standard books on the council, such at John W. O'Malley's What Happened at Vatican II (Harvard UP 2008). That there was a super-secret deal to be silent about communism is a conspiracy theory, and entirely unmentioned in such books. Such a deal would be the biggest news in Catholic diplomacy ever, wouldn't it? It ought to get a full chapter in even secular histories of the Cold War—the Vatican silences an ecumenical council in order to admit a few non-voting observers! Wouldn't that be big news? Well, nonsense. An extraordinary claim about Catholic history requires confirmation—heck mention—in any of the standard histories or reference sources used by Catholic historians. Doesn't it? Use Google Books, Google Scholar or the articles in JSTOR. This topic doesn't exist. Anyway, the notion is absurd. With 2,500 cardinals hashing out the documents largely in the open, and with Vatican II famously going its own way, heedless of what the Vatican offices wanted, it's hard to see how such an agreement would be kept. I'm sorry you think I'm saying "We don't like it" when I ask for reasonable confirmation for such an astounding claim. I find this utterly bizarre. However, it's a piece with the secret pact Wikipedia made with the Soviets. I know nobody else says this about Wikipedia, and it's pretty absurd on its face, but apparently the onus is on you to prove me wrong. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, we are simply debating. I find your arguments and analogs to be very insightful. Please avoid potential attack statements (some folks are easier to offend) such as; Indeed, I think it's evidence you made a pact with the Soviets as it pushes boundries along WP:PERSONAL, and it is important we discuss matters clearly and with a level-head so as not to prematurely sideline discussions. I will gladly review all of your input, and will try to find the mindset that is motivating you so I can gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. These principles of mutual respect are encouraged on Wiki with distinct and concerted civility Яεñ99 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Before you finished your remarks I had changed it to a pact between Wikipedia and the Soviets. This is much more believable, and I have a 1963 French Catholic newspaper that supports the location of Russia on a map. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. Thank you so much for all the information, it will give me quite a lot to read!Яεñ99 (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find the arguments of Lectiodifficilior convincing. The alleged existence of an agreement of the kind described is based on claims made by writers such as Malachi Martin and Jean Madiran whose attitude is illustrated in the Wikipedia articles on them. Nobody has suggested that works in French (or German or ...) be ignored. The bibliography is far from convincing: for all we know, any mention in some of the works of an alleged "Metz Accord" may have been to debunk the idea. Lefebvre's "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" is listed, but the searchable electronic text of it shows that there is in fact no mention in it of the supposed accord; if Lefebvre had heard of the alleged agreement, he would surely have mentioned it in section "12. Comrades and Fellow-Travellers", where he writes: "Catholics observe with amazement that dialogue between the Church hierarchy and Communists is intensifying. Soviet leaders and also a terrorist such as Yasser Arafat are received at the Vatican. The Council set the fashion by refusing to renew the condemnation of Communism" (emphasis added). Some of the other works in the list may also have been chosen simply as works that present a generic Traditionalist Catholic viewpoint. The allegations about a supposed Metz Accord would perhaps merit a short paragraph in Traditionalist Catholic and a sentence in Malachi Martin and Jean Madiran, but not an article on its own, especially one that begins: "The Metz Accord was (!) an agreement of principle ..." Esoglou (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another good commentary! However, I was wondering what specific WP rationales you are using to support this. There's a lot of very good material that can be found fascinating and intriguing, but the locus for conversation is important. In addition, there is support located here Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad within Wikipedia itself that the Metz Accord was indeed valid Яεñ99 (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main WP rationale is the lack of reliable sources for a story that Lefebvre's Open Letter and the absence of reference by reputable historians suggest is baseless. The Wikipedia article on Nikodim is of course not a reliable source. I have no access to the two sources that it cites. Several sources cite the Chiron book in connection with various topics. Googling for the book plus the word "Metz" is non-productive. So there is good reason to doubt that the cited pages 186 and 246 really do state that Nikodim "is recorded as having participated in the negotiations of the Metz Accord, a secretive 1960s agreement between Soviet and Vatican officials that authorized Eastern Orthodox participation in the Second Vatican Council in exchange for a non-condemnation of atheistic communism during the conciliar assemblies", the italicized (by me) part being what would be apposite for the article we are discussing. Esoglou (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is very possible, indeed given the atmosphere of the time likely, that some sort of reassurance was given to observers from the Soviet Union, and other Bloc countries, that the Council or their presence there would not be used as an occasion for anti-~~Catholic~~Communist propaganda. After all, the political stance of the Catholic Church especially in Italy was well known and it would have been difficult for anyone to obtain permission to travel from Bloc countries to the Council unless the state authorities were reasonably satisfied on that point. Exactly the same suspicions and need for reassurance would obtain regarding the attendance of Western representatives at an international conference in the USSR. Hypothetising that such reassurances were given, I can understand that there might be those who argue that the organisation of Vatican II was dominated by liberal elements or even those sympathetic to Communism. But that would not add up to a pact or accord of the sort described in the article, and there would need to be reliable sources showing the existance of a formal agreement with wider application approved at the highest levels of the church. Otherwise it is just a minor detail of Vatican II. --AJHingston (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claims being made are too grand for the sources making them. We would need much stronger sources to prove that this conspiracy occurred. Shii (tock) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite Can't find any reputable source reporting this accord that isn't simply a clone of Wikipedia. Most sources are conspiracy theory cites or tied to the traditionalist Catholic movement. Definitely a fringe theory with little or no historic reliability. If it is kept, it needs to be rewritten as a conspiracy theory or fringe position.74.124.47.11 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 15:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Based on extensive searches of Google Books, it does appear that this is a conspiracy theory. There was only one source I might consider reliable that mentions a secret Vatican–Moscow agreement: Hebblethwaite, Peter (2000-09-13). John XXIII: Pope of the Century. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 215. ISBN 9780826449955.. On the other hand, there were two that discuss such an agreement as a conspiracy theory:
- Cuneo, Michael W. (1999-07-21). The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 139. ISBN 9780801862656.
- Robbins, Thomas (1997-07-11). Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements. Psychology Press. p. 182. ISBN 9780415916493.

—howcheng {chat} 17:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles on Nikodim (Rotov), Eugène Tisserant and Johannes Willebrands each give the same two citations for their alleged participation in the Metz Accord:
1. [_] Chiron, Yves, Paul VI: Le pape écartelé, Perrin, Paris, 1993 ISBN 2-262-00952-X p. 186 and 246. The author fr:Yves Chiron seems to be at least a substantial source, although "close to traditionalist Catholics" may indicate that he is not completely impartial. The ISBN links to a book at Google books & Amazon, but the text is not available online, so we cannot easily verify what Chiron actually wrote about the matter. The placing of the citations in the article may indicate that the book only confirms that the named people met; only Malachi Martin is specifically cited for what they are alleged to have agreed.
2. [_] Interview with Paul-Joseph Schmitt, Archbishop of Metz, in Le Lorrain, 9 March 1963. Le Lorrain of the same date is also cited in this article. According to French Wikipedia, the Catholic daily newspaper fr:Le Lorrain (quotidien) ceased publication in 1945, so this cannot be the source cited. Metz is a diocese so there are bishops of Metz rather than archbishops. These points call into question the credibility of the cited sources.

These citations were all added by user:Stijn Calle, one of the main contributors to this page Metz Accord, in 2010.

The French page on Nikodim, fr:Nicodème (Rotov), includes a quotation (and I translate), "the Kremlin could accept the presence of observers from the Russian Orthodox Church at Vatican II, if the Vatican can ensure that this council is not an anti-Soviet forum." That is cited from Stepanov (Roussak), Svideltelstvo charges certificat. M., 1993, tome 3, page 17. I do not know what that citation refers to, so I have left a note for the French contributor. If anyone else can identify it, please do.

Even if there was just about enough material from reliable sources, I think this article still falls to be deleted as non-notable. Diplomatic sensitivities always apply to condemnations of ideologies or countries; where this page completely falls down is the claimed impact, implying that 20 years of official Catholic silence on communism stemmed largely from this private meeting of bishops. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least recent edits—not by me—took out the implication that Vatican II could have brought down the Soviet Union. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the few sources mentioned by User:Howcheng, I still don't see it receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). First Light (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I look at the article as it now is, and without knowing much of the subject. It seems to refer to a relatively small piece of diplomacy between two of the major Christian Communions. My concern is not about its verifiability, but its notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, hoaxes often make notable claims. Shii (tock) 00:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... but do not necessarily become notable. This has acquired currency only among more extreme traditionalist Catholics. Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of 12 bottles[edit]

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

Non-notable theory lacking coverage in reliable sources (or even in unreliable sources, really). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Certainly WP:NN, and may fall under WP:HOAX as many of the links are dead or land on patent nonsense. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Made up in one day or something. Certainly not either an encyclopedic topic or meeting GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:MADEUP, no reliable sources. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:03, 17 August 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 to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jalil Ahsan Nadvi[edit]

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

After I removed unambiguous copyright violation of [18], there is hardly any content left. Someone else had already tagged it for notability. It now makes no assertion of notability whatsoever. It contains one source, which is a book that no Google search I have tried can link it to the subject in any way. Even if the subject is mentioned in the book, it must be a minuscule reference. The subject is not notable, and the article only serves to promote that non-notable subject. hajat vrc @ 07:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Secret of success (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no information provided supporting any sort of notability, notority, or significant history and is therefore WP:NN Яεñ99 (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete clear failure of WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tv serials of Pakistan[edit]

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

Essentially a subset of viewing statistics for TV series in Pakistan. Seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BenTels (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; pointless trivia. TBran dl ey 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hardly WP:INDISCRIMINATE; has well-defined inclusion criteria and is (at the risk of sounding WP:OTHERSTUFFy) no different than, say, List of ABC programs. WP:CSB. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep Without sounding stuffy also, is there a "List" somewhere this can redirect to or be included in? We send lists of unreleased songs, etc off to have friends and be with company in a "list" sometimes - is there a home for this too? Яεñ99 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This recently-created (created 7 July 2012‎) list article actually has a discriminate and narrowly focused topic criteria. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael White (British politician)[edit]

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

I do not see that this is notable by our standards for politicians. Or do we accept being Leader of one of the London Borough Councils as notability?

This is an accepted afc submission that I would have regarded as having an entirely promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete London has 32 borough councils. I would readily accept the notability of an elected official representing all of London, or even a major subdivision of London. But not an official representing approximately 1/32 of London. In my judgment, this person fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The borough has a population which is comparable in size with a country such as Iceland or a city such as Orlando. We have articles about the political leaders of those places and I see no reason to discriminate against this case. Warden (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fail WP:POLITICIANS. Political leader of a country or a major city is very different to a small part of a city. KTC (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328 and KTC. As far as I know, we usually have deleted city commssioners and borough officers ("although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as ... London." (Empashis added). Bearian (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For similar American examples, we deleted New York City-area local pols Bruce Blakeman and Gail Goode (for whom I !voted "weak delete"). Bearian (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bearian the two examples that you have listed as similar are of candidates that failed elections, and therefore only candidates. This article is about a politician who has held their office for a period of 8 years with a mandate lasting until 2014. Also, with regard to DGG's comment, the article is not of promotional intent, the article includes only the roles that he has held at Havering Council and his stated aims/focuses. The article does not at any point make a judgement on the quality of his actions, but merely states that he made them, therefore I do not believe it to be promotional. Auck11 —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Auck11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

if paragraphs like "In his role as Leader of the Council, Cllr. Michael White leads the decision-making process and directs strategic policy-making and budget setting. Cllr. White works closely with the Council's Corporate Management and Chief Executive to deliver local services for the residents of Havering." are not promotional, nothing is. Totally routine puffery. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not promotional, surely it is to be expected that the elected leader of a council leads the decision-making? Might I point you to the page of Steve Reed, leader of a borough that is only marginally bigger than Havering (by population) with content that comments on his successes. E.g. "Under Reed’s leadership Lambeth moved from a one-star rating in the Audit Commission’s annual inspection in 2006/7 to a three-star rating in 2008/9". I don't see how content such as that can not be deemed promotional while this article is. Auck11 (talk 15:32 9 August 2012 (GMT)

I read otherwise. As any conceivable mayor/chairman/leader/president of any organization political or otherwise will "lead... the decision-making process and direct... strategic policy-making and budget setting.", or at least think they are doing these things, and as not one element of this can usually be actually substantiated or is substantiated in this article, and since success in such a position depends on how effectively they do it, not whether it is done at all, this is meaningless promotional advertisement, amounting to the same thing as saying that he goes daily to his office, On the other hand, that under someone's leadership an organization evolved from a low to a high rating as given by some objective source, is a valid measure of accomplishment. It can always be doubted how much the individual contributed to the result, but chief executives are ordinarily judged by just such a criterion. The two selections thus illustrate nicely the difference between information and empty PR talk. That an ed. here could not see the difference indicates the success of the PR industry in confusing substance with empty wording, not just in their own writing but in our minds. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Most English mayors have no executive power as the role is largely ceremonial. Similarly the chairman of many organisations is not an executive. And the Queen of England's role is not executive. As there is clearly much scope for confusion and misunderstanding, it seems helpful to our readers to have the powers of such officials explained and detailed. Warden (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Looking through Wikipedia I have found articles on the Leader's or Elected Mayor's of the London Boroughs of: Newham, Lewisham, Hackney, Lambeth, Kensington & Chelsea and Tower Hamlets. If these articles fit the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN then out of balance, so should this article. Auck11 (talk • contribs) 00:10 9 August 2012 (GMT)

Indented duplicate !vote by Auck11. KTC (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very marginal -- I think it would be difficult to resist allowing articles on elected mayors, but I am doubtful if leaders of councils (except in great cities) are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. He is merely leader of the council in one of a couple of dozen London boroughs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete England is so littered with Lords, Ladies, Lands, and Titles - is there really a need to add another minor English official to the seemingly limitless listings of other so "invested" figures? Just because there are listings for "X" or "Y" politicians does not mean we need succumb to WP:OTHERCRAP. Once the Queen wields Excalibur over his shoulder, shouldn't we then begin to consider meeting the WP:GNG criteria? Яεñ99 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On balance, I do not think that to be the leader of a council should be regarded in itself as meeting notability guidelines, though we need to treat them on a case for case basis, and the leaders of the largest authorities and those who have some prominence outside their area should go in. To explain things to those not familiar with the UK political system, and especially to the person who commented above, the council leader is the chief political figure of a local authority of in this case 237,000 people and has considerable political power and influence locally. It is not a trivial post, and it is difficult to make comparisons directly with other places even in the UK where the administrative arrangements vary let alone internationally. But from my own observations of a unitary authority of comparable size (LB Havering is not) I would not expect the leader to warrant a place in WP. It follows that I do not think that political leaders of other local authorities should automatically be in either. --AJHingston (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am inclined to say we should keep articles on leaders of county and unitary authority (although not district) councils. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with DGG and others, unless Mr White has any more claim to notability than the normal "Buggins' turn" council leaders. Anyone know his likely term of office, in case that makes a difference? Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be no interest in deletion, but no consensus whether to keep or merge. No prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Beijing[edit]

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

Fixing malformed nomination for benefit of nominator - see rationale below Ego White Tray (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a page for a single logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userboker (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 July 2012‎

Merge: I think it would be reasonable to merge this with 2008 Summer Olympics. Topher385 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - The nominator doesn't actually give any valid rationale for deletion, and the article is sourced. Admittidly, a number of the sources speak of the logo only tangently, but several of them talk about it exclusively. And doing a serach brings up a couple other news articles about the logo that aren't yet being used as sources, talking about such things as a legal dispute that occurred because of it. I would have no opposition to merging the info into the main 2008 Summer Olympics article per Topher385 if others agree, however. Rorshacma (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2008 Summer Olympics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - logo seems notable in its own right there are sources out there in addition to those given (e.g. [19], [20]) to allow a decent article to be put together. Nomination is basically a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - Basement12 (T.C) 02:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not merge - article is well referenced, subject is notable. Merging doesn't make sense as the 2008 Summer Olympics article is already quite long. -Zanhe (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The symbol of the Olympics in Beijing is an overall element of the Olympics held in Beijing in 2008. It should reside with it's contemporary. Яεñ99 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Mangalwadi[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP: GNG, WP: AUTHOR. No external / reliable citations or references. Fail to find any external references. Just being an author of some books is not a criteria to be in wiki. Nominating for deletion. Bharathiya (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG and complete lack of reliable third-party sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is evidence of notability, but not presented properly. Article is being developed with sources. We can watch the progress of article to take furher deciscion for deletionRayabhari (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is not ready to be published here as stipulated above, and is not presented properly, then it should not be here and falls under WP:SPECULATION & WP:NN until it is ready for inclusion. Яεñ99 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info aded The article is slightly developed with sources, for review.Rayabhari (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the improvements and the addition of sources. Secret of success (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors published by Bloomsbury Publishing[edit]

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

Unsourced list, where most of the links are to articles which do not indicate which books are from Bloomsbury. Most of these authors are not exclusive to Bloomsbury. I believe that such lists, even when they are subsections of publisher articles, serve only to promote the publisher, and dont convey useful information. My preference (and my intention for my near future editing) is to list the notable titles published originally by Bloomsbury. This is the only stand alone list of authors by publisher, and all other lists of authors by publisher embedded in the publisher article are also unsourced. most authors are free agents, whose work is published and republished by many different publishers. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep this list - it is a well-known publishing group, and could be useful for people trying to find out the type of authors who were published by Bloomsbury Publishing. If people do not mind me saying this, I would have thought that the list was reasonably encyclpaedic. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. INeverCry 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A wonderful collection of names without any sourcing or referencing outside of Wikipedia. Fails WP:SOURCES and frequently links to other publishers... Яεñ99 (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FourPlus Media[edit]

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

Previous Prod on grounds "No evidence that this company meets the notability criteria." Prod was removed by an IP after adding several references (along with removal of the Notability tag). However the references provided are a combination of official registration, press releases, and references to particular publications in which the company has played a role. These fall short of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH so I'm bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP since the references are to reliable sources.

IFFCO, which has posted the FourPlus Media magazine 'CookeryPlus' is the parent company of FELDA IFFCO which in turn is considered a major player in the global market, having its roots in the Palm Oil Plantation Cooperative Farmers Movement ^[1].
Sanjeev Kapoor who is a contributing writer to CookeryPlus is one of India's best known Chefs and was even invited to the White House recently. He would not associate with a publication unless it held high credibility.
Mid Day which had carried the article announcing CookeryPlus launch in India back in 2003 was then the highest selling tabloid in Mumbai, and has high credibility..

It is not often that one media would carry articles regarding other magazines, since they would be considered competition. It is unlikely that you would find articles on FourPlus Media. Rather, it is advised that the company be judged on the basis of the magazines that they have and the quality of content they carry. Suggest that further research is conducted on the magazines OpticPlus, VisionPlus and CookeryPlus. Tbolar (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What appears to be a "fashion eyewear publication" that somehow also "designed books", but has no notable affiliations, who's company history appears to be nothing but a timeline, and who's primary claim to fame is a Chef who has been to the White House and has a Twitter account. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:NN for the company, and the Twitter mention has no relevance & fails WP:TWITTER for that reference as well. In addition, the author seems unsure of the disposition of elements of the company's contributions; "...but seems to have been discontinued in India since then", resulting in a question of WP:SPECULATION as to it's presence in the market. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As discussed below, the cited sources only establish notability of the people in the show, not the show itself. Der yck C. 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aalim Online[edit]

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

This online show seems to fail WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. There is plenty of advertising out there, plus the episodes itself, but essentially nothing in independent sources that is not in fact about the host or GeoTV. BenTels (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show and its host has been the subject of a lot of controversy over years. This section has 6 references to that controversy. There is also another ref in this article. I'm sure more can be looked up if needed. - The Determinator p t c 13:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yeah. Couple of things about that:
  1. Notability is not inherited. So even if the host of the show is notable for having stirred up or been part of controversies, that doesn't automatically carry over into notability of the show.
  2. The reference for the controversy (the only one currently listed for the article) is not really about the show. It is in fact a statement by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community urging condemnation of persecution of their community and of the host of the show and the way he acted in the controversy. The name of the show is mentioned once to identify the episode in which the host allowed the behavior to occur that they object to. This means that the source is:
    - partisan, therefore not a reliable source; and
    - not a source that demonstrates notability of the show (the host perhaps, but not the show).
  3. There is a reticence on Wikipedia for one-event notability, certainly for people. I'm not aware offhand of any rule that actually forbids it for a webcast, but I personally don't think a show (on the web or on TV or elsewhere) can (or should) in general be considered notable for one particular event that took place on that show. If there were more to say about the show than just that it exists and this controversy happened, I would not have any objections. But right now I don't see it. -- BenTels (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a webcast. It's TV show that has been the subject of a few controversies. The controversies were stirred up on the show. I think that makes it notable. - The Determinator p t c 15:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have sources for more than just one of them? -- BenTels (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has 8 words and 3 names. There was so much controversy, it is worth 8 words? One of the names already exists in Aamir Liaquat Hussain, so merge the 8 words and the other 2 names in there somewhere. The immense size of the article indicates it could not be notable for anything except possibly the shortest article in the Wiki still in Main space -- :- ) Don 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article length is not a valid criteria to delete it. Please go review those policies before comment on any more AFDs. -Thunderite (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The point was not the length. The POINT was how notability because it is controversial can be conveyed by "XXX was a TV show on YYY. It was hosted by ZZZ"? ~~The way it reads now, it can be a Keep.~~ Sheeze. -- :- ) Don 22:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Uhm... Sorry, no, I don't agree. Yes, several more sources have been added to the article. But they are of the same type as the original source, i.e. they are about the host (or about Pakistani televangelists in general) and not about the show. I still don't see notability for the show anywhere. -- BenTels (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - Thanks for that BenTels. Reversing my Keep. Baby and Bathwater, just delete that puppy. -- :- ) Don 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply: I just want to add that these controversies took place ON THE SHOW. It's not like that host went home and stirred up these controversies. All the coverage is about the events that took place on the show. Many sources mention this. If you want I can add about a dozen more saying the same thing. - The Determinator p t c 23:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: They may have taken place on the show or not. The problem is that the article doesn't cite any sources to that effect. More to the point, the article doesn't cite any sources that say anything at all about the show. They have lots to say about the host (and I'll buy his notability, no problem -- but the article isn't about him). You need sources that are actually about the show, not just sources that mention the show in passing (at most, since not all of the current sources even mention the show at all). -- BenTels (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the deletion commentaries above, the text clearly states; "In another episode it was claimed that the color of soles of the shoes that Pakistan cricket team wear had contributed to the their defeat" - this is boldly within the ideology of WP:CRYSTAL, as nothing but a medium would be able to fathom that "example" of notability - so also WP:NN on that accord. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It is not WP:CRYSTAL It is a sourced comment about something that happened in the past and is verifiable Please read the policies before referencing them. The Determinator p t c 21:36, 18 August 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. Will assist with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Real (Kris Kross song)[edit]

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

Song does not have enough coverage to warrant its own article. Although the song has charted at number 84 in the US and 49 on the US Hip Hop charts, thus satisfying "rank[ing] on national or significant music charts", per WP:NSONGS, it also states: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I tried to find some additional information to add to the article, per WP:BEFORE, but came up with nothing. Statυs (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments based only on original draft of nomination.
How so? From WP:NSONGS: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts...are probably notable." postdlf (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment—Please do explain how you mean that it fails the notability criterion. I can see plausible arguments both ways, but !voters shouldn't have to guess at nominator's rationale.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] We call that a WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] So we do. I'll have to put that on my list of things to remember.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I must have been a little out of it when nominating the article... wrote something in there now. Statυs (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] No need, that's what I was supposed to do in the first place. I also didn't include a reasoning in a move request I purposed around the same time... I don't know what was up with me. xD Haha. Statυs (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments based only on original draft of nomination.

How so? From WP:NSONGS: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts...are probably notable." postdlf (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Please do explain how you mean that it fails the notability criterion. I can see plausible arguments both ways, but !voters shouldn't have to guess at nominator's rationale.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We call that a WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we do. I'll have to put that on my list of things to remember.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been a little out of it when nominating the article... wrote something in there now. Statυs (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need, that's what I was supposed to do in the first place. I also didn't include a reasoning in a move request I purposed around the same time... I don't know what was up with me. xD Haha. Statυs (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Even though the song charted, it does not have notability at all thus it should be deleted or merged. — Tomica (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Noting that the song charted at "number 84 in the US and 49 on the US Hip Hop charts" isn't saying much. Technically Billboard considers a "significant chart" to be in the Top 40, with the expanded list up the Top 200 providing coverage for MINOR/insubstantial songs that got limited airplay and/or sales. Since the chart position was not particularly significant or notable overall, would not be called a "hit" in any fashion, and received no awards nor recognition, the song fails WP:NSONG for significance as a stand alone work. Яεñ99 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge to Da Bomb. As said above.Bleubeatle (talk) 12:13, 13 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Shift (book)[edit]

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

Propagandistic collection of essays; to my mind the article is primarily promotional, with bios of the authors which should just have been links to the wp articles on them, over-extensive summaries, and a purely PR style of writing. From the lede sentence on, I consider it too promotional to rewrite, & that I agree on the underlying issues with the authors is irrelvant DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm taking the challenge on of re-writing this and I've deleted a huge chunk of the article because it was such a WP:POINT-y mess that it was just easier to delete the info than to bother trying to re-write it to where it was neutral. I'll agree that the style read as very promotional and propagandistic, especially the review section that seemed to attack anyone with a differing opinion. I also found that not all of the reviews were as glowing as they were initially written, such as the Quill and Quire review which was more neutral than anything. I'll see what I can find and I've reduced the article to a bare bones state, but it's better than what it was previously. Most of the primary sources have been removed, as has the completely unnecessary bios for each contributor to the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My answer for the previous wreck-of-an-article would have been "nuke it to so stub", but now Tokyogirl79 has sort of already done that. I think that the book meets wp:notability, but note that something looks squirrley with two supposedly different references having the same lengthy title. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the full length title of the book, at least the original title. The publishers changed the title when they republished it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a search for sources, I can't find any evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline or WP:NBOOK. I agree with David that the purpose is principally promotional; the article was created and principally edited by the assistant to the book's editor. I commend Tokyogirl79's salvage attempt, but I don't see WP:SIGCOV. The editor is notable; the book is probably not. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the editor responsible for this piece, I have been following the debate carefully. As a new user, I have to admit that I was affronted by the tone of some of the comments made about it, and having spent some time delving into Wikipedia's policy's especially surrounding possible COI and new users, I think I am justified in feeling slightly abused. I refer you to Wikipedia: Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I am a new user, and admit that I started editing without the possibility of COI crossing my mind. I can now see how the article may have seemed promotional, having been created with an attempt at being inclusive rather than exclusive of what I thought was pertinent and interesting detail. I am a research assistant of the editor, but, in studying the policy on editing by those with a possible COI, I understand that this is not prohibited. Such editors must be VERY CAUTIOUS to remain extremely neutral...something I want to practise doing. I admit that my encyclopedic writing style needs work, but that should not keep worthy articles from existing.

As to the worthiness, I must point out that this book does meet the WP:NBOOK criteria: It has been the topic of discussion on TV interviews such as with TVO's Allan Gregg and reviewed in such noted journals as Quill and Quire. More importantly, it is on the required reading lists for courses on the Environment, Economy, Public Policy, Complex Behavior, etc. at many North American Universities: U. of Toronto, U. of Ottawa, U. of British Columbia, Lafayette, and Utah for example. Also, most of the contributors are notable in their own right, being in Wikipedia themselves, and having many other notable publications.

In keeping with the neutral tone, which I hope to master before long, I accept the changes made by Tokyogirl79 and would like to thank her for her help. I hope this clarification helps to lead to a consensus to keep the book entry in Wikipedia, which, I know, is striving to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. Jbghewer (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Design Exchange[edit]

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

This is an interesting article but it appears to be non-notable. Search engine results produced nothing significantly useful including this unreliable blog, this guide-like magazine page and this (although possibly notable, it is a small mention). The other links I found also appeared to be guide-like, unreliable, primary sources or small mentions. I am willing to reconsider if notability is discovered. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Agreed that the DX doesn't make headlines, but I tend to support keeping it because it's a museum located in downtown Toronto and it's located in a historic building. Once in a while it hosts exhibits that do make the news, like the Princess Diana Collection in 2011. The article clearly suffers from poor referencing, but that's a reason to work on it, not delete it. PK T(alk) 12:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be vastly improved and referenced, but this is a heritage building and museum. The building itself is important and the fact that your search turns up few references perhaps relates to its refunctioning from the Toronto Stock Exchange to a design museum. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. 15:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Design Exchange has been around since well before newspaper articles could typically be expected to be permanently retained on the web, so referencing improvements will depend in part on someone taking the time to dig into older newspaper back issues. Our only rule here is that references have to exist; we don't have a preference for web content over print-only content. However, as noted, this is a museum located in a heritage building, which holds the archives of more than one genuinely notable industrial designer, so while it may not necessarily garner a ton of coverage I'm rather confident that it has probably garnered enough. Weak keep, contingent on someone actually doing some digging in Lexis-Nexis or wherever; that said, I am willing to revisit this (and to switch my vote to a delete) if such sourcing improvements don't actually pan out and/or nobody ever actually tries. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:MADEUP and WP:G3 Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asyiengarian language[edit]

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

Unverifiable. Prod was contested by the original page contributor, who had previously removed an ((hoax)) tag with the following edit summary: "This is a unpublished and undisclosed language still in the planning stage and only immediate known by language directors and leading members of ASEAN Summit" The page contributor has evidently done a great deal of work on this article, and I appreciate their dedication and enthusiasm, but verifiability is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and we simply cannot accept unpublished and unverifiable information in the encyclopedia. R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No English-language Google hits outside of Wikipedia, but running a search for the Vietnamese translation pulled up a plausible page on the Vietmamese Wikipedia. So what might look like a hoax at a glance is probably not one. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't propose that it be deleted as a hoax. It is unverifiable by the author's own statement. And a page on the Vietnamese Wikipedia is no more reliable a source than this article unless it contains references to publication in reliable sources. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some RS for its existence is produced. We don't even know if it's supposed to be Asyiengarian or Asiangarian (its name in the now-deleted section at Malay language). If ASEAN had made such a declaration, it would be in the news. And we have fake ISO codes, the claim that it's written in nearly moribund scripts, fake sources, and then some nonsense about this discussion having already been closed as 'keep'.

After claiming the grammar is European-based and completely unlike Malay, the Malay grammar article is then grafted on as a grammar section. There were two sources in that; one was left (a 2009 doc on Malay grammar in Malay), and the other was changed from M.B. Lewis, 1947, Teach Yourself Malay, §178 to B.J. Lanes, 2012, Asiangarian Language in Focus, §238. In other words, an obvious hoax, which I've tagged it as. — kwami (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified. And as likely hoax. --Merbabu (talk) 13:20, 13 August 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 A7. Non admin closure of the AfD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ranger$[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:Notability. LGF1992UK (talk) 00:09, 13 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Juice Station[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it is a stub, the provided reference is properly sourced and provides solid coverage about the company. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sentence "It is currently in the process of rolling out 100 units" says enough. Secret of success (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is clearly advertising for an idea that is not unique (there are similar named businesses elsewhere) and appears to have failed. They might have targeted 100 but the blog here has had no updates since 2009 and has few followers. They have no website. There is nothing remotely distinctive or notable about this failed business. It's just someone selling smoothies from a van. If this is notable so is every mobile burger van. Delete. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with unanimous keep !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Thomas Performing Arts Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably notable, since the article includes references, including one from The Hindu, a national newspaper in India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some additional references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic is notable per WP:GNG. For starters see: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my deletion nomination. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FaceVsion[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is a defunct, non-entity as a company noteworthy? The word "was" proliferates around the supposition of it's status. The article now linked dates from 2011 & has no text in it. Concur with WP:NN. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being defunct is not grounds for deletion. Once notable, always notable. Note that Wikipedia has an article about the Roman Empire. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable. See WP:GNG.

Trendall, Sam (26 April 2011). "FaceVsion revs up for SMB drive with VIP signing". CRN. Retrieved 12 August 2012.
Ngo, Dong (January 8, 2010). "FaceVsion announces first Skype-certified HD Webcam". CNET. Retrieved August 13, 2012.
Worth, Dan (July 12, 2010). "FaceVsion targets SMEs with HD webcam". v3.co.uk. Retrieved August 13, 2012.
Ndaba, Dennis (October 1, 2010). "Taiwan-developed high definition videoconferencing launched on local market". Engineering News Magazine. Retrieved August 13, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary, and the WP:JNN nomination is straight out of WP:ATA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 16 August 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.