< 28 August	30 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. Wily D 08:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cube (nightclub)[edit]

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

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how this passes WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason you can't figure it out, Sarah, is because it doesn't pass. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft first. I think this could be a good article if some notability can be established, but right now, it doesn't pass GNG guidelines. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nina-Gai Till[edit]

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

The article's creator, a SPA, has had a week to work on this and has not managed to add anything that substantiates notability. The novel is self-published and attracts no notability; any notability rests entirely on the publication of a single short story in a volume from a small press that has apparently garnered no attention from any reliable sources (either the story or the volume). Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Vanity page. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person doesn't come close to meeting WP:AUTHOR. Not by a country mile. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage about the author in reliable sources, nor for the novel either. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. This is an excellent example of a person who utterly fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO in every possible way. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Most editors for keeping, appealling to a guideline carries more weight than appealing to an essay Wily D 08:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 1[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Plane was not written off, no serious injuries according to the accident report. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William 23:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources to meet WP:N. This was the most significant accident for a national airline famous for its safety record (now 2nd to QF32). At worst, merge to QANTAS#Airline_incidents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the excellent advice at WP:AIRCRASH. This was a minor incident. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large aircraft with 410 people on board. Highly notable per WP:GNG. If the absence of fatalities renders this non-notable then US Airways Flight 1549 is also non-notable. Dolphin (t) 06:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of fatalities is not the only concern. There is also the fact that the aircraft was not written off - which you seem to have ignored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - VH-OJH was not written off, but it could have been, so extensive was the damage. However, that would have done serious damage to Qantas's reputation so it was a case of get it flying again regardless of the cost. WP:AIRCRASH does not mandate hull loss - for airline articles it says hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. OJH was out of action for a long time (7 months?) and the repair is rumoured to have cost $100m. Those things in themselves make the accident extra noteworthy. I will try to find a reliable source for the duration and cost of the repairs. Dolphin (t) 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Read what you wrote, would have, could have, rumored. Conjecture and alternate happenings that didn't occur. A 727 could have crashed[1] a mile from my home in 1996, but it didn't happen. And its not notable for a standalone article....William 14:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - An ex-employee told me that the final repair cost exceeded the value of the plane. It is notable due to the significant direct coverage it received. Try searching for "qantas bankok accident". The page view statistics are reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. What the ex-employee said is known as WP:OR. As for the page view statistics, WP:POPULARPAGE applies....William 15:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Not OR, but unverified. This article, http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/1/how-qantas-became-the-safest-airline, contains the reference to $100 million to repair the aircraft, and being a 2011 article, it demonstrates ongoing interest in the incident. If you don't like page view statistics, then we can stick with WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable for a stand alone article, nobody killed, aircraft returned to service just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "bad day at the office" usually doesn't involve a 747 with 410 people on board careening off a runway. Even by airline pilot standards, a "bad day at the office" would be an ATC-ordered holding pattern causing a half-hour landing delay. --Oakshade (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the above, this actual "Bad Day at the Office" recording has been very popular on the pilot forums. --Oakshade (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG with very significant coverage. It was written about years afterward, as late as 2010.[2] [3] WP:AIRCRASH is simply an essay. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Qantasplanes (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the airframe was a constructive total loss. At the time, this was Qantas' most significant incident involving a jet-engined aircraft, and it is currently the second most significant incident. Whilst a large number of fatalities equals notability, a lack of them does not necessarily mean a lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is this incident any different than this one[4] that ended up getting deleted[5]. Plane overshoots runway, no fatalities and no serious injuries, but the aircraft was written off. You voted for delete too....William 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I !voted for the information to be retained elsewhere within Wikipedia. That airframe was not a constructive loss, this one was. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to note VH-OJH is still flying for Qantas it flew yesterday on the QFA64 from Johannesburg to Sydney. MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though it might only be considered a minor incident to aviation buffs, it clearly passes the WP:GNG due to reams of third-party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep major incident; passes GNG. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the article is also under rename discussion, see Talk:Qantas Flight 1 -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident has attracted significant, and sustained, coverage in the Australian media. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reminder that WP:AIRCRASH is an essay offering advice, not policy. The incident passes WP:GNG and extensively covered in a ton of reliable sources. It's coverage (and hence notability) is derived not just from the amount of damage received, but also because of the infrequency of such incidents with this particular airline. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wily D 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atos Medical[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined, because of this company's international sales network. The article makes no claims to notability and is sourced to the company's website. Tagged for sourcing issued since 2010. I can't find much online apart from a Businessweek listing and a press release by Nordic Capital, who aquired Atos Medical in 2005. Note that the vast majority of Google hits relate to the French company Atos and their division Atos Healthcare. Obviously if someone can find non-English sources and improve the article, I'll withdraw the AfD. Currently shows little sign of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH, I'm also dubious of the article creators motives - might be me failing WP:AGF but I am always concerned when a users first edit is the creation of an article that reads like a WP:ADVERT. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merger is possible with a local consensus, but one doesn't appear to exist here (nor against it) - and with two noted targets, I won't impose it by fiat from here Wily D 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of Alaska[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Legal status of Alaska (2nd nomination)

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

Entire article gives undue emphasis to an extremely fringe theory. Anything useful here could go under Alaskan Independence Party and/or Joe Vogler. Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and then possibly merge to Alaskan Independence Party and/or Joe Vogler (which could be decided through discussion on article talk pages). If the article is deleted, then a merge, as suggested in the nomination for deletion, wouldn't be easy to accomplish. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is currently the subject of a merge discussion with Alaskan Independence Party. Based on the listed references (some of which aren't online) it might just about be notable as a fringe theory, but a merge is also certainly a possibility, and therefore I would recommend concluding the merge discussion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Alaskan Independence Party per this discussion, and rationale of the nominator.--JayJasper (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the article is "currently" the subject of a merge discussion as I opened that discussion over a year ago and it hasn't been edited in some time. I think Radiokaos made some very good points in his remarks there about how it may be possible to alter the aricle into something more comprehensive, but unless and until that happens I still support a merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite/restructure - First of all, I fail to see how this is a second nomination. The first reads like something which would have otherwise been deleted as vandalism. Constructing a POV fork (whether intentional or not) can attract the wrong attention to an article. There's no reason to continue, Don Quixote-like, in that same direction, however. The frequent infantile vandalism to North Pole, Alaska ended once I rewrote the article to actually refer to and offer any information on North Pole, Alaska, rather than previous versions which served as little more than a coatrack article for Santa Claus. The Russian occupation, American settlers' moves for self-determination from the Alaska Purchase through to statehood, and Native self-determination and land claims would all fall under this topic. ANCSA didn't end the latter, as proven by the Venetie case (Venetie didn't participate in ANCSA). I developed the impression that this article came about due to its perceived need "as part of a series about YYY in the United States". What we have is some random material copied from the easiest sources possible (in this case, another Wikipedia article) in lieu of a perhaps more properly constructed article.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom's reasoning. We don't need dedicated articles for fringe theories. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational and encyclopedic. Good value for the project for historical perspective and educating potential students about this particular facet of the regional history of the locality and surrounding impacted zones. — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd favor keeping this as a standalone article if it is rewritten and restructured as RadioKAOS suggests. Failing such a rewrite, merging is still the best course of action, per rationale of the nom. & others opposing keeping as a standalone article in its current state.--JayJasper (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. If this place does exist, which seems doubtful, the article requires the WP:TNT. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville, Wyoming[edit]

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

This place apparently does not exist. No references could be found, and the author's history of edits on this article does not show evidence of good faith. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to listing comment: This page was previously nominated for proposed deletion and later for speedy deletion. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence given by author of article that Jacksonville, Wyoming exists. Z554 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probable delete Can't find it on Google Maps or census.gov and web search doesn't give any indication it exists (just a lot of computer-generated directories etc.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence for a Jacksonville Wyoming. The information in the article is so sparse as to provide absolutely no clue as to where in the state this might be so as a sub-stub, even if this placed did exist, would provide no value to a reader. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. If it exists, it's only a locally known name. No trace of this settlement found, not even in GNIS. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It needs to at least be real for WP to have an article about it. So far can't find any evidence it exists.--Oakshade (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GBooks has one listing (repeated in several different books) of a 1907 bird sighting on "Mt. Lida, Jacksonville, Wyoming".[6] Also a mention in a 1936 religious book of a letter from "Jacksonville, Wyoming".[7] But I can find no verification of where this place might be, nor any information about "Mount Lida", wherever that may be. It's possible that the "Jacksonville" in these mentions refers to Jackson, Wyoming or some other place within Jackson Hole, but that's just a guess. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that in one of the author's edits, he wrote that Jacksonville was "smack dab" in the middle of Wyoming. Jackson is in far western Wyoming. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:HOAX ...William 23:29, 31 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} 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Elissee[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps an article for his label exists in the future, but, I don't see an article for the designer specifically needed at this time. the majority of the sources are primary and I haven't found any decent English media coverage. SarahStierch (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any independent, reliable, secondary sources discussing this fashion designer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Frankly, reading the article, at first it appeared that the subject might be notable, but in the absence of secondary sources I can not argue to keep the article. Also, the articles appear to be promotional.--Oceangreenn (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fully agree with User:Oceangreenn (above). I was tempted nominate this as self-promotion piece myself, but hesitated in hopes that some non-English WP:RS would eventually come forward to properly establish notability of this individual. -- WikHead (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Steel[edit]

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

Another biography that appears to have been created because the subject is a critic of Sai Baba. The article is completely devoid of WP:Third party sources. Given how lengthy the page is, I suspect that all that can be said about the subject has been included already. Alas, that doesn't seem to put him over the bar of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is no social relevance to this critic... delete J929 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his opinions get a bit of coverage in Tulasi's book (about 3-4 quotes and/or paraphrases), but there isn't much said about him personally. He is just introduced as a "former devotee" (and peculiarly this wasn't even mentioned in his Wikipedia bio, just like it wasn't mentioned in the bio of Priddy.) In the introduction, Tulasi thanks him (and Barry Pittard) for agreeing to an extensive email interview, which probably explains why he is quoted more often than others. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This author is not noteworthy. In fact all of the references in the article are from his own personal website and blog, which themselves look quite amateur and do not qualify as a recognized third party reference.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Marks, Sr.[edit]

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

non notable individual whose only "claim to fame" is the tangential involvement in one event, a crime. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Google News search shows that the guilty plea was covered by several different major newspapers in the United States, including the New York Times, the Charlotte Observer, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and the Miami Herald. This article, while brief, confirms his corporate posts and role as director of a bank. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

brief is a bit of an understatement for the non crime coverage. the content is merely a press release about filling a corporate role in a small business and is certainly not anything that shows significance or anything approaching notability outside of the crime. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 24 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, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject's only notability is a single crime plea, which falls squarely into WP:BLP1E. - Sudo Ghost 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. All the news are copy-paste the same text. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kennebunkport Breakwater Light[edit]

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

Not notable. The light at the end of the breakwater in Kennebunkport is unnamed in the current light list, and none of the usual sources for New England lighthouses (LHF, D'Entremont, USCG historical) mentions it or any predecessor. The only trace of any notability is a Lighthouse Digest catalog listing for a very old light which Rowlett references and which has little more than some statistics. As a rule we haven't considered this sufficient for an article, and the modern light is definitely not notable. If the article is kept it should be moved back to Kennebunk Pier Light and the current name deleted, as there's no evidence it has ever been called that. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable navigational aid. De728631 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. 19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 23 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☽ 20:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the US Coast Guard Light List (p. 108) indicates this is just a navigational beacon - a notch above a buoy. This article was first written in 2009 and there does not appear to be anything of significance about this light (such as a role in some accident) to merit a stand alone article. Mariepr (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kennebunkport Breakwater Light, and redirect Kennebunk Pier Light to List of lighthouses in Maine, where information on it (but by no means whatsoever the current "light", which is a marker of which there are over nine thousand in the US, on every navigable waterway, all alike) should be added. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, this appears to be the light in question...! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under CSD A7. Anbu121 (talk me) 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham_Sumbria[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shubham Sumbria

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

Possibly not notable, article with a conflict of interest Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Sources are about someone else. Hoax/Vanity article. noq (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 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) 19:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DWHS.net[edit]

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

The only sources are a weak alexa rating and a single yelp review. I looked and couldn't find additional sources - this article does not meet the general notablity guideline or the guidelines for companies, so it should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete: the article reads as an advertisement and I see no sources I could use to rewrite it from neutral point of view. The rationales behind WP:B2B, WP:MILL and my WP:NBIZ essays also apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The few sources provided in the article, and the ones that I'm finding by seraching elsewhere, pretty much consist solely of press releases or user review sites, neither of which are usable as valid sources to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Hutsol[edit]

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

Since March 2012 this page is a 100% Content forking of FEMEN plus Hutsol has no Notability without FEMEN; this page should be a Redirect to FEMEN — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable activist as can be supported by publications ([8], [9] and others) and Google search (Please check Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, she appears in "news" 100+ times, as well as in "Scholar" and "Books"). A person can be notable for leading an organization. However, an organization and a person are different subjects, each may deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the founder of a movement for women’s right the subject has received media attention and therefore deserves an article of her own on Wikipedia.--Oceangreenn (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable activist and founder of a movement for women's rights. It also has received media attention. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Anna Hutsol is related to FEMEN, that alone is not sufficient reason to delete an article on a notable feminist. The content forking guideline specifically makes room for related articles and spin offs (WP:RELART, WP:SPINOFF). There is ample coverage of Hutsol in reliable secondary sources for a standalone article. In addition to the English sources already mentioned (which demonstrate breadth and international coverage), there are also oodles of foreign language sources available through searches for Ганна Гуцол and Анна Гуцол. Her name is also transliterated Anna Gutsol. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 07:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Despite the verbosity of some participants, this AfD basically seems to boil down to two positions: one claiming the subject is notable due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the other claiming she is not notable by virtue of her awards and achievments being fairly minor. Leaving aside the question of whether being a young web designer is a notable achievement, the fact remains that the Keep arguments are grounded in established policy, whilst the Delete ones are not. If the policy is flawed, that's a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability, not here. AfD closures are decided on existing policy, and the existing policy, as explained by the commentators below, calls for the article to be kept. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sreelakshmi Suresh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Please refer the Talk page of this article - under the 'Disputed Again' sub heading.

Please let me know if you prefer it to be continued in this page instead.

--LVerina (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would like to point out that this nomination process happens every 4-6 months with the same net result. This being the 4th nomination. I also have questions about this nominator creating a single purpose account but who clearly possess in-depth knowledge about this article and the AfD process. With out making a direct accusation through a check user process, the time spent analysis this article seems consistent with previous AfD nominators. Mkdw ^talk 07:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Mkdw - Honestly I was expecting your 'Keep' vote and the comment. So no surprise on that! Anyway, coming back to the topic. Regarding my identity. Yes, I did fairly good research - that includes all previous AfD process discussions as well - and I have my findings and facts well explained in the sub section of the article discussion page. Does my identity matters more on Wikipedia or the quality of articles and the points I made? I know your contributions to Wikipedia and I know how long you are in Wikipedia. Anyone goes to your talk page and contribution list can find out it. Giving all respect to that, I politely disagree with many of your comments, yes, that includes those in the previous AfD process discussions as well.

I have a few questions for you. Yes, this is not an interrogation, you are not obliged to answer any of these, you can very well ignore everything and go ahead with not just the 'keep' vote but also to end this AfD process discussion and to retain the article as it is. But I am here to prove why the article does not deserve a place in Wikipedia. I am ready to go to any extend to prove that. I am almost sure in which direction this discussion goes, but I am not going to give up. As I mentioned above and also in the article discussion page, I did quite a good research in this matter, and I am not someone who agree on the 'Keep' vote just because the article is here in the Wikipedia for years. An article remains here for years, remains even after 3 AfD process discussions does not prove that it deserve a place in the Wikipedia. I very politely request you, and to all those who prefer to retain the article, to go through the points I posted first before making your comments and votes. You can read them here (link to article discussion page).

My questions

Did you find any point I mentioned as wrong or baseless or not related to the article?
The entire story is very well explained there, starting from Microsoft FrontPage, then the so called 'International Awards' which are merely the 'web badges' which anyone can acquire in a matter of seconds, without even making payment, then every single newspaper article, video interviews and finally few actual awards and then the Wikipedia entry. It is not a fabricated story, you need not believe anything as it is. I provided links, sources and google is there to check each and every single point I made in the page.
Now, forgetting everything, and just blindly believing the claims by the people behind this girl, still the article deserve a Wikipedia entry? At present the article goes like this - "one of the youngest award winning web designers in the world". As I mentioned before, millions of software companies out there make millions of software tools and all youngsters who use it for the first time, they all can get these web badges which was referred by the media as 'International awards'. Do they all deserve a page in Wikipedia? You will still support the point of argument then?
I still do not understand on what basis you support the article. Every time (referring the previous AfD process discussions) you suggest the people who found the article has no value to edit the article! That is quite surprising, especially from a person who is a veteran in Wikipedia and has vast knowledge on the Wikipedia ethics and aim. Just because someone wanted to promote a girl with just the normal skills created a Wikipedia entry and just because it was kept for years as the majority were not interested to check the facts, we have to keep the Wikipedia entry? Sorry I failed to find the logic here.

It was discussed many times, but to repeat -

Microsoft Frontpage is one of the most easiest tool for making web pages, even for kids and a youngster make few pages using it does not make them 'Exceptional'. If anybody out there do not know much about 'Microsoft Frontpage', please google for the basics. It does not even involve the actual HTML coding which is done for creating a web page. It is a WYSIWYG editor!
Everything started with the '30 International awards' received by this girl which are merely 'web badges' that anyone can acquire in a matter of seconds, sitting at home. Nobody is going to verify anything, nobody is going to deny your claim for such a badge, and almost all those who apply get one! The media made it sounds like 'U S Award', 'U K Award' and so on. anybody has any question on this, let me know, I am here to give the links, details and explanation on every single 'International award' listed.
Almost all the news articles, video interviews and unfortunately even the Wikipedia mention something called - 'American Association of Webmasters'. As mentioned by another Wikipedia user in the deletion discussion, it is nothing but an award dispensing agency. Only difference is, we need to pay online to get the award. And it is not difficult at all. From their own link - http://www.aawebmasters.com/statistics.htm - total awards given during the period of 2002 to 2009 = 27732, total number of applicants during this period was 43081. That is, 65% of the people who applied for the 'award' received it! (copied from my own comment in the article discussion page)
The so called awards and the media reports lead to one of the actual awards and it is not at all difficult to convince the authorities especially in the field of Information Technology in India. Only the new generation know about it. The present generation think Information Technology and related matters as something very complicated and there are people who think making web pages is pretty tough and kids making it shows they have 'exceptional' skills! Sad.
Majority of the people who participated in the previous AfD process discussions did not try to check the facts. The 'Awards', 'Exceptional Skills of a young girl' etc were quite misleading and can't blame them completely. But it is quite shocking to see such an article still remain in Wikipedia. I believe it is our duty to correct the mistake and to make Wikipedia a place of quality pages and not a place for quantity.

--LVerina (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Happy to address your questions. Unfortunately short on time and will need to come back to this discussion. I think you underplay some of her achievements. Winning the National Children Award for Exceptional Achievement in 2008 is no small achievement and awarded directly by the Government of India. It is on par with North America's Top 20 Under 20 Award. Some of her other awards are more than simply 'badges' and she attended a session of congress to talk about some of her achievements. What I really feel this discussion centres around are articles about individuals that slightly meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but compared to most encyclopedia's would not be a means of inclusion. While this may be seen as a disadvantage by some, I feel it is one of Wikipedia's strongest feats. The article Twitter is my favourite example. Before the website became the giant it is today, we had a small stub article on a promising upstart that gained a little bit of media attention. Now this encyclopaedia has the most comprehensive encyclopaedic article on the subject matter that has branched off into sub-articles. The risk of allowing a small stub article in pales in comparison to the massive database obtained on ground-breaking subjects. I am not saying this article will flourish into a Twitter like article, but it meets enough of the guidelines to be included and to allow others to be included that will have the same potential. Mkdw ^talk 22:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mkdw. I am slightly optimistic now and happy the discussion is turning into healthy and productive now. And thanks for not taking anything personal as I was bit sharp on my points. I agree with you regarding the rules of Wikipedia. That is the biggest advantage and also the biggest disadvantage of Wikipedia. Though the 'democracy' is a great thing, if people use it carelessly, we will see less quality material in Wikipedia. Same goes when an admin act only as per the rules and not checking the facts.

Coming back to the article. My intention is not to defame any or to underplay any achievements or awards. As you can see I didn't touch the article page, I didn't make any changes, I am leaving it to others. Let the people decide based on the debate. Now, let me answer the questions raised so far.

The international awards. And your comment - "Some of her other awards are more than simply 'badges'". Please refer the link, which is an archived page of the girl's website. http://web.archive.org/web/20090225030711/http://www.sreekutty.com/awards.htm The page list all the so called 'International Awards' and some other awards. A total of 28 awards. The first 22 are the 'International Awards' with the country name in brackets. These acted as the stepping stone to other awards and also to get noticed in the media. You need not believe anything I write about these 22 awards, but please do a google search and you can see all these 22 awards ARE nothing but web badges. And 21 out of them do not even need a payment! You will get all these 21 'International Awards' just by clicking the mouse and submitting the site name. There is no verification, no validation, nothing! And above all, these awards has nothing to do with the nations or official bodies whose names are listed along with the awards! These are awards given by few award dispensing websites.

If you are still not convinced, here is an example: From the above link (the girl's site) - as an example - Webmasters Ink Web Award (USA) . Those who want it in 60 seconds or even less, try this - http://www.webmastersink.com/awards/enter.html Type in some junk values, site URL need not even exist. On next page, you can see confirmation that details has been sent, and same page, you will get a link to the 'award' that you just received. Yes, it is that simple.

Now what happened to the long list of awards in her present web page? That is http://www.sreekutty.com/awards.htm They just got disappeared once people started questioning about the credibility and level of difficulty. The list got shortened now!

Now, coming back on the 'Actual Awards', that is last 6 in the site. Please google for the 5 awards except the "National Children Award for Exceptional Achievement". You will see how reliable or credible they are. They are not by any Goverment and not even any official body. And finally the "National Children Award for Exceptional Achievement". You just can't compare it with any other award including "North America's Top 20 Under 20 Award". I know it better because I know how the system works in India. When it comes to 'Information Technology', the present generation (not the youngsters, but those who are in various positions) does not have a clue about it. Huge majority of the members of Indian parliament, ministers and major politicians are illiterate in the field of Information Technology! Only a few and newly elected members know the basics. I know this remark may lead to some argument, but I stick on it, this is a fact. These people who decide on the 'Exceptional Achievement' are the people who do not even know how to check their emails regularly or do not know how the Indian Government websites work. It is pretty easy to convince these people with the help of this long list of 'International Awards' and the large list of different kind of media quoting it. If the justification to include the girl in Wikipedia is solely this award, then I fear the Wikipedia ethics fails here.

Above all, the main thing comes to the point whether the girl has any 'Exceptional Skills'. Do we have any valid proof which certify any of her 'Exceptional Skills'? And do you really think getting an output from 'Microsoft Frontpage' at a younger age is something very difficult or near to impossible? What does the 'Exceptional Skill' stands for? I fail to understand that core part of the story.

Another point - If we agree on the skills of the girl at a young age, that is designing a website at young age, considering her potential and skills, where do she supposed to be by now? Yes, she is the owner of a software firm now - and no details about the firm and about the role she manages in the firm is known to any! Second one is her being the CEO and director of a company! Becoming a young CEO need any 'exceptional skills'? It is just a designation, that also in a company of her own. Anybody can form a company, nothing prevents people from doing so and they can designate themselves as anything too. That is pretty basic.

In your comment, you mentioned Twitter. I just can't understand how can you compare both? Twitter was an innovation or a new technology. It was a new concept. Yes, it took some time to gain momentum as people were not much into micro-blogging before, and people were not aware of the endless possibilities associated with it. When they became aware of it, Twitter became a hit automatically. Going on the same logic, this girl built few web pages using Microsoft Frontpage years back and where do she stands now? Every recognition she still receive is based on the 'Youngest Web-designer of the World' title! Which is not verified by any. You can see this even in the recent news articles. The media still carry the list of those 22 awards! Sources behind this girl mentioned, she created two major websites and projected those two as her achievements or result of her 'Exceptional Skills' / hard work. The sites are - http://www.tinylogo.com and http://www.stateofkerala.in The first one was mentioned as a 'logo based search engine'. Please go through it and you can see, it is not a logo based search engine, it is just a very basic text search script! Please let me know if you need additional technical info on this. When this was questioned, the girl (honestly I guess) answered that only page design/layout was done by her. And the second site is supposed to be a big portal about one of the states in India - Kerala. Please also go through it and you can see the two major sections of the site - one, the news which comes from various sites rss feeds and second, lot of articles about Kerala which is just copy pasted from Wikipedia. Copying from Wikipedia is ok I know, but no credits were given anywhere and above that, the site has copyright policies! I find that is pretty funny. And vast majority of the images in the sites are copied from other sites. You can try a google image search or similar image search to find that. So there is nothing new in that site and no technologies implemented as well. Same in this case too, I mean her role in these two sites are not mentioned anywhere.

Don't you think all these evidence prove that the girl is just a normal one with skills of her age and nothing exceptional, and someone is behind this, to promote her? Or you still think the girl is some noteworthy person and she deserve a Wikipedia page? Please comment on. --LVerina (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we on this particular article? Was expecting a reply/comments from Mkdw and other members out there. --LVerina (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not add this discussion to the AfD list. You only created the nomination page hence why no one saw this. Please refer to WP:AFDHOWTO. I have relisted this discussion. Hopefully other editors will now comment and be able to progress the discussion. Mkdw ^talk 18:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. Examples include: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If she were only covered during that initial spurt, then it might be argued as being just news coverage. However, the coverage has continued with the Hindu in 2008 and 2009. This ongoing coverage is also not restricted to The Hindu as shown by this AsiaOne article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lot of commercial links claiming through self published source, have cleaned up article removing all commercial and self published links from their own website and blogs like wordpress ,although tried to write to being a NPOV it rather seems their is not much of information to write an article about other than winning national award and a news paper article mentioning that , I would wish for the creator to wait for a while and create the page once their is suffecient exposure Shrikanthv (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Mkdw - Thanks for re-listing the discussion - Though I expected some comments/reply to the points I listed above. No problem as I guess you are busy.

To Northamerica1000 - Well, yes, she is notable if we go exactly as per the wikipedia basic criteria. But I believe when we consider factors other than the WP basic criteria or few newspaper links, ethics and facts comes above it. I will leave it to others anyway.

Now, the links you quoted - The main content is all same. Creating web pages (they cleverly omitted the part - Microsoft Frontpage!) for her school and all the so called 'International Awards' which are just web badges. Only actual award she received was the 'National Children Award for Exceptional Achievement in 2008', but I very well explained what lead to it in my previous long post. The 4th link you quoted is exactly same as the third link, the content is copied word by word (excellent example for plagiarism) and the title itself is misleading. "US honor for webmaster girl" United states never honored the person in question. I tried my level best to explain what a web badge is and why it is not an International Award but please let me know if you want me to give more details on it.

To Whpq - I guess you didn't read the points and details I posted above, anyway, to make it short, the story is like this. The girl created few web pages using a WYSIWYG web page editor called Microsoft Frontpage (please note, it is not even HTML coding, which is the simplest and easiest way of creating web pages). The girl/her parents/people who wanted to promote her received many web badges (online web badges which are no way related to any national or international awards, which anyone can acquire by typing few fields, sitting at home, without even making a payment in almost all cases), and using those web badges, mislead the mainstream media who were not aware of how easy getting these web badges. With all the media reports, they projected the girl as someone with 'exceptional skills' and the lobbying lead to one actual award called - National Children Award for Exceptional Achievement in 2008. This is not an ethical way of promoting someone, and I believe Wikipedia should never encourage something like this as it is a bad practice. I am not against the girl in question or the people behind her, but the way they chose was not good ethically.

Also, since you quoted the years, please check where she was and where she stands now. From the still-un-verified-claim of the 'Youngest web designer of the world', she didn't achieve anything notable. That makes it more suspicious.

To Shrikanthv - The article looks better now, but I still see many problems in that. 'The Association of American Webmasters' mentioned in the first paragraph is not any official body and their physical presence is only based on a post box number! No additional info on their existence is available. They are just another award distributing web site and they gave away 27732 when total number of applicants were 43081! That is, more than 65% of the applicants received the web badge - and they still call it an 'Award'! Sad. The same web badge or award is mentioned in second paragraph again, that is under 'Early life'.

Under 'Awards', 'National Children Award for Exceptional Achievement' is mentioned two times.

The most misleading and false line in the third paragraph is - "She has also received more than 30 other national and international awards". She NEVER received any national or international award other than a single actual award, that is 'National Children Award for Exceptional Achievement'. All she received was few web badges and nothing 'National' or 'International'. --LVerina (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did read the overly long material and it is largely irrelevant to issue of how notability is defined for Wikipedia. Whether she is talented or not is not really something that matters, nor is for us to judge. We gauge notability through coverage in reliable sources which exist, and that coverage has been sustained over some years. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. As I mentioned before, this is one of the weak point of Wikipedia. Anyone with few newspaper links can get a Wikipedia page as per the WP notability. From the previous deletion discussions, I knew that veterans will go only as per the WP basic criteria and not based on facts and other factors.

Anyway, I see one good move because of this discussion. The original article is well edited now. Still having problems, but better than what it was. Now, the whole article shortens to three things. The girl creating few web pages at young age, 'Association of American Webmasters' giving her online web badge or award, and the girl receiving the only actual award - National Children Award for Exceptional Achievement. I am sure that once people understand the importance and relevance of the 'Association of American Webmasters' which is just an award giving website and not having any physical existence (please google for it, and you can see how important or valuable the 'awards' given by them. All you get will be links of the web badges given by them and nothing more than that.), the reference to it will get removed, and only two points will remain. The web page creation and the actual award. The connecting links between these two will be the un-ethical moves by people behind the girl. Again, this may sound irrelevant now, or may no sound related to the notability of the person in question, but I am very optimistic that Wikipedia users will realize this in future. --LVerina (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If you believe the inclusion criteria are too lax, then that is a policy issue and would need tobe changde. You can propose a change at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but until the guidelines are changed, I feel the inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that notability is claimed on two grounds: being the youngest member of the american association of webmasters, and the national children award. The first is not really notable since anyone can join the american association of webmasters. The second is a rather weak claim - awards given to children are not really notable when they are given in large numbers (and, the criteria outlined here are really weak). I should also point out that at least one of the Hindu articles is from their Young India section which profiles children and is not an indication of notability. I should point out that WP:BASIC states that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and the coverage here is definitely trivial. --regentspark (comment) 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point being here is that some are arguing there isn't trivial coverage as noted by at least a half dozen features on their person by notable sources. Mkdw ^talk 20:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG "Significant coverage". There are articles published about many extraordinary people every day, like this child prodigy, but not all are notable. Except the Hindu (which have published 2 articles), no other Indian mainstream newspaper like the Times of India, Hindustan Times or American dailies have not given coverage still. The RS cited mostly deal with "the news" that she got the American award or created a website at a young age. The keeping of the article violates WP:NOT#NEWS.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for coverage in The Indian Express, The Gulf Times, India Today, Hindustan Times, etc. Obviously Wikipedia has decided those are notable sources to warrant their own articles. Mkdw ^talk 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please do not advocate a 'keep' on pure technical grounds. Let us try to make Wikipedia little more a credible source of knowledge. Articles like this would bring a notion that anybody could become a Wikipedia Celebrity by just making a news article in the local pages of a couple of national dailies. And what would you have to do for that? Just pay for a 'pay-and-be-honoured' award. If this article would be removed after this discussion, then it still wont honour the hard work that went behind this and the former AfDs. And if it survives this AfD too (most probable), then we should expect more and more 'Wikipedia Celebrities'. Looking into the former AfDs would give a better insight for the participants. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The girl's achievements and awards aren't particularly notable in their own right, so the only question is whether there is sufficient newspaper coverage to qualify under the WP:GNG. Newspapers like to print stories about child prodigies, and often these articles are full of hype and uncritically repeat claims as "facts". The coverage in the links provided seems to be pretty superficial, and in my opinion isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It is worth bearing in mind that in the past we've deleted articles on people who had significantly more newspaper coverage than this. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The girl' main achievement seems designing her school's website; it is clearly mentioned that her father helped her learning computers; it is quite possible her father also helped her in webdesigning also. The "relible" sourse, the article in "The Hindu" newspaper does not tell much about achievemens of this girl. The subject has to create "more webdesigns" or "animations"(as she likes to learn) and then a new article can be created in wikipedia. A strong delete is suggested.Rayabhari (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thorough checking by LVerina and made available in talk page deserves attention. The claims of award by American Association of Webmasters - they give membership certificates if the members pay money - the fact is published in their own website!! One has to check for details, yes. This article may be the best example of self publishing and "creating sources" (that is what wikipedia needs) and linking all the sources claiming the same matter. This article was originally created and developed by two users - GK00900 and Satmin - and to this date, these two users have not contributed to any other articles!!(suggesting self publishing) - this can be checked in history of the article. The Photo of the subject is also self contributed, as anybody can check(suggesting that the entire article is self publishing material.) It is really a surprise that how this article did not get deleted at its first nomination(at that time, the article was not having citations). The subject may deserve a wikipedia page in future, after better achievements.Rayabhari (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Reply:

To all those who goes in favor of 'Keep the article', special mention to veterans like Mkdw, Northamerica1000, Whpq etc.

The question is, whether we are here to make a large number of article purely based on WP basic criteria and rules or we are here to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone to share and gain reliable and credible knowledge. If we are looking for large number of articles, yes, we can go the automated ways of the rules and basics. With giving extreme respect to veterans like you and to the Wikipedia system, rules and basic criteria, I STILL feel we are all humans and we should think above the rules as well - at least once in a while. If we allow articles like this in Wikipedia, it will gradually deteriorate the reliability of the whole concept. A lot of effort has been put behind every article and of course behind this too. But just as Austria156 mentioned above, even more effort and work is involved in researching and finding the credibility and points against the same article. It is nothing like one is of less importance and other is more important. Both are very essential to Wikipedia and concepts like that. This is my personal opinion. And I repeat, whatever be the outcome of this discussion, I am NOT going to give up. I am not going to make even a single edit in the article in question or vandalize or anything like that. I am here to convince people, with proper evidence and proof.

To Austria156 - I am very happy to see you here. I did go through all previous deletion discussion and I wanted to get in touch with you as well as the people who started the previous deletion discussions. Unfortunately, the first person who started on it left Wikipedia and on your page, I came to know that you are taking a very long wikibreak. That is the reason I didn't contact you. I have huge respect to people like you as we are all here to make Wikipedia a better place, with quality articles.

To all others who are in favor of 'Delete' - Thanks, I am glad there are like-minded people and I am happy people who go through the points mentioned, checked the article in detail and posted their comments based on other factors as well.

Now, coming back to the article, do we really need to mention 'Association of American Webmasters' there? Which is just an award or online web badge giveaway website? Anybody out there found any reliable news source, supporting document or any information about the association? And second, about the line in the last paragraph of the article - "She has also received more than 30 other national and international awards" which is not true and quite misleading. There is no proof or supporting document for this statement as this is something NOT true. I know I am repeating this, but the girl never received any other national or international award. One question (yes, I know this is not a question-answer session and nobody is obliged to answer questions posted) that always comes to my mind is - what is the 'exceptional skill' involved in this? And why the article is STILL in Wikipedia?

Another point about the years passed after the 'achievement'. The girl got media attention more at that time, mainly because, people were not much aware of information technology and related subjects then. Things has changed a lot, and 'Information Technology' is a separate and mandatory subject to learn in Kerala state (India) school syllabus for students now. That includes HTML coding to create web pages too. There are a lot of students who are younger to this girl create web pages, that also writing HTML codes (not like the girl who used a WYSIWYG editor) these days. --LVerina (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of indian cricket team player came from under 19[edit]

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

Pointless list. No clear inclusion criteria. International cricketers only? What about domestic? I see no point in this list whatsoever. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any encyclopedic value in this list. If by any chance it gets kept, the horribly mangled English of the title needs correcting -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, ungrammatical, unnecessary. Why is this not a speedy delete? Johnlp (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Title is a bit of a word salad which leads to confusion as to what the article actually is about. The paragraph within is confusing, ungrammatical and unenyclopedic, which one sentence blatantly violating WP:NPOV with the claim that they play well and will do so in the future. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kluger Agency[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Kluger Agency

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

Deletion request requested on otrs by the owner of the company, as the article is not neutral and biased by a competitor or otherwise a person in conflict with the company. For otrs users, see ticket #2012082910000239 for more information. Edoderoo (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed request: There is no article named See otrs for you to delete on the English-language Wikipedia. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have refactored the AfD to use the AfD templates, and will move it to the correct name. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. :) Comment: This page was one of three (Adam Kluger, Kluger Agency, The Kluger Agency) created by single-purpose account user:keywordrenewals in 2008, soon after this company was established, as a promotional advertisement. The other two pages in this set were redirected or speedily deleted (repeatedly in the case of the promotional bio on Adam Kluger) and the articles have a long history of WP:COI editing by Kluger on various IP's to remove any unfavourable information about the company added by other editors. One of these IP's posted in 2009 "the reason our campaigns are so effective is due to our discreet nature. We do not want the public knowing what brand is paying for what. Everything is meant to be natural and we hope you respect that." as "Erin Rogers, PUBLIC RELATIONS The Kluger Agency", an issue in both WP:OWN and WP:COI terms. The issues have been ongoing with this article for almost as long as there has been a Kluger Agency but have been mostly under the radar as the pages were edited relatively infrequently. I am an involved editor at this point insofar as I've tried to remove blatantly-promotional language (the original pretty much claimed Kluger invented "brand dropping" as product placement in music videos, which contradicts the cited sources), reinstate material which had been repeatedly removed by the Kluger IP's, insert material which is in Kluger's cited sources but not in the article (such as names of products and songs/musicians promoting them, as well as the amount of money changing hands), nominate re-creation attempts for the Adam Kluger promotional bio for ((db-promo)) and bring the question of repeated deletion of info to the attention of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The Kluger Agency. I would strongly advise a look through the history of these pages, the associated talkpages, edits to related articles (such as product placement or the individual musicians affected) and WP:COI/N as the issues are ongoing. As of yesterday, the article is semi-protected with at least one Kluger WP:SPA account and one of the IP's temporarily blocked for section or page blanking. Only now that Kluger can no longer anonymously edit the page is anyone hearing "the owner of this company wants the article deleted". While I do not work for anyone in the advertising business and have no horse in this race, at this point I've been looking at this mess for long enough that it becomes difficult to assume good faith from the IP/SPA's which are only hitting this page or this topic, so perhaps this is a good time for someone else to take an uninvolved look at the one remaining page from a set of three created for all the wrong reasons and problematic ever since. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A related discussion is open on Commons:project:Deletion requests/File:The Kluger Agency Logo.png regarding whether this agency's logo should be removed from Commons as a non-free image. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability established, good referencing, though the text is a bit too promotional.Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: It's not clear to me what grounds this was nominated for deletion under - the subject is notable, and there have been some problems with Pro- and Anti- IPs edit warring - but I can't see how that's grounds for deletion... Fayedizard (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A failed ((unblock)) request on user talk:184.32.125.150 claims "Two emails have been sent to info-en-q @ wikipedia.org as a major contributor to this article is clearly writing defamitory information..." where that IP had already blanked the entire page; info-en-q is one of the addresses listed for Wikipedia:Contact OTRS as "handles issues regarding an article that is written about you or a group you are affiliated with". That said, however, I cannot confirm that the blocked user claiming to have e-mailed the OTRS help desk is the author of this specific OTRS ticket as the OTRS process provides some level of confidentiality. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominators reason is invalid. We do not delete articles because the "subject" isn't happy with the content. If the Kruger Agency wants a positive article, they need to do less to create controversy.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above two comments, I think it is reasonable for an OTRS agent to start an AfD discussion to help resolve an OTRS inquiry even if its pretty clear that the result will not be deletion. I suggest letting the discussion go at least a regular listing period so that it can be said we had a full discussion and reached the decision, what ever it is. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Monty, you are right. I nominated "in the name of" the person who contacted us over OTRS. I usually work on the :nl Dutch wiki, and I will stay neutral in this case, and will only act or comment as a kind of advocate over OTRS. If I will bring in information, this is not my personal opinion, but to serve the interest of the owner of The Kluger Agency. OTRS users can follow this on the above mentioned ticket. 57.67.146.81 (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that a little bit - it should have been "Because there isn't a given policy reason to argue, it's difficult to make an opposing case - " I absolutely think the OTRS agent did the right thing. Fayedizard (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question: is it appropriate to allow blocked users to nominate articles for deletion by using OTRS to circumvent the inability to make the nomination while blocked? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not appropriate. OTRS is an helpdesk, I did create this nomination as I did not expect the creator of the ticket would have experience on Wikipedia to create the nomination theirselves. Blocked users are experienced, and users first of all. But it is unlikely that people will abuse OTRS for that. Edoderoo (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This article has adequate sourcing that supports the notability of the organization. No reason it should be deleted simply because the owner doesn't want the negative information that he has tried to remove by edit-warring and vandalizing with several socks. Cresix (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Company meets notability guidelines and was only AfD'd because of negative information in the article. That's not a valid reason. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Language Arts Crew. Remember that "delete and merge" can not be done as that makes merged content copyvio; merge, then redirect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Knowledge[edit]

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

Little to no quality coverage for this album, and Allmusic really isn't much of a source. Delete and merge to Language Arts Crew. SarahStierch (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Theo polisme 21:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/merge — Applied Knowledge appears to fall just short of satisfying WP:NALBUM. A Google search brings up several relevant results, but virtually none of them are reliable sources. I think this album would be better covered in its entirety on the band's article. Kurtis (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 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) 17:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Priddy[edit]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Priddy

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

Does not appear to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. The 2006 discussion was mired in accusations of bias against the nominator given that it involved mostly adherents and detractors of Priddy's main research topic, the Sai Baba movement. Although there was a WP:PROF guideline back then, nobody even mentioned it. The 2006 AfD was basically just a vote predicated on the fact that Priddy is a published author/academic. Unfortunately that is insufficient for including a biographical article about him in Wikipedia. I should add that Priddy himself posted here some additional accomplishments, mainly bibliography, although it doesn't seem enough to satisfy the inclusion guidelines either, unless you're willing to assume that his articles in the Norwegian press are proof of notoriety (PROF #7 "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") Still, some third-party acknowledgment thereof would be preferable, and not one coming from the Sai-Baba-focused crowd. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Agree - the subject doesn't seem to have made any notable contributions. His own bibliography consisted of classroom textbooks and some translated documents, none of which would be considered noteworthy work for an academic. —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the two books cited for their discussion of Pirddy's work on Sai Baba. The book by Shepherd turned out to be self-published, so I didn't look any further into it, because it's not likely to establish notability according to WP:N. The book by Tulasi can be previewed in GB and has only a passing mention of Priddy in a rather long list of critics on p. 253. On p. 254 it contains one paragraph of biographical information about Priddy, which I've used to expand the article. I have some doubts this enough for a biography on Wikipedia. If we apply this standard though, quite a few of the people having one paragraph in that book, e.g. Tal Brooke should have a page on Wikipedia (his page has been a redirect for over three years now, despite having a fully fledged article at one point [14] and a nearly unanimous "keep" vote in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tal Brooke). Tijfo098 (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look at this and I'm really not sure why this author has an article, having visited his site it is loaded with inflammatory here say which looks very unscholarly for someone with an academic background. I'd vote deletion based on everything listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.143.95 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fringe figure. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corby Moore[edit]

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

Corby Moore has not actually played a competitive football match for Southampton despite reported. Sam Hoskins was actually the player the was subbed on, as proved in this article Tedaram (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to BBC Sport and Sky Sports Corby came on for Billy Sharp. [15] Harriesss (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tedaram (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as he has yet to make a first-team appearance. Unfortunately, the BBC (and several other, inc Soccerbase) match reports are wrong. The actual substitute used against Stevenage was Sam Hoskins (#35) as reported on Southampton's website. See also the Sky video (e.g. here); virtually the last shot shows #35 on the pitch. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 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. Wily D 08:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delphia Yachts[edit]

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

The largest company of a given type in country A is not enough to make it notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Poorly referenced, basically a sub-stub company entry. We are not a business directory. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep because this topic clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Source examples include:

Also, 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. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000. Regardless of my opinion of editing policies being cited in deletion discussions, he makes a convincing case for notability. Beyond the availability vs presence issue, remember also that sources do not have to be in English. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence or argument for notability, and as there are multiple non-notable Braden Awards, it's not clear what a good redirect, if any, would be. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Braden Award[edit]

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

Non-notable college award. No real indication of no real indication of notability, no effort to provide sources to prove notability per WP:GNG. I don't even think that it has any notable recipients (not that notable recipients makes it a notable award, WP:INHERIT, but the lack of notable recipients seems to indicate lack of notability.) Notability in questions since April 2012, without resolution. GrapedApe (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The CWRU navbox lists it under traditions, so perhaps the lead should be summarized and redirected to Case Western Reserve University#Traditions? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:21, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weatherhead School of Management. I was about to suggest a merge and redirect, however, the fact that it is one of 16 awards granted by that department leads me to believe that it isn't particularly notable as awards go.[16] Redirect because they are cheap and it is a plausible search term. Location (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, not sure how useful the redirect would be since the title of the award is "Andrew D. Braden Award for Excellence in Auditing and Financial Reporting Studies" and there appear to be a couple of other Braden Awards. Location (talk) 15:32, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Accounting Today April 2, 2007 mentions "James G. Castellano, chairman of RubinBrown LLP, St. Louis, has received the Braden Award from Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead Department of Accountancy." GlobeNewswire November 24, 2008 press release mentions "Mr. Bible is also the first-ever preparer recipient of the Andrew Braden Award from Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management." That's about the only reliable source info out there. Not enought for an article on the topic per WP:GNG. There are other Braden Awards: Wichita Symphony Orchestra has a "Robert G. Braden Award".[17]. There is a "The "Ned Braden" award.[18], and The Margie Braden Award.[19]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not a notable award. Redirect not warranted. Location (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Dhaliwal[edit]

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

Non-notable article and there appears to be few sources to establish notability. The only nearly relevant and acceptable link is this imprisonment incident. Aside from this, search engine results and Google News produced zero sufficient and reliable results. If there are reliable sources, it's likely that they may not be English, considering that the subject is native to India. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT. --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 26 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing that would show that he meets the notability requirements for musicans and entertainers. As the nominator stated, the only source that can really count as a reliable source is the one about his arrest and jailing, but a singular source is not enough to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Dee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jayme Dee (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable artist, page hasn't been improved since last tag was removed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article needs substantive work. Her early work as a Youtube artist actually got some notice. Recultured named her one of the top 5 Youtube musicians (Recultured.com may be on the line as a reliable source, although it has a set staff and appears to exercise at least some measure of editorial control). Cliché Magazine profiled and then interviewed her. She's now signed to Universal Republic Records, with a debut album planned. Obviously, an article about that album would be crystal-balling at this point, but it has gotten some mention, including this article at BMI. And, of course, she contributed one track to the Billboard #1, certified-gold soundtrack The Hunger Games: Songs from District 12 and Beyond. Her track there has received at least a cursory review. As a procedural note, although this is listed as the 2nd nomination, this is actually it's first trip to AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:BASIC. Examples include:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 30 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. Unanimous, lots of time for someone to disagree Wily D 08:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anggrah Suryo[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:BIO Dark star in ocean (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a biographical article, the subject appears to fail WP:PERP. As an article about the arrest, it appears to fail WP:EVENT. Perhaps a merge and redirect to Corruption Eradication Commission if not in violation of WP:UNDUE in that article. Location (talk) 16:53, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination and the comment by Location. The victim of the crime is not of international significance and the nature of the crime does not appear to be unusual.--Oceangreenn (talk) 14:46, 31 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} 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Alpha Kappa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable single chapter club. A fraternity at 1 college campus, no other chapters, and no recognition by any fraternity umbrella organization. No indication that the club had even any lasting importance at the 1 college. No third party sources to demonstrate notability, as required by WP:GNG. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Only sources are WP:SELFPUB. Article was subject to previous AFD that had no discussion and an expired PROD, later contested. GrapedApe (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organization has been around since 1923. Though the article doesn't note any, I'd be shocked to discover that there are no RS such as local and university press. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 12:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first, it dissolved in 2003, so it's not still around. Second, would you please prove your assertion that independent reliable sources exist by locating them for us and working them into the article? Otherwise this article certainly fails general notability guidline. I couldn't find any, but you seem confident that you can find them.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know for a fact that this fraternity still exists. Nowhere in the article does it state that the fraternity has been disbanded, so I don't know where you got that assertion. It has had several mentions in Loyola's campus newspaper, and I'll try to find some atrributions to add to the article. Samwisep86 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either the article text is a copyright violation of the official Fraternity blog (or the blog copies wikipedia without attribution) at any rate not notable. All the current citations links fail and cannot find anything independent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to fail WP:CLUB as I can find no "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". Loyola's campus newspaper clearly doesn't count toward that, and everything else seems to emanate from the organization itself. Deor (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver pipes[edit]

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

Moved to wikiversity as requested at: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Beaver_pipes SajjadF (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of references. It easily passes GNG. Why shouldn't it be an article at Wikipedia? Also, I see the entry at wikiversity, but where was it "requested"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic topic, meets GNG. The piece has some stylistic problems which need remedy, but that's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a bit like copyvio, but I can't find it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:40, 15 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, BusterD (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with ample reliable sources. Electric Catfish 15:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UncleG found Flow device. This could merge into that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Flow device And I think a sub-section under Beaver Dam is also needed with a link to the main article Flow device is also warranted. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:44, 24 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:35, 29 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. Wily D 08:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B.a.B.e.[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Sources provided primarily mention the subject only in passing. The Nacional mentions the subject in an article about financial and ethical improprieties made by the president of the organization and the Knin article mentions the subject in passing in a promotional piece for a book in which the org participated in the development and the org's president wrote. Nothing to indicate significant coverage in order to establish notability. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here you can see regular presence of this organization in media in Croatia. Organization is regularly "marginally" asksed for comments on social issues:

1)Croatian Radiotelevision, (http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=174)

2) Novosti (Croatia), (http://www.novossti.com/?s=b.a.b.e.)

3) Jutarnji list, (http://www.jutarnji.hr/search.do?searchString=b.a.b.e.&publicationId=1&sortString=by_date_desc)

4) RTL Televizija, (http://www.rtl.hr/pretrazivanje/?upit=B.a.B.e.)

5) Al Jazeera Balkans, (http://balkans.aljazeera.net/makale/silovanje-namjerna-ratna-taktika)

6) Central European University, Page 277. http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2011/gphmid01.pdf

7) University of Zagreb, Page 37. http://cim.fpzg.hr/uploaded/UNESCO_Media_Development_indicators.pdf

8) Women and Citizenship in Central and Eastern Europe, Page 282., http://books.google.hr/books?hl=hr&lr=&id=peMQZmGpUIMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA265&dq=%22B.a.B.e.%22+croatia&ots=0IaII8J4pd&sig=mewMYK3mieuXNDqzxYAHlNZh0Xc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22B.a.B.e.%22%20croatia&f=false

It may be a little harder to find sources that talk about what is B.a.B.e. since they are generally known name in Croatian society. Best regards, --MirkoS18 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. A review of these links show that none are actually about the organization. Can you find any sources that significantly provide information about the subject of this article rather than a peripheral mention? Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 15:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That I think is the question. Can article we saved by adequate sourcing? Dlohcierekim 17:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are certainly better known in the .hr public life than a crapload of .hr people with articles on en:. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query .hr? Dlohcierekim 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see .hr, used here as abbreviation.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Shoulda known. Dlohcierekim 23:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Searching B.a.B.e. + Croatia gets much better results about the group. It's notable and interesting, especially to the world's majority female population, though obviously it should be beefed up with info from all those external links, including by google.translating docs from Croatian. This link shows it's been active since at least 2000. CarolMooreDC 13:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A lot of false hits there. Can you offer any that would actually provide indepth coverage about the subject in reliable and independent sources in accordance with WP:ORG? It may be important and/or known by some individuals and vital to women, but notability according to Wikipedia guidelines is a different standard than "I like it, it's interesting, it exists, and it's important to women". I would like nothing more than to find reliable and independent sources to support notability, but the sources simply aren't there. Cindy(talk to me) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is an extremely negative article from Nacional (weekly) from the time when they were in conflict with Chief Editor Ivo Pukanić after they accused him violence in family http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/41998/sanja-sarnavka-25-mil-kuna-za-puno-intervjua-i-malo-rada . I do not believe that such a large article in an national political magazine would be devoted to a marginal group. Here are a few more sources of information for article: http://www.monitor.hr/vijesti/trazilica/ , http://www.civilnodrustvo.hr/index.php?id=133&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2432&cHash=f3b2cf32592010a041cb5dcc4f46149a , and one interesting example http://www.knjiznica.hr/pitajte-knjiznicare/pretrazivanje/pitanje.php?pitanje=42457&target=%2Fpitajte-knjiznicare%2Fpretrazivanje%2Findex.php%3Fsearch_word%3D%26polje%3Dall%26offset%3D360%26submit%3D . I believe we have enough arguments to keep article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books google searching B.a.B.e. + Croatia has a lot of hits also, and many look like mentions with some content. Sometimes it takes 14 refs with one sentence each to build an article. Calling for AfD only 4 days after creation before people have had a chance to weigh in with critiques and decide if it's worth working on, is rather extreme. Though it does bring attention to the article and encourage the originator to do more work, as I'm sure User:MirkoW18 will do. CarolMooreDC 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment The Nacional article provides little about the organization, but focuses primarily on personal conflict or alleged corruption of the head of the organization. Interesting that the article specifically says that information about the organization "and especially their real work actually are completely unknown to the wider public", as well as states that the organization is so secretive that "the average citizen can not find even the most basic information about the association". There's also speculation in the article about what the organization "may possibly do", but no one knows for sure. The article goes on to say that the organization is "totally invisible". The Monitor article redirects to the mainpage of their website and a search came up empty. The civilnodrustvo article is about cutbacks in the government to which a spokesperson vocally opposed. And the knjiznica website provides nothing about the organization. We don't need arguments to keep the article. In order to meet the notability criteria, we need significant coverage (about the organization) in reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Nothing shows that this threshold for notability has been met. Cindy(talk to me) 16:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how all these sources can be considered trivial or incidental coverage (national and regional media, universities that think this NGO in worthy of regular contact and consultation). Here is another source that talks only about organization and not on its activities or... http://195.29.186.154/RegistarUdruga/faces/WEB-INF/pages/searchResult.jsp . In Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) write "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." and we have that soursec with different information about NGO. There also write "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." and we have that with National but all other media to. So we shoul Keep this article. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source requires registration to access or view any content. see WP:ELNO. Cindy(talk to me) 07:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it can be anti-motivational to work on an article up for deletion, a few times in the past I and others often have saved an article by improving it, including according to recommendations. I'd advise you to add the information and source it, with the best sources first, and the article should survive. (Plus it's easier to challenge AfD if you DO do so.) Too busy myself this week. CarolMooreDC 23:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you insist that we completely ignore page of Ministry of Administration just because you need to enter password there still standing "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." and "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.". But advice that links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. is listed because they are of limited use to most readers.. Since in this case you do not have to made user account and access to information is completely free access is not limited. With all this Wikipedia:External links is not applicable for inline citations This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. and Some acceptable links include those that contain further research....Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a long article at highbeam, from a Women's publication that the Gale Group has licensed. While organizational registrations may be problematic under ELNO, citations such as through highbeam are fine. User:MirkoS18, if you aren't registered there, I can email you the article. CarolMooreDC 19:49, 27 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Meeting WP:N is a far more compelling argument than personal digs at the subject. Which are uncalled for. Wily D 08:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Wily D 08:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Benton[edit]

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

"Philanthopist" of questionable notability. Google news search on "Lauren Benton" shows zero results. Standard search on the same reveals too many others with the same name - a search on "Lauren Benton" "B.O.D.Y Charity" shows 34 results, only 15 unique - nearly all from LinkedIn. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The so-called "Links" section includes dedicated, published coverage from The Mirror and the Derby Telegraph. Assuming that the "multiple" of "multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently published reliable sources" means 2, this subject clears the GNG bar from the get-go. Some like to see three instances of coverage: A CORPORATE SITE on the charity's fashion show might not get them there, but one has to think there is media coverage of such an event out there if one looks for it. For me, I'm satisfied. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [20], [21]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatent self promotion and made up stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.140 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's rather invalid to request deletion per the nomination, which is based upon page hits rather than the availability of reliable sources about this person. Also, did you not see the sources I included in my !vote above? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not well known at all, no one has heard of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GursherDard (talk • contribs)
— GursherDard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Delete~~ (one person, one vote please Phil Bridger (talk)) links section mentioned above does not exist in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GursherDard (talk • contribs) 12:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section is now called "references". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [22], [23]. keep no opinions NeilSanderson1^(talk) 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)— NeilSanderson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Village at Victoria Park[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. This is an article about a potential future development that does not yet exist. The article contains no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the development itself. From a Google News search, I did find one press-release type article [24] suggesting that construction has begun. Oddly, the website for the development itself appears to be shut down [25]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom,(Author) it appears to not be up and operating. --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like WP:ADVERT for this development. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 23 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:30, 29 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 01:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An account of the lives and works of the most eminent Spanish painters, sculptors and architects[edit]

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

Fails WP:NB. Lack of reliable secondary sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 16:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 1911 Britannica describes the full 1715–1724 version of this book as "a mine of important biographical material relating to Spanish artists, which, notwithstanding its faulty style, has procured for the author the not altogether undeserved honour of being called the "Spanish Vasari."[26]. The version in question went through English, then French and German editions in 1742-1781. More recently, one can find a 1992 book describing this book as "the starting point for all students of Spanish painting" [27]. AllyD (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is historically notable and the paucity of secondary sources is quite obviously because it is Spanish and a couple of hundred years old. We need to be careful of a systemic bias against older subjects that require more library research and knowledge of a language other than English. That the 1911 Britannica has an article on this is frankly good enough for me. I'm not crazy about the index of names but that's an editing issue. freshacconci talktalk 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book in question is quoted several times in a monographic catalgue on Diego Velasquez. I have the Italian edition but I think there is also an english version of it. I have added the following footnote at the bottom of the page (Wolf, Norbert, Velázquez, Taschen, Köln, 2000, p.95 (Italian edition) ISBN 3822864471). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbertoboccioni99 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book which was translated into English 15 years after first publication, has been through numerous editions over nearly 300 years and is in print today is going to be notable. WP:NB offers guidelines, and there is evidence of notability eg^[1], but it is the spirit, as well as the letter, that we need to consider in deciding on deletion. Are there a grounds for thinking that the book is not notable in its field? --AJHingston (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, and wikify. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for the Study of Professions[edit]

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

Unreferenced and makes no significant claim to notability other than its existence. Fails notability guidelines for organisations and might be considered an advertisement. External links are own website and two tangential qualification sites that are wholly unrelated Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or just redirect to college page. Geschichte (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete there is no assertion as to why this center is notable independently of the college itself, and having a spinn-off article would require a large amount of referenced content to keep. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences. Nothing appears suitable for merging without being undue weight in the result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Semi-salted due to valid recreation concerns. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Niazi[edit]

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

Niazi is a relentless self-promoter, but I don't think we need to fret over this one very much. There's his personal site, Youtube, Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, Flickr and the other places he's sought to establish an online presence, but really no independent sources. The article has been deleted ten times on no.wiki, and once here; protecting the page from recreation might be a good idea once the AfD closes. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
supportper above daintalk 20:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BDD. Noom _talk ^stalk 23:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, and willing to perform it if it receives further advocacy. This also appears to fail the source requirement for BLP articles. - Vianello (Talk) 17:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-promoter, non notable. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jemseg River Bridge[edit]

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

Overall lack of notability, it's a bridge... on a river. daintalk 15:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Albeit weakly. A simple Google search shows several independent sources covering this topic, although I'm not sure of how reliable they are. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that it fails WP:GNG. Kurtis (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- we have lots of articles on bridges. At 950m long this is a relatively large one. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the grounds of the bridge itself, Keep - While Kurtis' WP:GHITS search doesn't seem to turn up anything reliable enough to me, the fact that this is a major bridge on a major national highway suggests that it's reasonable to assume that sufficient offline sources are available, either official or in non-gNews Archive-compiled newspapers (during construction and such) to establish notability. On the grounds of the nomination, however, Speedy Keep, as the nominator does not establish a policy-based reason for deletion, rather stating its "just not notable". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~Merge~~ Delete - character is already in every available list of characters. The merits of the article as it relates to numerous policies have been brought up in this discussion - however, the two main policies of contention appear to be the general notability guidelines and JUSTPLOT's relation to notability. Looking at the general notability guidelines, the stipulation that the sources describe the subject (in relation to the real world), is not met here by Lane's book, which is simply a recap of the movie world. Similarly the a master thesis does not meet the editorial integrity to ensure its reliability as it is not a peer-reviewed work. The extrapolation from the master thesis must also be considered in this light, though it appears to be the only source which supplies information regarding the character's significance as it relates to the real-world impact of the character. The BBC article does not mention the character in any significant way. When looking at the article from the arguments to JUSTPLOT, I will quote what I feel to be the relevant paragraph: Per the Manual of Style for fiction, articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should describe their subject matter from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded, and should not solely be a plot summary. Articles should also include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis), alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters, and setting. I see no evidence that this article meets the criteria set out in the above paragraph and as such I must conclude that a merge is the best option for this article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Robinson (James Bond)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charles Robinson (James Bond)

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

No evident independent notability, reliance on a single source affilated with the subject (an official guide), constant removal of improvement tags and merge proposals by other users (the latest one), remaining a stub since 2005. --Niemti (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you havn't bothered to look for any doesn't mean there aren't any and your obsessive tagging of this article is neither warranted nor welcomed. There is one tag in place which is correct (((one source))); the others were removed because they were not needed. Your last set of re-directs and deletions from the Bond characters are 'still being cleaned up by others, after you refused to clean up the mess you created and having more work to do because of your poor approach to article management and development isn't helping. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you "havn't bothered" to prove anything doesn't mean ~~doesn't mean~~ "there are". (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability) My "obsessive tagging of this article" (and your obessive removal of improvement tags) ends here. --Niemti (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of answer is that? Try for something a little more mature than "says you too". What I have done is run a news search on one of the databases: there are references there, as well as in other non-Bond universe work. The character also appears in more than just one film - he appears in a couple of the novels too, meaning there are additional things to write about, rather than just a one-film flash in the pan. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent sort of an answer. --Niemti (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit other users comments: it's poor etiquette. Spend your time doing some background research instead. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you "spend your time doing some background research instead" if you want the article to not be deleted. I gave you a plenty of time already to write a more proper article, but your response was always just a removal of my tags, not to mention the previous 7 years, so better do it quickly now. --Niemti (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware: just identifying appearances in works is not sufficient for notability. How was the character conceived, how did critics take him in reviews, etc. Given how little screen time that the character has, I have a hard time believing that these sources exist. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into character list I will concur that there isn't much here to support a stand-alone article, in fact there's none for notability. How many times a character appears in media is irrelevant to whether or not they should have an article on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with that: there is sufficient supporting information to support notability which can and will be added in the near future. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then there are two routes you can go: you can add it now, or you can build it up and when you have sufficient material, spin the character back out of the list. Just because I'm voting merge doesn't mean I'm prejudice against the article existing at all, just in its current form it's not going to work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per Kung Fu Man. As a modern film character you would be expected to easily find sources through Google but I am not finding any. This fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N among other policy/guidelines. Because its a disambig term, it is not a viable search term and ergo the article shoudl be deleted after the merge is complete. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Character which appeared in several films. Notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply appearing in multiple works is no evidence of notability. We are looking for secondary, critical coverage about the character. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flawed logic to say that "its a disambig term, it is not a viable search term": ~~one~~ two new sources added in and more to follow. There is now one official source, one unofficial and one academic. If Niemti had looked rather than blindly tagged, he may also have seen this source and others. - SchroCat (^ • @)

The added sources simply re-identify the character within the work of fiction and provide no secondary/out-of-universe context; we are still failing to meet the GNG here. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schrodinger's cat is alive's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Merge per the concerns by Kung Fu Man and Masem. This article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N and WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind you of the exact wording of GNG, as TWO of the sources fo not fail to meet this criteria:

General notability guideline

Shortcuts

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[2]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources",^[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.^[4] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.^[5]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.^[6]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

If you STILL think they fall outside GNG, perhaps you could point to the exact wording which, in your opinion, GNG has not been met? - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three sources, the Lane book does not appear to be secondary from what preview text I can see. It is a third-party book that recaps the franchise, making it a primary source. This doesn't help support notability at all.

The Jutting work which you can see is a published Master Thesis, and appears to be a secondary source. However, the reliability of master theses have always been in question since the quality needed to complete one varies from school to school; furthermore there's no information on the expertise of Jutting here, compared to established film critics like Roger Ebert. The claims it makes on Robinson here are sourced to the Pfeiffer work, so the only "new" pieces are those of the author stating an opinion as opposed to any factual basis. Again, if it was Ebert making those opinions, it would be different to deny inclusion as a secondary source, but here, it's effectively a random guy's opinion on the Internet. This is unusable as a source.

That leaves the Pfeiffer book, and while I can't see what it quotes about Robinson, extrapolating from Jutting, the information is behind-the-scenes info about actor selection and character portrayal - not a lot, but some. Arguably this is a secondary source because it is giving such insights but it is also not independent since it is an authorized guide. It also begs if the coverage is significant enough.

Reading through all these, the only facets of the character that are not directly related to the movies is about having to cast a new character to be M's aide, and choosing a stoic actor that played well against Dench's M. That's definitely not significant coverage. Since its still fine that the character would be covered in a list of characters, this snippet of information is fine there, but in no way justifies a separate article from the GNG. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering. The Lane book is secondary. It looks at the primary source and does not just recap it, but examines it: calling it primary is mystifying. Jutting is an academic work from a respected university and this thesis is cited in other books. What makes these less relevant than some journalist about which swathes of Wiki-editors seem to have an obsession? Go ahead Masem, delete if you really want to, but you are doing Wiki a great disservice by taking such a narrow interpretation of the guidelines. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved in trying to figure out and establish notability for fictional aspects for about 5 years on WP. I'm pretty sure I know what to be looking for here, and this article just does not have it from the sources given as opposed to your belief it is a "narrow interpretation". Again, from the little I can see of the Lane book, all it appears to do is summarize the work in a factual manner and does not transform it as required for a secondary source. I may be wrong because I can only judge about 5 preview pages, but if anything, it is best a tertiary source, which we can't use for notability. Again, a master thesis is not the same as a peer-reviewed academic paper, and past consensus at WP:RS is that is one has to be careful to rely on such due to the irregularities in the standards for master thesis review even if the university it came from is highly respected; we look to journalists as we can review their past work and judge their reliability based on volume of background compared to a student out of a graduate program. (When I look at this thesis, I really have to question the rigor of the course, since it simply seems to be a personal opinion paper with little scholarly content).

But even then, even if all these sources were secondary, we basically have only two "out of universe" facts to consider, that's far far from "significant coverage" that the GNG requires. We would not give a separate article for characters like this but instead discuss them in a list, which I will note easily can contain all the information already on this page. --MASEM (t) 06:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you carry on taking a narrow interpretation of the guidelines. I just hope this time the editor who proposed this charade has the decency to clear up the f-ing mess he makes, unlike his last set of re-directs and deletions, which a lot of people have spent a lot of time clearing up and have still not finished, after he declined to sort out the mess he made. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a narrow view. Simply, notability by the GNG is demonstrated by having "significant coverage in secondary sources". You haven't shown that. A couple of factoids about the actor selection across only 3 works isn't significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said you carry on seeing what you want to see: we'll have to agree to disagree. What I'm particularly interested to see is if you or the nominator of the deletion take the time to clear up the mess he makes, or whether he will walk away and refuse to sort out the cluster-fk leaving others to tidy up after him yet again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Merge - fails WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:N and maybe WP:V. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTPLOT requires reliable source information on 1. reception, 2. significance, and 3. concise summary of the Charles Robinson (James Bond) character. plot summaries can be used to meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG, even though plot summaries can be from the James Bond works themselves or merely what the Wikipedia editor remembers from the works. Since WP:GNG is met by MOS plot summaries, that means we only need some reliable source info on reception and significance of the Charles Robinson (James Bond) character to meet the remainder of WP:NOTPLOT. Seems reasonable that at least some reliable source will mention reception and significance of the Charles Robinson character. Keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot summaries - whether from first or third party sources - without any additional commentary are inherently primary sources. Further, as a character from a recent work, (read: existed well after the establishment of the Internet) if there were sources on reception and significance, they would have been easily found by now. --MASEM (t) 12:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is your keep vote based on a dispute with WP:NOTPLOT and fails to state the central reason why the article was nominated, by !voting "Keep", the burden lies with you, and it is your job to actually prove that the refs actually exist. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK 2.d "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Warden (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What editing dispute? --MASEM (t) 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't it obvious? The nomination talks of "constant removal of improvement tags and merge proposals by other users" and there seem to be multiple editors here with a history of fighting over this article. Nobody seems to want all mention of this character to be expunged from our coverage of the James Bond setting and so this bickering is only about the way in which we cover them - a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Were it just a merge with a redirect, you might be right. But this is not a searchable term, and (assuming that the admin closes this as anything but no consensus or keep) deletion of this would be the necessary closing admin step, though there's a reasonable parts of text to merge. Were it a non-disambiguated title that could be a reasonable search term, and the nom was for just merging to the list, then yes, the AFD is pointless. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The title is fine for searching as the article shows up high in the rankings for a Google search of "Charles Robinson". And there's no sign of a consensus to delete here so you're just whistling in the wind. Warden (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Searching "Charles Robinson" should bring up the Charles Robinson disambig page, on which this character is listed (and were this be deleted, that character should be a pointer to the character on the list of James Bond Allies, so still searchable); but the term "Charles Robinson (James Bond)" is not a reasonable search term and we would be delete this in normal practice. And I'm only working on the possibility, not assurance, this will close in a non-keep, non-no-consensus fashion, and hence why you can't claim a "speedy keep under 2.d" possibility. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The current title is a reasonable search phrase because Charles Robinson by itself is too common a name and so some qualifier will always be needed to supplement it. (James Bond) seems quite natural in this case as these keywords seem to be the primary way of identifying the context. Warden (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedy keep reasoning is defective. SK2 reads, in part: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and ... nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." There are now delete and merge !votes from uninvolved editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete and merger is not a valid option and so those !votes are technically invalid and should be discounted. Also the discussion has lasted longer than 7 days already and can be immediately closed at any time. Warden (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, counselor, but the intent is clear. !votes to merge ("Delete and merge", per your link, is treated as a "merge" !vote) by a previously uninvolved editor is not "unquestionably vandalism or disruption". Whatever a closing admin decides, the speedy keep !vote was pointless. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're welcome as you demonstrate, by example, how this discussion continues the acrimonious bickering without there being the slightest possibility that the delete function will be used. My position remains that the discussion should be closed immediately to minimise this waste of time per WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, including because Colin Salmon is the first black actor to portray the character. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge per Kung Fu Man and Masem. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Please re-read that BBC source you added. That was about talking about casting James Bond, and mentioned nothing about this character. Since Salmon was the first actor to portray this character, of course he'd be the first black actor to portray the character. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the reasonable solution. Not really appropriate for a separate article ; I am, like MASEM, very liberal about fictional characters, but they need to have some sort of role in the plot, and he doesn't. I prefer to go by some such distinction appropriate to the actual subject than the details of what happens to constitute the available sourcing, and I think that applies in both directions. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: Non-notable for stand alone article. My own Google searches turned up no reliable indepedent sources that substantially discuss the character. Meets none of the criteria for any of our notablity guidelines. We do not base articles on in-universe promotional materials and fanzines and blogs. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into character list. The BBC article focuses on the actor, not the Charles Robinson character. The other sources mentioned appear to be James Bond encyclopedia's; of course their going to cover all of the minor characters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A much stronger case against the sources (or at least, a detailed one) would need to be made to show it fails WP:N, which hasn't happened here. As it stands it's asserted, but not shown or demonstrated or such. Thus, the assertion that it does, which is both demonstrated and appears to be correct, carries the discussion. Wily D 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Francis Anhalt[edit]

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

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox, there was a contention that the page might be a hoax. I've reviewed the page and found it to be well-sourced and have moved the page to mainspace to open an AfD to determine whether or not this is a hoax. I am ~~neutral~~. Cunard (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Opinion changed; see below. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note: Well, some pieces are verifiable; I've found a newspaper clip about "Park-it market" to be associated with an Ed Anhalt, but it is still unclear what degree of involvement this person had in all these enterprises. So far I don't see any particular notability of this businessman, despite numerous local news refs. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:08, 22 August 212 (UTC)
Comment Please do not move a potential hoax to main space. If you think it is potentially a hoax, do not vandalize Wikipedia by putting a hoax in main space. It could have been left in the sandbox until you decided it was not a hoax. Eau (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ungrounded accusations of vandalism are without merit. Had this userspace draft not been submitted to AfC and been submitted directly into the mainspace instead, it would not have been eligible for speedy deletion. I am bringing this here so that a potentially notable topic will not languish unnoticed in the userspace because of verification issues. Conversely, if the AfD determines that the article is fabricated, then there is no doubt that this page should not be hosted in any namespace on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see any reason to believe the draft was a hoax. Though neither can I see a great deal to convince me the subject meets WP:GNG. If the nominator withdraws this AfD, maybe the article should be moved back to AfC to allow the author to improve it. If Cunard had doubts about the article's validity, they shouldn't have moved it to main space! Sionk (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based purely on the sources in the article (and not on whether they exist and are not misrepresented), Edward Francis Anhalt seems to pass WP:GNG. However, the sources cannot be verified as they are offline, which is why I am bringing this to the AfD community for review. The article is sufficiently sourced, so I do not believe further work on it at AfC will make much of a difference. I make no comment about whether the article is a hoax. Cunard (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've asked DGG (talk · contribs) and LauraHale (talk · contribs) to review the article because they are experienced with reviewing sources. If anyone believes that other editors from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox should be notified, feel free to do so. Cunard (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on this discovery by I Jethrobot (talk · contribs), Edward Francis Anhalt exists:
Edward Anhalt is a distant cousin of two-time Academy Award winning screenwriter Edward Anhalt

Anhalt, Edward (July 24, 1984). "Edward Anhalt, meet ...um... Edward Anhalt!". The Milwaukee Journal: Green Sheet. Retrieved 23 August 2012.
But whether the rest of the article can be verified is a question and whether the subject is notable is another. Cunard (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't completed a full investigation of all these citations in the article, but as discussed above, this is certainly not a hoax. Many of the sources them appear to exist and provide independent coverage of the subject, particularly in regard to his company, Banking on Kids. The independent sources I've found so far, currently in the article, appear to fulfill WP:GNG. Note: I've also identified many sources that are not independent, but nonetheless verify important claims made about the subject. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: LauraHale (talk · contribs) wrote:
Really don't have a desire to get into a deletion debate like that while doing London Paralympic coverage. : / Only so much stress one can take. I can tell you that despite claims the sources look like they pass WP:GNG, I found several did not actually support the text written and some claims were downright dubious. (The guy is a dean at a university that sells diplomas. Erk.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Some examples appear in the MfD and on Talk:Edward Francis Anhalt:
Is it possible for someone to look at the following article and let me know if it is written correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox Thanks so much. Ed Anhalt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.169.2 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 July 2012

No. I've manually checked http://wisc.edu . No where on the page can I find "was born in Providence, Rhode Island in 1946 to Jack and Sadye Anhalt (nee Moskol). He grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he attended Washington High School, and later graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Wisconsin " supported. This source does not support it. A manual check of http://county.milwaukee.gov shows "He previously served as the Marketing Director for the Milwaukee Department of Parks, Recreation, and Culture " is not supported. Can you quote where on http://county.milwaukee.gov this statement can be verified? --LauraHale (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared up the Parks position thing. It's not technically called a "marketing director," but instead was a "development manager." It may or may not be the same thing, but it's sourced, at least. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, I doubt it's a hoax. The inability to properly document the high school education is irrelevant--in those cases where's it is documented, it's almost always based merely on the person's own autobio statements. Most people in graduate school after the first year teach, usually for money, sometimes for experience,sometimes as a requirement of the program. It's on my CV too, but I doubt you could find it in any accessible public record. His doctorate, which is normally documentable, is documented. (We've had one or two examples over the years where we couldn't document a thesis. We deleted those articles.) None of that affects his notability in any case. His company exists. It did what the sources say. The question is whether wha tthey say is significant coverage and amounts to notability . That's where =I have my doubts. I suspect they just amount to PR. This is my usual feeling for local coverage of what impresses my as very minor accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page has been updated with found sources, which were previously left without any relevant links in which to check the context. I've also cleaned the page up so it sounds less WP:PROMO-y. Given the state of things now that there are actual sources to work with, I cannot agree with DGG. These pieces in The Milwaukee Sentinel and Milwaukee Journal do not amount to PR-- they genuinely recognize the subject as big event promoter in the 1980s. And it isn't just one article-- it's tons. The best examples that provide in-depth coverage would be these: [28], [29], [30], [31]. On top of that is the coverage he gets through his banking-related organization for kids. I think any accusation that the subject isn't notable because the coverage is local to the Milwaukee area is bunk because 1) The banking coverage goes beyond the immediate city, and 2) The coverage was persistent, it wasn't just a few articles that give bare mentions of him for a single event. Anhault passess WP:GNG easily given this quality of coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. I Jethrobot (talk · contribs)'s substantial work on the article has demonstrated that the subject is notable, passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline with sustained significant coverage. As mentioned above by I Jethrobot, the sources include a 1982 article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a 1989 article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a 1991 article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and a 2002 article from the Northwestern Financial Review. Each article provides nontrivial coverage about the subject.
I Jethrobot, please confirm that you have removed everything unsupported by reliable sources and anything that violates Template:Failed verification. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article again per your request and made appropriate changes; some sources are offline and cannot be accessed through Google News or through my university's newspaper search database. However, their titles indicate that certain statements in the article are verifiable, but beyond that they are not used to support notability and are not used to infer any specific details. Outside of these, I can confirm that no other statements are based on unreliable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found and added more referenced material for the article (reference numbers 1,12,13,29,30,33,34 in tis version - some not linkable online and some[32] [33] are). I didn't fully mine the references I added to the article for content to add to the article and I think that is true of the other references in the article. In otherwords, the article could be expanded significantly from the sources now listed in the article. He's basically a community organizer (since at least 1995) and, as a community organizer, the newspapers covered him and the events he organizes since 1995. He's done a lot of things that resulted in the biographical topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:27, 28 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)} 15:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: I relisted this so that further discussion on the reliability of the sources provided can take place. Also, some of the more sources added later in the debate could do with more time for discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The majority of the sources come from the Milwaukee Journal and the Milwaukee Sentinel (now combined into the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Others come from financial and business magazines or newspapers. There are some primary sources, but those are necessary for the sake of verifying details not likely to be found elsewhere. I've already addressed issues regarding offline sources above. I'm not really seeing a compelling argument for relisting this discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm in general agreement with DGG here. The subject fails WP:PROF as a prof and WP:POLITICIAN as a local official. Mining the local newspapers for passing mentions of him in various local events does not amount to satisfying WP:GNG; it's simply Wikipedia:Bombardment. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, these aren't local papers. They were the two largest papers in circulation in Wisconsin. Second, several sources describe the subject with coverage that surpasses trivial mentions. Third, no one advanced an argument for keeping per WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. You should also take note of Wikipedia:Bombardment#What is and is not bombardment:

When the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant, on the other hand, this can be seen as bombardment.

With the exception of coverage of him in relation to his banking-related organization (which by the way, is not local coverage per this report from CNN), there is no redundancy in the coverage. Some events (like the flea market) had greater coverage, and had different information to report. Therefore, I think this is a weak argument for deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief interview quotes like in that CNN piece, don't satisfy WP:N in my view:

“

[...] Bank of America has discounts for high-school and college students [...]¶ Smaller banks are also getting involved with education programs. For instance, there's the Banking on Kids program in Wisconsin. Founder Ed Anhalt started it five years ago, and participation includes 15 banks in and around Milwaukee and 75 schools. School children save up in the classroom. Once they hit $10 they open a savings account with the sponsor bank.¶ Anhalt thinks the program is successful because it reaches children before their habits are set. "We've got first graders who are learning terms like principal and compound interest (and) Federal Reserve," he said.¶ As scary as that might sound, it serves a valuable purpose, he said. There's a lack of interest in serving children, particularly in inner cities, and in some cases the children's parents don't use a bank.¶ Anhalt is working to establish the program in Minnesota and Iowa, and talking about bringing it to New York.¶ But parents looking to establish accounts for the kids themselves can find some attractive ones.¶ Cleveland-based KeyCorp has the kind of account parents might want to look for. Its DinoSaver account [...]

”

(Emphasis mine.) It's no more justifiable to have a biography for Anhalt based on that than it is to have an article about the DinoSaver account of KeyCorp. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with I Jethrobot (talk · contribs) that WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN are irrelevant. In previous AfDs, DGG (talk · contribs) has voted "delete" on articles that have the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because of an aversion to local coverage. I have agreed with this position in the past when the sources were written promotionally, as if they were created by the article subject's PR staff (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gelato Fiasco). This is certainly not the case here. The sources I Jethrobot has provided here are written neutrally and lack the fluff and PR-speak typical of unreliable local sources. To discriminate against these sources because of their geographical location is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Furthermore, the Northwestern Financial Review mentioned above cannot be considered a local source.

Tijfo098 (talk · contribs)'s statement (bolding added for emphasis) "Mining the local newspapers for passing mentions of him in various local events does not amount to satisfying WP:GNG" is unambiguously false. The sources I mentioned in my "keep" vote here each provide substantial coverage of the subject. To call them "passing mentions" is a misuse of the phrase. The invoking of Wikipedia:Bombardment is another misinterpretation as explained by I Jethrobot. I agree with Tijfo098 that the CNN article does not amount to the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline; however, the CNN article is supplemental to the other sources which do establish notability so it does not matter whether it's significant coverage or not. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Northwestern Financial Review covers the same Banking for Kids initiative as does the CNN article. Unlike the latter it is indeed focused on the initiative, so it may have one or two extra details about Anhalt to flesh the story better, none of which seem substantive enough to include in a Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article section on that topic is already filled with Anhalt's thoughts about the project rather than anything less fluffy. Lacking any long-term interest from the press puts that pretty squarely in the kind of fleeting press coverage that Wikipedia:Notability (events) discourage. This biographical article is basically wrapping that non-quite-noteworthy-in-the-long-run event into a biography. It's a sleight of hand to claim WP:GNG compliance, when it's clearly against its spirit. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The present version has enough significant coverage by independent reliable sources in the references. The new sources add a lot. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. And soon; way too much time spent this article in mainspace already. Bye-bye. Eau (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I point out that DGG's comments were made 9 days ago before substantial edits to the article and the addition of references? I don't think that ditto-ing a comment on a previous version of an article is a compelling rationale. This is not to take away from DGG's comments, when they were written. I wish he would take another look at the article, 9 days later. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I based my comment on the current state of the article, the editors did OR of primary sources to come up with his bio and combined these with promotional blurbs from the local press. Eau (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look. I do not consider his career as a promoter notable.Nor as a banker--that paragraph is promotional, for what is after all a rather routine activity. The references are mostly just mentions--anyone who promotes events will be mentioned in the listings of the events. And the problem about duplication is real. it's become a common practice to do this on promotional articles, and it should be discouraged. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reassessment is disappointing. Simply calling the above paragraph promotional doesn't make it so. It was information about the subject and his organization, reported by a reputable source. It wouldn't have gotten published in this manner if it was promotional. Some sources are trivial mentions, but others at not per this and this, this, this and to call them trivial mentions is a misrepresentation. The proportion between sources with significant coverage and trivial mentions is irrelevant here given the aforementioned sources and persistent coverage from 1982 to 2010. Does this AfD need to remain open if we are just going to circle around the same arguments? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with DGG's comment. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No argument advanced for notability under WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BASIC. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Davis (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:PROF and WP:WRITER. ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I'm the 99 IP who initially tagged the article), per nom. Essentially a vanity piece that never ought to have passed AFC. Current concern is that a second account adding content is an alternate of the article's creator. 166.147.123.19 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the standards for WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR are not met based on the info the article, which appears quite extensive, so I doubt anything essential is missing. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (Delete all). No evidence/argument advanced for notability, entirely unsourced. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012-2013 Dallas Sidekicks season[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Unsourced article with no indication of notability. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article's for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - unsourced, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and Snowman. Kaldari (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query - why have only some season articles for these teams been nominated and not all? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Katzir[edit]

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

I don't think this physicist completely satisfies WP:PROF. GScholar gives an H-index of 22 which is typical for a professor of his age in physics. I just don't see anything beyond that. (It does not help that the article was created by a WP:SPA.)T R 12:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC) T R 12:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know much about the Israeli university system, but he seems to meet WP:PROF by holding a named chair (Carol and Mel Taub Chair in Applied Medical Physics) at a major university (Tel Aviv University). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell that is not "named chair" in the sense meant by the guideline (e.g. in the sense that named chairs exist in the UK), but rather chair funded by/named in recognition of the charity of "Mel and Carol Taub". I may be wrong though.T R 13:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the difference between UK and US-type named chairs is important and should be clarified at WP:PROF, however, my experience is that the US-type of chair is sufficient for WP:PROF#C5. While the creation of such chairs is dependent on the generosity of donors and not on research merit, the awarding of chairs tends to be based on research quality (though occasionally teaching or service) and thus is a good indicator of the most well-known/respected members of a faculty. Thus I'm voting Keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass of WP:prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It would be helpful if you argued why you think those criteria are satisfied. (See also my note above why, I think C5 may not be satisfied in this case.T R 05:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in my view he satisfies WP:prof#C1, in the absence of a clearer reason supporting the debate for deletion.--Oceangreenn (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A H-index of 22 is not particularly high is field, apparently. If you look at his coauthors on his highest cited papers (M Delbrück:37, D Presti:51, S Simhony:17, EM Kosower: 47, E Kapon: 41), he does not stand out in any way. Other than Max Delbrück, none of these people have wikipedia articles about them.T R 13:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my view being a professor by itself does not satisfy WP:PROF. I added six ^{[citation needed]} to all the chairmanships and memberships of governing boards of international scientific organizations the article attributed to the subject. In my opinion, if there are secondary reliable sources that establish these assertions, then the subject satisfies WP:PROF; otherwise, I will agree with deletion.--Oceangreenn (talk) 19:19, 31 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) 14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loubo Siois[edit]

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

Ridiculous puff piece on multi-level marketing "brand ambassador". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clearly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable at all. LlamaDude78 (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to even indicate what this individual is supposedly notable for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability provided or readily available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong interest to contribute to wikipedia, especially for the Middle East region. The subject has been noted for entrepreneurship and soon to be nominated in 30 under 30 (30 most powerful individuals below the age of the 30) by Gulf Business magazine, similar to Forbes ranking. I am open for suggestions to rephrase and remove part of the article. Suggest to keep content, as all statements have been referenced and does not contain misleading text. Alternatively, I am willing to temporarily remove through G7 and by few weeks revert back with printed and online publications (including article being currently constructed by BBC journalist) lomberman (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The long list of references the article author has rounded up look impressive at first glance until one actually looks at them and sees that they are either totally unrelated to the article subject or simply mention him in passing. In the absence of any in-depth coverage or reliable sources, it is hard to see how notability has been established here. The inside knowledge of "upcoming articles" indicated by the author in his comments above also raise WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Autobiography concerns. --DAJF (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~ - spectacularly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have declined speedy delete G7 by the original author, lomberman, as there are other contributors now - and as lomberman made it clear that the intention is to recreate it shortly, I think we need to let AfD run to completion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no notability here at all - some of the sources don't even mention him, and those that do are for non-notable things, like junior football, student union, etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Happy to reach a conclusion by deleting the article as it is non-notable and focus on more productive articles. lomberman (lomberman) 12:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Ironholds. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Laura Lee Clark Falconer[edit]

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

Not notable. Local hits only, and those are very limited. Article was originally promotional. Claims for awards, but those are not referenced and I was not able to verify any of them. Autobio. GregJackP Boomer! 10:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 29 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 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Alberto Cuello Camilo[edit]

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

Poorly written, looks like advert (mostly by reason of major contributor claiming to be affiliated with subject), appears to be non-notable. ⁓ Hello 71 02:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his excellency. WP:RESUME --MoonLichen (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DIPLOMAT (e.g. [34][35]). Examination of GBooks and GNews shows he easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. With that said, I agree that the article is bloated with primary source material and reads like an advert or resume. Suggest that it be stubified. Location (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of substantial verifiable, independent sources to confim notability amongst all this puffery.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Page should be cleaned up, not delete. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:BIO. Not only has he held multiple important diplomatic positions (two appointments as ambassador, representative to the UN, representative to the WTO), he's been the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources (See the two links provided above plus for instance [36] [37] [38] [39]) Now the current tone of the article isn't acceptable but that's not a reason for deletion. I agree that it should be turned into a stub containing only the basic facts of his diplomatic career (at least those which appear in the sources listed in this discussion and in the article) Pichpich (talk) 13:46, 25 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced coverage regarding significant diplomatic appointments. Some cleanup would be good, but the subject is notable. It doesn't even seem borderline--Cube lurker (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is notable - held multiple important diplomatic positions - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:39, 31 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 (non-admin closure: speedy G7 deletion). Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resistive Connection Thermal Trauma[edit]

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

Non-notable invented phrase. No GNews/Books/Scholar hits. GHits consist of Wikipedia, Linkin, and one promotional site. GregJackP Boomer! 10:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional, NN, coinage.... I got seven GHits and nothing at all in books, and most of the GHits were us. Seems like jargonization of more common term "fire caused by bad connection". Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a term that I have never met in over 30 years high level experience in the electrical distribution equipment market, such faults are invariably called poor or faulty connections, this appears to be a marketing - commercial invention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcdman (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RCTT has been introduced to try and categorise this type of fault when reporting fires and to enhance awareness about a problem which causes fires. I can't see where you get that this is a marketing or commercial invention, it's a term given to a phenomenon which causes a fire. 176.255.66.137 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, since it has just been introduced, it is unlikely to be notable yet, and this is for promotional purposes? Not exactly a strong argument. (I also highlighted the delete vote of Rcdman, per normal AfD formating). GregJackP Boomer! 15:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Computers (India)[edit]

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

All we know about this organisation from the article is that it exists. It has no cited assertions of notability. It had uncited statements that had remained uncited for a substantial period of time. Those have been removed. Those statements were puffery, and this leads me to conclude that this article was placed as an advertisement. Delete as non notable corporation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep – Easily passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Source examples include, (but are not limited to):

Also 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. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator per Northamerica1000's rationale and edits to the article Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:00, 30 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. G11 - blatant advertising. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdsortium[edit]

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

One mention in one reliable source, the other sources are either unreliable or totally industry (i.e. "crowdsourcing") related and make me scratch my head. It's also very advert reading... SarahStierch (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 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 and redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons)#Baatezu. Der yck C. 11:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spinagon[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

The article fails to explain why the subject of the article would be notable. In fact, it looks completely non-notable to me. Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, the article mentions both Dungeons & Dragons & Gary Gygax, both of which are immeasurably notable to the Role Playing genre of gaming. A distinct character, such as the Spinagon, that comes directly from the Monster Manual for the "D&D" series is easily notable for inclusion and meets WP:GNG for the author, the game(s), and it's inclusions (as above). Яεñ99 (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Per WP:GNG, to be notable, a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", with "independent" being defined as "excluding works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". The creature was made by Gary Gyrax (creator of D&D) for the D&D game, thus neither Gary Gyrax or the D&D game can be used as sources establishing notability since Gary Gyrax is obviously not independent from Gary Gyrax (ie "the creator of the subject"), neither is D&D independent from the subject, since the subject is a part of D&D and D&D is Gyrax's creation. As such, all sources present in the article are primary sources, which, as the name says, are just the various elements that built the creatures as such and without which the creature just would not exist. They are not secondary sources which provide "analytic or evaluative claims" on primary sources, and they are "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" thus not independent. Ren99, your comment does not establish that the creature has any hint of notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:AFDFORMAT, your comment does not "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". AfDs are not majority votes but "rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies", based not on "head count" but on "strength of argument". As such, could you please provide more arguments explaining why the article should be kept and not just stating you want the article to be kept ? That would avoid your comment to be discarded from the closing evaluation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice to merge/redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters). Article fails WP:GNG. This is a creature from D&D and all the sources being component of the D&D game, they are primary sources on the subject without which the creature just would not exist. They are not secondary sources which would provide "analytic or evaluative claims" on primary sources, and since the creature is from D&D, the D&D sources are "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" thus not independent. A search in Google Books and Google Scholar only yieled the same kind of primary sources, so the creature is highly unlikely of every being notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). No independent sources to provide notability per WP:GNG, and I'm dubious that significant coverage in WP:RS exists. Probably not significant enough to warrant its own article, but probably deserves mention in the Devil article. Credible search term for anyone looking for the D&D creature. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every source included in the article are first party sources. Doing some searches, I'm unable to find anything that is not also first party. There is nothing in the article to indicate any sort of notability whatsoever, and without any sources showing some sort of real world importance or discussion, there's nothing to help establish any. I suppose a wouldn't mind a merge to an appropriate article, but since this article contains no valid sources we would just be merging purely first party information to another article, which doesn't sound like that great of an idea to me. Rorshacma (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete yet another critter article that blatantly fails the GNG -no coverage (let alone anything that can be considered "significant" ) by reliable third party sources upon which an article could be based. all sources are primary to the D&D franchise. and this is one of the critters that MIGHT have actually had coverage as there was the religious furor over "devils" in the game which caused them to appear in later editions with the jesus freak magnet of "devil" to be dropped from the name and the ludicrously silly Spinagon used in its place. -- The Red Pen of Doom 08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Devil (Dungeons & Dragons). Seems to be the best course of action here. Even in third part publishers this particular monster had a name change. I have at least 7-8 books from non-affiliated publishers for this guy, but the best thing here is to merge. Web Warlock (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed video on youtube[edit]

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

No notability, bad page name. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 08:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link to youtube does not support the claim of "most viewed" anything and lands on a page full of advertisements and assorted videos that are not specific. The artist credits land on dictionary pages (baby, for one) or various wiki links to artists, which again have nothing to do with youtube viewing statistics. The sources simply don't pan out and fail WP:SOURCES and the links land in arbitrary places that do not support the article and run afoul of WP:LINKFARM. Distinctly WP:NN collection of uselessness. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ren99. GregJackP Boomer! 10:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any worthy data can be covered in the main Youtube article. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firrst of all, the sources are all unreliable and are actually external links to the videos. It also fails WP: SOURCES. The article itself does not assert any notability, and as Lugnuts said, any notable data can be covered in the main article. Electric Catfish 22:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can be covered in YouTube and has poor sources. Did I also mention that the title's grammar is terrible? Zappa O Mati 00:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 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 Squaring the square. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute number[edit]

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

May fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY? SarahStierch (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge There doesn't seem to be a lot of information available about these numbers (tried Google, GBooks, GScholar). Possibly merge with Square number or some other article. I disagree with the dictionary claim, as it may be possible to provide published proofs, diagrams giving examples, etc, but if they're not discussed in reliable sources that's less likely. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of numbers. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What list of numbers? It is actually a geometrical problem, not a piece of the number theory. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's too little here to merge anywhere. This isn't even in OEIS — being in OEIS is by no means strong evidence of notability, but I think not being in it is, for an integer sequence, strong evidence of non-notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in GBooks or GScholar, not notable. Also existing sources are not reliable (a girl called Emily writing into "Ask Dr Math" is not a WP:RS), so nothing here worth merging. -- 202.124.75.158 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem does appear in two books in GB. It's obviously aimed at junior and/or recreational mathematics audience. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, this has nothing to do with NOTDICTIONARY. Sadly, there are many users which confuse a short article with a WP:DICTIONARY article, which is a harmful misconception. There are long, but dictionary articles, such as spambot. There are thousands of short, but perfectly encyclopedic articles. This article could be encyclopedic, if there were enough sources to demonstrate notability, but there are no. Moreover, since it is actually a geometrical problem, it should possibly be moved (implicitly merged) to square dissection and fitted with sources found on this query, not "cute number" which is likely not notable enough, alone. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upd: there is the Squaring the square article which already has sections about several different "squaring the square" problems. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see how this could be expanded into anything of mathematical interest. Perhaps its interesting that numbers less than 5 aren't 'cute' says something about squares, but the collection of numbers greater than 5 is just... wow. delete. linas (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to squaring the square because the contents has already been merged there. It's an elementary problem, but I suppose if The Universal Book of Mathematics lists it, it might be worth mentioning there. I suppose some people might object to the venue of the proof, but meh, it's easy to check a proof like that. By the way, the problem-text from "Emily" also appears in this book (p. 63) published by the Australian Mathematics Trust, under "Junior Questions". It seems the problem was given in some Australian Junior math competition in 2001. Also, several proofs are given in that Australian book on pp. 82-84. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to squaring the square - agree with Tijfo098. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, inappropriate copy and paste duplicate. No need for a discussion on this, and no prejudice towards a redirect. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pretty Big Liars characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Pretty Big Liars characters

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

Duplicates List of Pretty Little Liars characters, redirecting is apparently contenious. Wily D 08:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Duplicate, cut-and-paste of article content, violating Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If we really need the exact same content here as at List of Pretty Little Liars characters, then why not redirect? I'm not sure if this can be speedy deleted as A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic though a redirect is probably better. (Incidentally contentious redirects should be requested and debated at Wikipedia:RFD.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought it would qualify for speedy deletion. The redirect alone is unlikely to resolve confusion and indeed creates confusion by interfering with episode 40 of List of Melissa & Joey episodes which actually does go by that title. The situation is not improved by incorporating elements of internal copyright violation and hoaxing. Judging by the redlinks on his talkpage, I'm struggling to maintain AGF that the author is WP:HERE for any legitimate purpose. Kilopi (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A10s are usually better turned into redirects than deleted (as Colapeninsula notes); but of course, once I've done that, I'm an involved editor and it's better to go by the process once someone objects. Wily D 15:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; should have been speedied. Redirect is useless because no one will search on the title of something that doesn't exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 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) 14:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st NetVision eBusiness[edit]

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

Another editor previously put a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No indication given of notability for this software. Unreferenced.". The Prod was removed by the article creator without comment or addressing the issues. I'm bringing this to AfD on a similar rationale: that there is no evidence that this software meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here's a good one, it has no sources, thus failing WP:SOURCES. Since it can't be verified (as it is not sourced), then it falls under WP:NN for a lack of notability & verifiable content. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are not required to be in the article to avoid deletion, only that they must exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:: In addition to having no sources, it reads like an advertisement, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or advertising space. jfd34 (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No improvement since the prod was added. The author seems determined to ignore all the very strong hints that something is wrong. Peridon (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, unreferenced with no indication of notability; also, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st OpenFramework[edit]

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

I previously put a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this software meets the notability criteria.". The Prod was removed by the article creator (whose account name resembles that of the developer given in the InfoBox) without comment or addressing the issues. I'm bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No referencing - only link is for downloading the prog, which could be regarded as somewhat of a spam link. No notability indicated. I feel the authou may not understand the difference between a directory and an encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Note, that similarly named openFrameworks is different, completely unrelated software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no content, no sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (33 downloads). MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, no 3rd party references, no indication of notability; also, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ramadan (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Reckless182 (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The write of the article insists that he has made an apperance for Helsingborg in Allsvenskan by providing this reference, however according to the Swedish FA in this reference he has not made any appearances. I do believe that the first reference is unreliable and that we should trust the Swedish FA on this.--Reckless182 (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have a look on the right hand the the screen, says he has one appearance in the Allsvenskan..."Totalt antal allsvenska matcher innan säsongen: 1".[40]Simione001 (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has made one appearance in the Allsvenskan on 9 May 2011 for Helsingborgs IF against Gefle IF coming off the bench in the 86th minute he therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL.[41][42][43]Simione001 (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The player has indeed made one five-minute substitute appearance in Allsvenskan, as the Swedish FA confirms here. I'm reluctant to !vote Keep for a 2-line article about a player with 5 minutes in a fully professional league with no evidence supplied of passing GNG, but technically he does pass NFOOTBALL. Perhaps the creator might want to replace the string of references in the article, some of which are unreliable sources e.g. transfermarkt, football-lineups, with a reference to one reliable one? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I Have got a link to the Swedish FA website listed in the references.Simione001 (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG trumps NFOOTBALL; 5 mins as a 'professional' does not infer notability. GiantSnowman 08:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 minutes or 90 minutes, the fact remains that he passes NFOOTBALL therefore the article should stay.Simione001 (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if a player can pass NFOOTBALL but then still have to pass GNG anyway, then what is the point of NFOOTBALL even existing.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The player passes WP:NFOOTBALL, as clarified above, and having had a look for news sources, as opposed to statistical, there's a reasonable amount around. Like other specific notability guidelines, WP:NFOOTBALL is supposed to provide a bright line above which the subject is likely to meet the GNG. Having looked for sources, I'm convinced that in this case the guideline is working properly. If the article had remained for years as a two-line sub-stub with no sources other than stats listings, it might be a different matter.

As an aside, a player with five minutes in the English fourth division, whether the only sources presented were routine local-paper stuff, statistical, or whatever, almost certainly wouldn't be AfD'd, but if such a thing did happen, the result would be a pile-on keep. Why would five minutes in the English fourth division count for ~~less~~ more than five minutes for the Swedish champions in the Swedish top flight? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the person who sings the National Anthem qualify under WP:NFOOTBALL & WP:GNG? In both cases they are off the bench, and spend at least 5 minutes on the professional field with the players who are in uniform. Sounds very similar here. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is in relation to a sports person.Simione001 (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passing one notability-guideline is enough to have an article. I'm not against revamping the subject relevant guideline, but until we do we should follow it. I've added two sentances of sourced information, to make the article closer on passing GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AryoGen[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable company Nouniquenames (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - agree with nom that it appears to be a non-notable company but a little bit of geographic context is probably relevant here. The following took some work to find but:

[44] - a reprinted article originally from the Tehran Times noting that the President of Iran launched their new product.
[45] - from the National Library of Australia; record of an article that appeared in the Mena Report.
[46] - from the Iranian registry of clinical trials (not a source by any means but worth noting).
[47] - although the site seems a bit questionable.

Am on the fence about whether this constitutes significant coverage or whether it's reliable. How reliable / independent can sources be if they are in Iran? I just don't know. If anything, it could possibly be Merged in some fashion with the company's two pharma products, AryoSeven and CinnoVex. Or they could be merged with it. All these articles were created and substantially contributed to by the same editor (User:Asemi) and he has been (appropriately) informed by the nominator (nice work). Would be interested to get his take. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deserved to keep and not agree with merge or deletion - As far as I found in articles (mostly in Persian) the company will affect on GDP of the country (health's share) notabely and will be in the middle of List of biotechnology companies reagarding its 2012 revenue. The company has a significance role in the heathcare systems in the region and according to company's plan they will export their medicine to Europe upon approval of their early registrations in European countries. International patients will have benefit of using wikipedia information while they recieve its vital biomedicine. European paitients will welcome these type of safe, effective and viatal biomedicine since Aryogen is making biogeneric drugs and deliver it to patient with affordable price. The company was a very big spin off the CinnaGen (which one of its main product is CinnoVex) and now is multiple time bigger than its mother company.

[48] - Another example of company's news in the media (one of many).Asemi (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 30 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} 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

W. Sumner Davis[edit]

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

Fails our notability criteria. Several self-published books through iUniverse (the ones in the article) and Authorhouse (Heretics: The Bloody History of the Christian Church). He also seems to have created this article as an autobiography. Dougweller (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR outright. May have written a few books but none have received any form of response from critics, reviewers, etc. A few online blogs have cited his views (mostly as fringe theories from what I can tell) but even they don't go into detail - only passing mentions and only for his books, not the subject. I note, too, that the nominator has assumed good faith and has previously tried to fix potentially surmountable problems by encouraging sourcing, but to no avail. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stakwart111 pretty much says it all so I don't have much to add in way of commenting. LlamaDude78 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origenboard[edit]

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

Not notable. One GNews hit from a not reliable source. General GHits show either self-published or not reliable sources. No GScholar hits, including patent apps. GregJackP Boomer! 04:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. There are many of these boards. It needs some third-party comment before it can survive here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 22 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) 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mentions in independent sources. --Kvng (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Go! Riddim[edit]

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

Non-notable riddim. No mentions in reliable sources as far as I can see. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added sources if the Administrators had let me. However, I was blocked before I had the chance to add references. As per my unblock, I'm barred from editing these articles, according to official Wikipedia policies. Perhaps if the administrators let me insert references to save the article, I think that would be fair. --Funky Buraz (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, you can list the references here and one of us can sort through them and add them to the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 16:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:21, 22 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) 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Unfortunately fails WP:SOURCES for inclusion here. Also, no significant singles, chart positions, or sales notations so WP:NN and does not meet WP:MUSIC. Яεñ99 (talk) 05:31, 29 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) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huskies (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. No significant coverage in any reliable source. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the band does not yet meet the requirements of notability expected of bands and musicians. While they do seem to have had some airtime on radio, it was only regional, and thus does not count towards the notability requirements. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 22 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) 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major label, no significant chart position/singles, no significant album charting or sales, no awards, etc - falls under WP:NN and fails WP:MUSICBIO / WP:BAND / WP:MUSIC Яεñ99 (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like WP:Fancruft. The only sources in the page are from YouTube and Facebook. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Relays[edit]

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

College tradition, limited to a single campus, no real indication of notability, no effort to provide sources to prove notability per WP:GNG. Article is just a description of the race and a list of past winners, nothing of real encyclopedic value. Notability questioned since March 2009, without resolution.GrapedApe (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 16:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As is, I agree that the article needs a lot of work, but I do find this to be encyclopedic material on par with Little 500. While most of the coverage does appear to be from sites affiliated with Case Western, an argument could be made that it passes WP:GNG through a few mentions in independent reliable sources (e.g. [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]). Alternatively, this could be merged with something like Case Western Reserve University traditions in a format similar to Carnegie Mellon University traditions or Dartmouth College traditions. Location (talk) 16:06, 22 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) 03:37, 29 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) 03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Wala[edit]

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

I found this page at the end of the backlog of WP:NPP and tried to source it. The page claims that Muhammad Wala is in Chiniot District. However, the government of Pakistan thinks that in Chiniot district there are only Jan Muhammad Wala (which is likely mentioned in the article as Than Muhammad Wala), and Khan Muhammad Wala, which already has an article. Given that all info is unsourced and thus not credible, that coordinates do not lead to any locality called Muhammad Wala, and that the author is indeffed, I believe this article contains no useful information and should be deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:14, 22 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) 03:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apart from the factual doubts raised in the nomination, this article seems to be largely a vehicle for self-promotion by Usman Nadeem, now indef-blocked as MaanRoy (talk · contribs) and again as Mannadeem (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 31 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 Transwiki upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal terms[edit]

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

Belongs on Wikiquote WP:LONGQUOTE is not even close, this article is just quotes. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the need for this as a separate article. It's not obvious that Iqbal's use of these terms is notable - to be notable he would have had to use them in a distinctive way which was then discussed by other writers. It might be that this information should be included in Muhammad Iqbal, but this article is so far from Wikipedia standards (the combination of long quotes, lack of independent reliable sources, and non-neutral language) that it can't be merged in its current state. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:08, 22 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) 03:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiquote or delete. Wikipedia is not the place for a list of quotes. JIP | Talk 05:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote, else Delete. I agree with JIP, this is clearly a list of quotes and not an article for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Illusive Man (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 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) 03:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma Kwiatkowski[edit]

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

A secondary role in a film which has not been even completed does not create notability. Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:50, 26 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) 03:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR criteria; at best a long way WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, active since 2012-present, 18 years old. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wicked Tinkers. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loud (Wicked Tinkers album)[edit]

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

This album article should be deleted (or eventually merged) because it fells Wikipedia:NMG#Albums. The album has no notability because it didn't chart at all or has a single that performed well on international charts. Additionally the article has no information about its background, recording, composition or reception. — Tomica (talk) 22:54, 15 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 15. Snotbot t • c » 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked Tinkers. Not notable in its own right. Till 02:43, 21 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:05, 22 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) 03:32, 29 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) 03:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Food Recipe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously deleted through AfD and subsequently recreated. As far as I can tell, the new sections are a piece on viral videos, which is sourced entirely to press releases by the business, and a mention of a controversy which is again sourced to a press release they made. Other than the press releases, the only thing I can find are brief mentions of the business in regard to a survey they commissioned, where the focus is the survey with no substantial mention of the business itself. Otherwise, I can't find anything that would indicate notability, so it seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the GNG. Bilby (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the "references" are either press releases or fluff articles with data from a press release. This is pretty obvious advertising. Even the links on the viral advertising (such as a youtube video) are mainly on the video, not on the company involved with the ad. There's no notability that meets Wikipedia guidelines linked to in the article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 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) 03:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significant coverage not demonstrated; hits for "Asia Food Recipe" on Google Books, News, and News archives are all either false positives, unreliable, or passing mentions. CtP (t • c) 00:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Amores (Telenovela)[edit]

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

No indication this telenovela is notable MathewTownsend (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 23 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} 03:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've searched extensively and I cannot find any verification that this show even exists, or that it is planned for the future. The closest title match is "Hay Amores Que Matan", clearly not the subject of the article based on the credits. Venevisión doesn't list it as an ongoing show nor in the historical archive (although it would seem that that archive is not comprehensive), and according to this note from them, Raquel Yánez, who supposedly stars the show, debuted on Venevisión just recently on Válgame Dios, an ongoing telenovela. I've reviewed the other articles created by Cines12345 (talk · contribs) and, while they are poorly referenced or have no references at all, I've been able to at least determine that the shows are real. I suppose they might have based the content of this article on a forum post or something similar (although I wasn't able to find anything of that sort either), so I'm hesitant to call this a blatant hoax. The author was notified of this AfD so I hope they might come to explain the content. I'll review and try to fix the other articles if possible later tonight — Frankie (talk) 17:51, 30 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) 03:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Craighead[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO -- there are a few news hits, but nothing at all where she is the main focus (mostly it's about how she got a kiss from a Clinton on her birthday). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:12, 22 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} 03:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. working for someone notable doesn't make you notable. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ubuntu (operating system). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trinacria Linux[edit]

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

Linux distribution variant of questionable notability, only released within the last week. Tried redirecting, but was reverted more than once by page creator. No indications of notability, only existence. Google news search on "Trinacria Linux" shows zero results. Standard search on the same shows a lot of primary sources, social media, and simple listings, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the first released of this distro was released more than three years ago not last week, you no carefully read article. It was originally based on KNOPPIX and development goes on until 2.0 version. If you search in Google you'll find out a lot of italian sites and forums that reports it since 2009. Try if you not believe but use Google.it not Google.com Maybe there few source in English language but it is located in Sicilia, a part of Italy, it is logical that language is italian not english. If you don't speak italian it is not correct bypass non-english source. Ask to italian admin of en.wikipedia.org to read for you foreign language source. English enciclopedya not meaning that article must be related only to Usa, Uk, Australia and so on. For people of the isle of Sicily (more than one million) this distro is important. You will find out many users in italian forums that talk about it in italian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.193.194.29 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse for my bad english, of course you search english source in google.com and you don't find nothing! this is Italian/Sicilian project. Sicilian are italian: they not write in english only in italian :) it's strange, isn't it? :-P more difficult understand sicilian source in sicilian language, like sicilian wikipedia O-O' scn.wikipedia.org . I search in google.it and all about Trinacria is in italian language ;) have you a italian speaking friend to help you to search in italian Google? ;-P better if you have a sicilian speaking friend! Ciao bello! Pippo --151.52.237.214 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi friends, my name's Daniele from Sicily, i want to tell you i find this distribution very intersting and usable, i use Trinacria Linux every day in my pc!!! i know a lot of people that use this distrubution too!!! i ask to mantain this page!!! please people listen to my message!!! thanks guys!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.63.36.88 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. See also WP:DIRECTORY. 178.49.18.203 (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ubuntu (operating system) with ((R from alternative name|Custom build of Ubuntu)) tag: this is a localized fork of Ubuntu, and many of similar projects exist. Essentially it is a Ubuntu with several non-default packages and doesn't differ from original Ubuntu significantly enough to enjoy a separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:28, 25 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} 02:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[Ubuntu (operating system)]. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With two suggested merge targets, this discussion can't be closed as one or the other. Any editor so motivated can merge as normal, of course. Wily D 07:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Index of National Capability[edit]

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

Personal Research and the data used completely irrelevant as it is over a decade old Twobells (talk) 18:05, 14 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 14. Snotbot t • c » 19:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Correlates of War. Not especially notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 15:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As per one of the cited sources, the CINC is “among the best-known and most accepted methods for measuring national capabilities.” Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as a section under National power. A redirect may also be appropiate. Regarding Correlates of War a comment or line could be useful there, but better under National power article. Merging would improve the NP article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:58, 24 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☽ 01:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of the four provided references, one is anonymous (though the organisation is identifiable by working back through the URL), one is a presentation for which the author can be theorised (again, back through the URL - it's on his section of his faculty's site but the document itself contains no details), one is a fairly well-referenced university thesis for which the author is known and the other is an excel sheet with a list of numbers (clearly not a reliable source). I would venture to suggest that only the university thesis would constitute a reliable source and one single reliable source surely does not constitute significant coverage. I do, however, think this is a surmountable problem but the article needs some work. It may be easier to Merge as others have suggested. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:34, 29 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) 03:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Troy[edit]

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

Non-notable singer and I haven't found any sufficient and reliable sources to support this article. I found event listings here and here. Billboard suggests he may never have charted. Although the article's Billboard link would be acceptable, it only mentions three songs. Considering that the article contained one Google Books link, I thought I'd search for others but I only found Billboard song listings that weren't useful. The nearest to a chart listing is this February 1968 issue of Billboard where it was predicted that a song would chart, but there is no evidence to show that it successfully charted. Additionally, the Billboard profile for The Maze (co-performers of that song) shows they may have only released one album. This may be another case of a lesser known 1960s-1970s singer who received little coverage. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N; I haven't found anything on him that would meet the notability requirements for a musician. EWikist^Talk 00:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, following Swister's nomination. Before proposing the article for deletion, I checked 'Benny Troy' and 'Benjamin LaManna' and couldn't identify any material to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or W:GNG. Mephistophelian (talk) 23:31, 30 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. Wikipedia isn't a social media site or an advice site: adolescent commentary in lieu of article Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to get your friend a date[edit]

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

This is not even an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "how-to" site. Such content is best left to other sites. Thegreatgrabber (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, per WP:NOTHOWTO. I'm not quite sure how it's considered a hoax, but it currently has a CSD G3 tag on it. CtP (t • c) 00:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Taking the article to AfD was unnecessary as it is an obvious A3 for speedy deletion, not G3. The article isn't blatant vandalism. SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is not true. "just be yourself" haha.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:06, 29 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.