< 28 February	1 March >

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy O'Neill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andy O'Neill

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

Promotional BLP with no legitimate sourcing and no refs. Subject fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG; article has previously been BLP/PROD deleted twice. Most of the article text is unsourced promotional quotes. The claimed "HB Award" is phony; the "HustlaBall Award" is given by rentboy.com to promote "employees" of its escort service.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam --62.163.152.44 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion, though it does lean towards keeping, has not sufficiently addressed the previous consensus to merge. In other words, it's not established that consensus has changed to favor keeping over merging, thus the discussion will not be closed as such. However, at the same time I'll also note that the previous consensus has not exactly been reaffirmed in this discussion, with a minority of editors favoring merging or deletion. Therefore, the question of whether or not to merge this article remains in the hands of the community. Swarm ^X 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It has been a year since the last AfD for this article, which closed as a merge to Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which as of today, has not happend. The article is still original research with no indication that this is a notable topic. While the article does have lots of sources, they are not about the concept of Canadian companies mining in the DRC, but about Canadian companies that happen to operate in the DRC. I have gone through some of the sections of the article to demonstrate this (shown below).

Lead, the lead is an editorial statement about why this article is important, but draws on information that from sources about topics unrelated to the DRC. Example, bullet point #2 is related to Canadian companies working in Mexico, bullet point #4 deals with Peru and domestic indiginous rights. Bullet point #5 deals with Canadian emissions laws and the tar sands.
Distinction
- Predominant Canadian corporate presence is sourced by looking up foreign companies that operate in the DRC on Datamonitor 360 (corporate listing), remaining information is sourced from corporate websites that have operations in the DRC, but there are no secondary sources indicating that Canadian dominance in DRC mining is a notable concept.
- Direct involvement by a former Canadian head of government, Joe Clark being on the board for a mining company that operates internationally is not shocking, Jean Chrétien is a "special advisor" to Ivanhoe Mines which operates in Mongolia, Kazakhstan, etc. Brian Mulroney is on Barrick Gold's board of directors, and they operate in Australia, Tanzania, etc...This is not a new concept, nor does it make the DRC unique.
Minerals, this is the section that actually could have been included in the Mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo article, a summary of the Canadian companies that are mining there. This section is made up largely of links to corporate results and SEDAR.
Cumulative Canadian mining assets, this section (charts) shows that Canadian companies invest more money in Madagasgar, the same amount in South Africa, and almost as much in Tanzania, as the do in the DRC. There is then a breakdown of the assets in the DRC.
Canadian & multilateral public investments
- CPP and QPP, this section is just a dump from the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan showing "Canadian and foreign companies that have been active in Congolese mining". No secondary source showing relevance, just charts showing that the CPP and QPP invest in mining companies, and some of those companies opearate in the DRC.
- Export Development Canada, this section states that EDC gave loans to some companies that operate in the DRC, but these loans were not for DRC projects, although one was for a project in Zambia, and is close to the DRC boarder. There is also a statement that in 2009 Kinross Gold received money for "general corporate purposes" (could be used anywhere), however Kinross divested its interest in Katanga in 2006, I didn't see any other instances of Kinross operating in the DRC, could just be missing something though.
World Bank, Canada contributes to the World Bank, Canadian firms were awarded 45 contracts by the World Bank, 5 were mining or energy related. I don't see how this shows distinction, 5 were mining or energy related, 40 weren't.

I still don't see this as a notable topic, more appropriate would be a section on the Mining in the DRC article that shows all international companies that operate in the DRC (such as the 6 Australian 3 South African that also operate). kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's some POV stuff, particularly in the lead, and the whole thing reads like an essay or research report, but there's a lot of info there. I don't see any particularly clear grounds for deleting this - parts of it could certainly be merged into other articles, and it needs trimming and rewriting, but deleting it is the wrong action. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a notable topic in Congo and also in Canada (Toronto, believe it or not, is to mining companies what Chicago is to commodities and New York to banking). Fix the article, don't nix it. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is there is no evidence that it is a notable topic, a newspaper article about Anvil Mining's operations in the DRC does not make Canadian mining in the DRC a notable topic, it makes the mining operation(s) a notable topic. The question I am asking is ""where are the third party, reliable sources, that address Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in detail?" Or "how does Canadian mining in the DRC meet the general notability guidelines?" This article has a lot of sources that talk about the companies themselves, which is not the same as talking about the concept of Canadian Mining in the DRC. There is nothing to fix, because there are no sources about the subject of the article itself, if you took out all the syntheses and original research, there would be nothing left.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is a 2005 report by Human Rights Watch alleging Canadian mining company Barrick Gold and other mining companies "of making mining agreements in 2002 with two eastern DRC militias that had control of the mines. Both militias were also in the midst of murdering hundreds of civilians. In return for the gold mines, the militias were given housing and trucks, among other appeasements. Incredibly, as highlighted by independent journalist and Congo-expert Keith Harmon Snow, Barrick’s current and past advisors and directors include former US president George H.W. Bush, former Prime Minister of Canada Brian Mulroney, Vernon Jordan, a close friend to Bill Clinton, and one-time Tennessee senator Howard Baker. Snow says Barrick and one its partners, Anglo-Ashanti, even sent in lawyers to help represent leaders of the militias after some were apprehended by the DRC government." (according to a summary in this article). I'd say that this report provides at least one source about the subject of the article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent find, however The Curse of Gold is actually about violence associated with gold mining in the DRC in general, not about Canadian mining in the DRC.

The Wordpress page that is a reprint of an article from towardfreedom.com...not sure where that stands in the RS department.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intended using the quotation from Wordpress page as a quick way to provide summary of the HRW report, not as a source in itself. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordpress quote does not summarize the HRW article. The HRW article does not talk about Canadaian mining. HRW focuses on AngoGold Ashanti, and their dealings with "bad guys". Anglo is not a Canadian company. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should distinguish editing criticism from inclusion criteria, so I'll limit to the latter for this AfD.

On the General notability guideline, this issue was addressed by Victor Falk on 01:35 13 Feb 2011 during the original AfD discussion: "there's been easily sufficient news coverage to merit an article per wp:n. Article as of now may need wp:cleanup, which AfD is not". Victor Falk's link to Google News no longer executes as intended, however a search for: (congo "canadian mining") returns a Google page stating today that "About 243 results" were retrieved from the Google News Archives. Scrolling through the citations, it turns out the actual count is closer to 100.

Academic research, including peer-reviewed, on DR Congo mining specifically or in part addressing Canadian companies includes:

Lydall, M.I.; Auchterlonie, D.A. 2011. "The Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia: a growing global 'hotspot'for copper-cobalt mineral investment and exploitation", 6th Southern Africa Base Metals Conference 2011, The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, http://www.saimm.co.za/Conferences/BM2011/025-Auchterlonie.pdf (Includes a tally of 11 foreign mining firms in southern DRC: five are Canadian, two each from S.Africa and Australia, one each from Kazakhstan and Switzerland.)
Smith, James H. 2011. "Tantalus in the Digital Age: Coltan ore, temporal dispossession, and 'movement' in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo", American Ethnologist, 38(1):17-35. (Excerpt: "[F]oreign gold-mining companies, like the Canadian gold company Banro, exercise a great deal of power in the Eastern Congo, and some Congolese blame these companies (Banro, specifically) ... ")

Abadie, Delphine. 2011. "Canada and the geopolitics of mining interests: a case study of the Democratic Republic of Congo", Review of African Political Economy 38(128):289—302. (Excerpt: "[M]ining operators – and Canadian projects in Congo in particular – are often managed from tax havens and other offshore jurisdictions. This means that their activities are not contributing substantially to the budget of any state.")

Garrett, Nicholas; Lintzer, Marie. 2010. "Can Katanga's mining sector drive growth and development in the DRC?", Journal of Eastern African Studies, 4(3), 400-424. (Includes estimates of Canadian companies' contribution to Congolese economy)

Mazalto, Marie. 2009. "Chapter 5. Governance, Human Rights and Mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo", in: Mining in Africa: Regulation and Development, Bonnie Campbell, ed., Pluto Press.

Mazalto, Marie. 2009. "Environmental Liability in the Mining Sector: Prospects for Sustainable Development in the Democratic Republic of the Congo", in: J.P. Richards, ed., Mining, Society and a Sustainable World, Berlin: Springer, p. 289-316.

Deneault, A., Abadie, D., and Sacher, W., 2008. Noir Canada: pillage, corruption et criminalité en Afrique, Montreal, QC: Ecosociété. (includes sections covering First Quantum, Anvil Mining, AMFI in Congo)

Journalism includes:

Abadie, Delphine. 2010. "Le Canada en République Démocratique du Congo : « ô mes amis, il n’y a nul ami... »", Alternatives International Journal, 2 août 2010.

Engler, Yves. 2010. "Blood on Our Hands", Canadian Dimension, May/Jun2010, 44(3):42-43. (Quotes Congolese Information Minister Lambert Mende: Canadian officials "have a problem with what's happened with a Canadian company" ... "The Canadian government wants to use the Paris Club [of debtor nations] in order to resolve a particular problem. This is unacceptable.")

Lasker, John. 2009. "Digging for Gold, Mining Corruption. One of Africa's Poorest and Most Embattled Countries is Prey to Canadian Mining Companies Searching for the Last Great Gold mine", Canadian Dimension, Nov/Dec2009, 43(6):34-47. (Banro Corporation's gold mining in DRC).

Engler, Yves. 2009. The black book of Canadian foreign policy, Black Point, N.S.: Fernwood. (p. 179-191 surveys Canada - D.R. Congo relations from 1891-2009 including mining activities).

Heaps, Toby A.A. 2006. "Canadian Companies in the Congo and the OECD Guidelines", Corporate Knights Magazine, Issue 16.

Patterson, Kelly. 2006. "Congo wants Canadian tried for war crimes. Executive, employees of mining firm 'facilitated' civilian deaths, judge says", The Ottawa Citizen, October 17, 2006, p. A.5.

Drohan, Madelaine. 2004. "Tango in the Congo" ("How Canadian mining companies are doing business in one of the most corrupt and dangerous countries in Africa"), Canadian Geographic, Nov/Dec 2004, 124(6):86-98.

Broughton, Gianne. 2004. "Making life real at the edge of the war: while mining companies, including some from Canada, continue to perpetuate the violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, another force rises to counter the effects ... people power", Briarpatch. 33.6 (July-September 2004), p3.

Testimony before Canadian parliamentary hearings includes:

Tougas, Denis. "Evidence", Government of Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, November 24, 2009, 0920,

Most of the foregoing sources have either been cited in the article under discussion, or in Canada–Democratic Republic of the Congo relations.

On the uniqueness of Canada's involvement, there are the facts listed in the article's leader, which has been restored to its previous form: that three Canadian firms have been responsible for two-thirds of Congolese copper and cobalt production during the last decade; that a Canadian lawyer directed Gecamines, the Congo's mining parastatal from 2005 to 2009; that former Canadian prime minister Joe Clark was employed by Canadian-incorporated company First Quantum Minerals as a presidential advisor to the former Congolese president Laurent Kabila in 1997-1998; that First Quantum was the DRC's largest taxpayer in 2009, generating between an eighth and a quarter of the country's total tax revenues. Going further back in time, the former Canadian diplomat Robert Stewart, who, in 1998, chaired Canadian-incorporated America Mineral Fields and plotted to overthrow the government of Laurent Kabila; to the Second World War, the Canadian-government-owned Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited refined 3,700 tons of Congolese uranium used by the Manhattan Project for the atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sources: Canada – Democratic Republic of the Congo relations#History).

On this article's Talk page, in July 2011, the article was assessed as "within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia" and was rated "C-Class on the project's quality scale" and "Low-importance on the project's importance scale". The article was also deemed to be "within the scope of WikiProject Mining" and "within the scope of WikiProject Africa" and "supported by WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo". However, no quality or importance assessments have been made to date.

A parallel article on Canadian Mining in Latin America and the Caribbean was created in February 2012. It adopts a similar structure to Canadian Mining in the DR Congo. Note too that an article on Copper mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was created in January 2012.

Concerning the comment by kelapstick, "Canadian companies that happen to operate in the DRC", it can be noted that for many Canadian-registered companies in the article, the DRC is or was the sole field of operation, including two of the largest players, Anvil Mining and Katanga Mining.

There are really three concepts embedded in this article, mining, the DR Congo and Canada. Accordingly, summaries of the content now appear in both Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Canada–Democratic Republic of the Congo relations, with cross-references to the present article for the complete story and, in some instances, the sources. I support kelapstick's argument that material added to the lead in January 2012 is too broad for this article and more appropriate for a parent, but at present putative, "Canadian mining beyond Canadian borders" article, and accordingly have removed it, and restored the Distinction section back into the lead.

IVX8O8XVI (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. That was the result of the last AfD, and the points raised there still stand. Unfortunately the article's problem is basically one of tldr; so we had a discussion and the article creator posted some more tldr stuff on the talkpage; the result was "merge" but they didn't agree and posted more tldr stuff; nobody else had the patience to deal with the reams of text and the original creator certainly had no intention of abiding by the earlier consensus so now we get another AfD and, surprisingly enough, the creator now adds lengthy unreadable tangential stuff on this page too. Just get rid of it already. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be sufficient sources for an independent article. The topic is really too broad to be handled in a single article at the necessary depth, because of the political involvement. I assume the tldr comment was about the discussion, not the sources or the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this, as written, is that it's not an encyclopedia article. It's a piece of public advocacy journalism, sourced by digging through corporate reports and other WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, which cites no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that "Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo" is a notable concept in its own right — and by the creator's own admission in the first debate, the purpose wasn't to create an encyclopedia article, but a public advocacy piece specifically meant to influence a political debate about resource divestment. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, so it's not our role to advocate for a political issue one way or the other. It's worthwhile content, but Wikipedia is not the correct place for it. Advocacy website, by all means. Blog, sure. But it doesn't belong here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfounded assertions, and nebulous cloudgazing robo-shamanism aside (from last time: "...the idea that "Canadian mining companies operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo" constitute a distinct class of thing...", no arguments to delete have been presented. We are asked for no more than to WANT TO BELIEVE that what is important is the EXISTENCE of mining companies, not the type and qualities of their activities. This is patently absurd. The fact that merge IS deletion, for anything larger than a stub is always overlooked; please consider the quantity of material. Anarchangel (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "nebulous cloudgazing roboshamanism" about it. The fact that an article topic has to constitute a distinct and encyclopedic thing which has already been recognized as a distinct and encyclopedic thing by reliable sources, and cannot be based on original research which collates primary sources with the goal of inventing a new encyclopedia topic, is right at the very core of how Wikipedia defines what does or doesn't belong here in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my rather verbose nomination had the deletion rationale:

The topic does not pass the general notability guidelines, because none of the sources talk about Canadian Minining in the DRC as a topic, they talk about instances of Canadian mining companies that operate in the DRC, which is not the same thing.
Having lots of sources is not a valid reason to keep an article
The article uses original research, syntheses, and personal opinion to bring the information togeher to present it as though it were a notable topic.

My nomination statement was not clear enough, and maybe didn't expand on the correct points. In summary, an article about Anvil Mining's operations in the DRC does not make Canadian Mining in the DRC meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Ten articles about ten Canadian companies' operations in the DRC does not make Canadian Mining in the DRC meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. An article/book written about the concept of Canadian mining companies operating in the DRC does.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chalmers[edit]

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

It appears this person was drafted by the Canadian Football League's Montreal Alouettes in 1999 as claimed in the article, but this name does not appear in the CFL list of retired players or the Montreal Alouettes 1946-2007 all-time roster. This leads me to believe he never appeared in a game in the CFL, which means he fails WP:ATH. I can find no significant coverage of his collegiate career or his business venture claimed in the article, which means he fails WP:BIO. As always I am willing to reconsider this nomination if others have better luck at finding sources than I do. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- 1999 Atlantic University Sport Lineman of the Year, CFL released in 2000, runs Elite Performance Center (testimonial bottom right was Saint Mary’s University head football coach, worksite). Dru of Id (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shame nothing notable appears available. Ah well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gee hammer, I didn't notice Eluchil404 attaching WP:NPASR to his last close but he did suggest that a merge discussion could take place on the article's talk page and 4 days is not enough time for that to happen. Let's wait a month or 2 before beating this horse again. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyover country[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AFD closed as no consensus. Only one "keep" in the last AFD addressed the issue of lack of sourcing. This still seems like a dicdef and I can't find anything to expand it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, it is basically a dictionary definition, and somewhat pejorative at that. The article remains without any sources despite the earlier AfD. Google, bless it, turns up a huge number of sources: these are confounded by many factors, not least that F.C. can also mean "area rich in elevated roadways". The term IS used in reputable places but just as a chatty label for "rural areas of the US", so arguably there is no "substantial" content. Given that there's nothing more to the term than that, it's hard to know what to say - the phrase is used as so defined; but WP is NOTDICT; ergo, delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this term/expression. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice that the closing admin of last week's AfD suggested, "A merge may be reasonable... but further discussion should probably take place on the article talk page." I agree that such a discussion might be worthwhile, especially if it could reach consensus where the last AfD did not. That said, I am not advocating merging and have no target in mind. Cnilep (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the term is widely used but there's not a lot to say about it. We don't need to have an entry for every pejorative term for every part of the world, and unless there's something particularly interesting about the origins, use, etc, of the term, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I was wondering about a redirect, but no idea what it could redirect to - is there an article on attitudes to/prejudice against middle America? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a topic, it is covered in detail with this entry in the Encyclopedia of the Great Plains which shows the topic is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the EGP mentions show nothing of the kind. The EGP does not discuss the term "Flyover country" other than to agree with the discussion above that the term is (mildly) pejorative, and just one among several similar terms which it mentions - Great American Desert, Buffalo commons. The EGP thus actually shows that "Flyover country" is a non-notable term - one of several not specially good descriptions for a region. That there can be a book on the Great Plains is one thing; that it's "about" FC as such would be quite another, if it were true, which it isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would not be adverse with a merge to Great Plains, as noted in the previous AFD, but instead of a merge discussion, wham bam, we are back at AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this nomination has allowed "a reasonable amount of time to pass" as per WP:DELAFD before renomination. I have no opinion on the article itself, but I feel that this renomination (and therefore this discussion) is premature, and that this should therefore be closed quickly. - Jorgath (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as per my changed vote in the last AfD Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Great Plains as a synonym, per the excellent source found by Whpq. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: Now that I've thought about this, merging into the Great Plains article is appropriate. But I think that if it's done that way, it should be done as a new section that lists alternate terms used to describe the Great Plains region. - Jorgath (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can go along with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly with merge and redirect. Flyover country and Great Plains are two entirely different things. The Great Plains are a geographic feature of North America, whereas flyover country is a slightly disparaging linguistic term, indicating an attitude on the part of the speaker. Also, as a descriptive term, flyover country would include states like Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, and Nevada, which are not located within the Great Plains region. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree is not valid outcome of an AfD. Do you mean Keep? If so, do you have suggestions of how to overcome the current article's limitations? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on keep or delete, but strongly oppose redirect. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADICT. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Obvious. Kubigula (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Wreck[edit]

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

non notable album, does not have independant notabiltiy. Redirected and reverted by creator. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Gaijin42's patrolling of Wikipedia's new pages, however, I disagree with this user's deletion of Bringing Wreck's page. User's definition of "notable" is different from my own, apparently. There are users on Wikipedia that share my definition as well as his/her definition. Notability is a touchy area. This band is regionally notable, therefore their album is notable. As I wrote in my user statement, I am here to contribute to Wikipedia: information that support independent music, independent artists, noteworthy underdogs, and otherwise important/informative people, places, and events. I support the sharing ideas of local and regional importance regardless of widespread national or international "noteworthiness". Wikipedia is a globally-recognized experiment in the free exchange of information, and as such, it should be treated differently than a traditional encyclopedia, which puts an unreasonable limit on who or what may be included. If topics and content are verifiable and notable to a localized region, they should be given the same treatment as international notability. Wikipedia is not a VIP club for those deemed worthy of inclusion. Therefore, my presence here will be to help color within the lines of knowledge of the city and state in which I live.

I believe I am in the right in my definition of notable, hence this page should not be deleted. It is a dangerous precedent to be set. I implore other users to take this into account.

I thank you for understanding my perspective. --CujoLimon (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nominator response One thing in particular that I think you are mistaken on is "This band is regionally notable, therefore their album is notable.". This is specifically addressed Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED and even more specifically by the music notability criteria Wikipedia:NALBUMS "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Well in any case, the AFD process is started, so we will see what the consensus decides. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into band's article - this is a textbook case of an album that doesn't merit its own entry according to Wikipedia policies. It hasn't had sufficient cultural/sales impact to meet album notability criteria. Merge, add a redirect, content's still there, wikipedia policies are satisfied, job done. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does one merge and add a redirect for an article? --CujoLimon (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content would just manually be added to the destination article, then you replace the redirected article with the redirect. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I manually added the info to the destination article. I am not certain how to redirect, though. Perhaps someone can do that before the album article is deleted?--CujoLimon (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to wait until the AFD discussion is finished (usually 7 days) before the article is deleted or redirected. BAsed on the discussion, the closing admin will likley choose to close it as a redirect so everything will be taken care of. If it is deleted, then we can just recreate the article as a redirect, so no big deal either way. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your replies to my all my questions have been very helpful. Thank you.--CujoLimon (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NALBUMS, notability is not inherited from a band. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ali Stone[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Being the son of a famous person doesn't make you famous. There are a few news articles about his being a Muslim and his political activism, but that doesn't necessarily make him notable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that having a famous daddy isn't enough, but if being in the news almost constantly doesn't make a person notable, what does?

He's all over the news. His fame may not last long, but right now, as much coverage as he is getting in all news media, it's hard to believe he's not notable enough to have a WP article. If he drops out of the news completely, maybe delete the article then, but not yet.--Jim10701 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Search him and he generously comes up. Too soon to delete. Basileias (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per WP:NOTINHERITED. As for 'he's all over the news' - see WP:109PAPERS and WP:BLP1E. The fact that much of the media is talking about someone at the moment does not necessarily make them notable by our standards. Notability is not temporary; it means lasting fame, and requires coverage over a significant period of time. This guy might qualify at some point, but he hasn't yet. (See also: WP:CRYSTAL.) Robofish (talk) 23:30, 23 February 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, henrik•talk 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep saw him on the news seems notable enough, has notable opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.4.22 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems" is not a valid proof of notability. What sources do you have? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check these independent and famous news websites that have an article dedicated to him: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=258904&R=R1 http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/wood_snubs_muslim_stone_AxID3XZz34PKvRRtbWOQMK http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-seanstone-conversion-islam-idUSTRE81G1O020120217 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2012/feb/15/sean-stone-muslim-religion-hollywood Kazemita1 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not see cause for deletion. Stopde (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep That media always want to include that he is Oliver Stone's son who has converted to Islam is what they do to create headlines... and shame on them. However, in searches without that "Ali" in the paramerter, we can see that he IS getting coverage for what he is doing, and that despite his being Oly's son, he IS receiving coverage in multiple reliable sources over a years-long period.[1] So in spite of his father and his conversion, his career as an actor, producer, screenwriter, and cinematographer is not quite a simple recentism WP:BLP1E blip on the scope dependent on WP:INHERITED.... and is in fact a meeting of WP:GNG and WP:ENT and pushing nicely at WP:FILMMAKER. I would though suggest that after being kept, the article be expanded to use less recent sources to be more comprehensive of his career and films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus seems to be keep, & lllok for further sources for material. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geof Gleeson[edit]

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

The only claim to notability is having been the coach for the British judo team. That doesn't seem to meet WP:NSPORTS and I don't see sources to meet WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If being coach of the national team of a large country in a major sport doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS then the problem is with that guideline, not with this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to call judo "a major sport" in England or the U.S. Papaursa (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article did have another claim of notability as national team captain before the nominator (as allowed for unsourced material) deleted the claim, so the nomination rationale is rather economical with the truth. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My google search didn't find support for that, but if you have sources then I'd be happy to see that item in the article. I don't consider it misleading to follow WP:V. I've removed unsourced "world champion" claims in other articles for the same reason. Astudent0 (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't misleading for you to remove the claim from the article, as I already acknowledged in my comment above, but it certainly was misleading for you to say, with the word "only", that that claim hadn't been made. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may mediate, I'd suggest that the nom should have added the word "supported", as in "the only supported claim". Papaursa (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found no evidence to show he was British team captain and I'm not convinced that being a national judo team coach is sufficient for notability. However, my research leads me to believe he passes WP:MANOTE on the strength of his writings about judo, which seem to be well regarded. Papaursa (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found an article on Google Books from Black Belt magazine in 1973[2] which says he was captain of the first British team to win the European championships and was national coach from 1960 (presumably till at least 1973) as well as being first Westerner to study at the Kudokan. As to Judo not being a major British sport, the UK has won 16 Olympic medals (three in 1972 when Gleeson was apparently in charge), had several world and european champions, as well as paralympic success. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Somers[edit]

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

Nearly unsourced article about a wrestler for a regional pro circuit. The only claim to fame is being a state champion for this pro circuit and that doesn't meet any notability criteria I'm aware of, while the only source is a routine sports report about he and his partner becoming the first "Missouri tag team champions" for this circuit. Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find evidence of him working for a prominent indie promotion nor does he seem to have performed in the big leagues. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that he meets any notability criteria. Article also lacks good sources. Mdtemp (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as spam w/ no sources Shii (tock) 07:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Removal Technology[edit]

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

Reason Jbrock327 (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC) I would like to delete this article I believe it is misleeding and false. I was misled into creating it by a business friend. after further review I find nothing to be acurate I dont want to misinform people nor have my name attache to antything misleeding.[reply]

I find nothing accurate about this page in contacting all references and google itself has no explanation for the term. I believe it is misleeding and think it needs to be removed. The is no such thing as synthetic removal technology. I was dooped into making the page i believe it is a hoax. please delete let me know if you need further information thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrock327 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 February 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 February 29. Snotbot t • c » 16:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Background: I saw that this article had been given a ((db-g7)), and reverted that because I didn't agree that it met WP:CSD#G7 (tagger was creator and primary author, but some content was added by others). I suggested that it go to WP:AFD in order to gain wider notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this amounts to promotion for a non-notable product. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article where the primary author believes the content he added is false and misleading.--Kubigula (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems quite clear DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Snowoperative[edit]

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

College ski trips are probably not notable. —SW— ^spout 18:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unusual for a student society to be notable, extremely unusual when it was set up last year, and certainly not notable when the only third-source is a student paper. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:08, 21 February 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, →Σ τ c. 02:08, 29 February 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 February 29. Snotbot t • c » 16:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mimeo.com Inc.[edit]

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

According to its only substantial author, this is "meant to be part of the historical record of the first cloud based digital printing company." It would take a complete rewrite to turn it from that into a neutral encyclopedia article. I don't see and couldn't find enough non-press release sources to establish notability. Kilopi (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (that quote above is from the article talk) I have read through the refs and am somewhat unimpressed. While a few do appear to be reliable coverage that could establish notability, the vast majority are PR. The article was clearly created for advertising purposes and reads as advertising copy. OSborn^arf_contribs. 05:18, 23 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article that would require a complete re-write - borderline G11.--Kubigula (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted to research sources twice, and there has been no improvement there is clear consensus to delete. I do note there is concern that it 'might' be notable, but that we haven't found sources. If more sourcing does show up demonstrating this is no mere youth league and notability is established and somebody wants to recreate it, there should be no problem with undeleting Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central States Development Hockey League[edit]

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

Non-notable youth (minor?) hockey league in the United States. No evidence of any coverage in the news media or similar reliable sources, based on Google searches. Nothing in the article demonstrates the significance of the league, even despite its large geographical coverage. As a tier II youth league—and fully amateur, as far as I can tell—it doesn't appear to have any specific notability as a sports league. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unreferenced at present and even if refs were provided, would not meet our notability criteria. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a youth league. Not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move article to its correct name Central States Developmental Hockey League. This is a long established (since 1999) premier tier II ice hockey league that has developed several notable ice hockey players. Notability is determined by reliable sources, so if reliable sources are found then the article is a keep by WP:GNG. When searching for sources I found many[3] – more than enough to satisfy the GNG criteria - but the difficulty is that the article’s name is now incorrect, so that is the reason why other editors did not find reliable sources. Many reliable sources are found when searching for references using the correct name of Central States Developmental Hockey League. Orangeroof (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the name that was the problem. It is the fact that it is a youth league without any non-routine coverage. Youth leagues don't generally get articles. Once you get up to Junior level leagues then things change, but leagues for 11 year olds etc just are not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the websites from above seem to be for the league or individual teams. I can't find a lot of sources from newspapers. Patken4 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. The coverage available doesn't seem to indicate any notability here, though I'd be happy to re-evaluate that if you do find more sources about the league itself. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. 12:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this AfD is ancient, I'm going to say, "I don't know." I can find evidence that player age goes up to 18, its not just a youth league. Also we have a "junior hockey" template that seems to have articles on all the major junior leagues in the US and Canada. I'd hate to see the article deleted because no one cares to look harder.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 debate comes down to the assessment of the sources, are they independent reliable sources as required? There is no consensus on that Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mach[edit]

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

Living subject does not appear to meet notability requirements for biographies. Sources are unreliable or local-only coverage of events. While one or two of the events involved may be notable, notability is not inherited. There is inadequate reliable third-party biographical material about the subject to support a fully-cited standalone article with significant biographical content at this time. Yworo (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there are a lot of hits, there are no reliable, secondary sources coming up via Google Web search. Nothing in news or news archive either. Books search was a little bit tougher, as there is somebody by the same name who is involved in a notable conservation agency. There were also a lot of Google Books hits in German, but unless the Germans are huge on steampunk I doubt they were referring to the same Jeff Mach. (I was recently chastised on AfD for not recognizing the notability of an actress because ALL of the sources for this actress were in Spanish, so let me add the disclaimer that I do not speak German!) Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. A brief look through the history of this page shows that it is mostly edited by a single user (except for bot edits and edits relating to deletion), which makes me think it may be a case of WP:SPIP. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of WP:SPIP. I am not Jeff Mach, nor does the article contain "self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, [or] product placement." Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has also been accused of being Jeff Mach for editing this and other articles, I also felt the need to publicly state that I am not Jeff Mach, and this is not a case of WP:SPIP. Centerone (talk) 09:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have documented the reliability of the cited secondary sources in the Talk page. In addition, I have added references from the Boston Globe and Philadelphia Enquirer. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, those articles are really about the events. They do not have substantive biographical content. They support the notability of the event and support mentioning Mach in the articles about these events, they do not support a standalone article on Mach. Yworo (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable. The subject is a creative professional and entertainer. He has been responsible for the creation of notable events and innovative formulas for events that have garnered him both recognition of his peers, and those in the field. One such example is being a guest of honor at Philcon which is the oldest science fiction convention held by the 2nd oldest science fiction fandom society. If such a recognition by a venerable organization in a niche community doesn't count, I'm not sure what would; this was not his only such honor. Furthermore it has been claimed that lack of discussion of personal details in interviews with him gives the impression that he himself is not notable -- however, he is the creator or co-creator of such events and other works. When people interview a director, author, songwriter, or other such creative individual, do people focus on minute historical details of their personal lives, or do we primarily ask about the creation? I'd say people tend to ask about the creation and the creative process; is it wrong to be so focused? The article is well-cited. Could it use more citations? Sure, but one can say that about every article. Centerone (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may well be the remarkable person you describe, but per WP:BIO, we wait for reliable secondary sources to say so, in multiple instances of significant coverage, not just brief mentions or quotes from him. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 19:08, 29 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The multiple, published, reliable sources clearly show this to be a notable figure as an event promoter in the "Steampunk" movement. The one thing lacking is substantial coverage of him as an individual, but to my mind GNG has nevertheless been met in this case. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe editors of the article have included several references which do not appear to be reliable sources (a Youtube video, two poems, one broken url, an advertisement for his opera) along with some articles in reliable sources which help establish notability for the steampunk genre but only have a brief quote from, or brief mention of, or passing reference to Mach himself. The sum does not quite add up to satisfying WP:BIO, Mach is already covered in Widdershins, LLC and in Steampunk World's Fair, and perhaps should be mentioned in the Steampunk article. Edison (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provided are both reliable and provided significant coverage of Mach so GNG has not been met. Notability is not inherited by Mach from steampunk. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources produced have failed to convince the commentators that this person, worthy though he may be, meets WP:BIO. It should be mentioned that though the Gallery may well be notable this doesn't, in itself, confer notability on the curator. TerriersFan (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaali Sudheer[edit]

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

I have very strong doubts that the curator of one or even many art exhibitions is notable. The art exhibitions may, of themselves, be notable, but the curator, surely, is not. Since I have these strong doubts doubts I am opening it up to the community for a formal deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have visiting the Muse Art gallery in Hyderabad and i have attended all the art events curated by Kaali sudheer. He is doing a fantastic community service in the areas of Art . helping the budding, young, women artists to show case their talent and build their careers in the art . i spoke to him in length and understood that we need to have a wikipedia page for him so that it will be of use for Artists who want to show their works and get benefited. As the gallery is a not to profit started by a big name like Marriott and Marriott have partnered with kaali sudheer. Thought it will be of great use for artists around the world to use this wonderful space and show their talent. I have given the external links of well known sources like US consulate of Hyderabad , Confederation of Indian Industry ( CII) , Yahoo News and well known news papers Hindu and postnoon etc.. Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregx1872 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your deletion as In India Esp in south India there is hardly any art appreciation. there are very few art galleries in Hyderabad and that too all galleries are commercial one. Kaali sudheer has stated this to promote artists supported by Marriott. Kaali Sudheer has been doing a good work in the area of art. i object your decision for deletion please=greag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregx1872 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The points you make are good points about the gentleman and the art appreciation. However you need to see that Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, needs to include only articles that are notable and are verifiable. That is the reason for this discussion. If you can assert verifiable notability within the article the whole scenario changes. Please devite efforts to doing that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment editors should note that Kaali Sudheer (Mopperthy) has previously been deleted via PROD, and that it is likely to be related to this article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiable points that i can put forward here for the debate

1.The press release by Marriott USA about his role . link is here : http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Marriott-Hyderabad-Resort-iw-2589087370.html

2. The US Consul General Hyderabad ( Govt. USA ) has partnered with him in various occasions and they have put this information on their websites . Link is here : http://hyderabad.usconsulate.gov/pr011411.html ( this is the biggest art show ever in India by US Artists link for that is http://www.hindu.com/2011/01/15/stories/2011011562450400.htm) and also pl visit : http://hyderabad.usconsulate.gov/pe09162010.html (This was for NDTV ( which is a well known TV channel in India ) to raise funds for Ladakh Flood victims ).

3.As i mentioned earlier there is hardly an art and cultural activity in this part of country and that too all are of commercial ones. The efforts put b kaali Sudheer are note worthy . very recently he got a noted actor called kamal and did an art show called "my name is minnu " to raise funds for girl child education for underprivileged. the link is here http://www.idlebrain.com/news/2000march20/mynameisminnu.html

4. Confederation of India Industry is a non-government, not-for-profit, industry led and industry managed organisation, playing a proactive role in India's development process. Founded over 117 years ago. they did a exclusive women artists show to help school children. link is here http://www.cii.in/PressreleasesDetail.aspx?enc=yRScwmDx5a/qIyyfy8vgiaKRuQCFeG1/VbK7hBx4TCqksVBe426IOzCxJiw35XD8Y9ENvpZxBX/oiZM5TAuMNg==

Suddenly there is buzz of art and cultural activity happening in Hyderabad and eventually every art show will have some cause added and the society is benefited at large. If asked no one is ready to give money for charity but if sell paintings ( worth their money ) and that money goes to a good cause is really a good thought. may be i do not know how to put all of these in a proper format ( as i am new in this )

and i strongly feel that he is great assest in field of art and doing a remarkable job . i agree it was previously deleted via PROD and that time also the same problem may be that how to place the things on the page so that it matches the requirements of the wikipedia standards

Thx greg (Gregx1872 (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

That something is verifiable does not also make it notable. Here we require first and foremost notability which is also verifiable in reliable sources. Wikipedia does not care that something is good, or useful, or praiseworthy. It does not even care if something is true. What it requires are solid, notable, verifiable items. Your strong feelings need to be turned into actions to assert notability and to verify it, but not here. Do it within the article and come here to say that it has been done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:37, 14 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:08, 21 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :This person ,as claimed, may have contributed positively towards art,yet it is not a reason for notablility. WP:ARTIST / WP:BIO in general says that "person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" or "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" as a criteria for any biography.I agree he is the curator of ,so called, art museum,but there are many others doing the same thing.So, what is the distinctive thing / contribution for which he should have a separate article? 70% of the article speaks about exhibitions at the gallery.But this makes the gallery notable not the curator.For me this person's most notable contribution is founding the art gallery / foundation (if we believe the article).But their are no independent reliable sources to verify this claim.Thus this article fails WP:RS,WP:N,WP:VERIFY and should be deleted. Vivekananda De--tAlK 13:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. This verifiable BLP can demonstrate the fellow exists and has performed valuable service in his arena of endeavor. Sources provided and found in a reasonable search don't provide assertion of notability, however. Bare mentions in art-related press and coverage in press releases don't pass the bar for a BLP. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brevard Public Schools. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Middle School (Rockledge, Florida)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Mostly fluff. Middle school rarely notable and this one is no exception. Having said that, the editors deserve credit for trying and should be encouraged. There are many thousands of notable organizations and events that need creation. Student7 (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly merge, to Brevard Public Schools. Some of the text reads as advertising, no indication that this school has any real notability. 74.207.72.2 (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brevard Public Schools as per the usual practice when it comes to educational institutions below the high school level. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brevard Public Schools. This school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brevard Public Schools per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus after the relisting seems clear. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ishee Pardeshi[edit]

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

I am questioning the notability of this girl. Her notability stems from being a 7 year old Indian girl winning a children's division at a Korean TKD tournament. All of the references are from a short time span and deal with that one event (WP:ONEEVENT). Junior events are usually not considered notable (many articles on junior world championships have been deleted in the past) and this isn't anywhere near that level. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to claim notability for a 7 year old martial artist who hasn't even won a major championship (and can any junior championship be considered notable?). Astudent0 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 23 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous comments. Winning a children's division at a martial arts tournament is not sufficient grounds for notability. There is some coverage, but I think it all falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based upon Wikipedia's guidelines for pre-high school athletes. The subject fails to receive significant coverage that "excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications". The 'references' in the article and in a Google search really only comes up with coverage in Indian media which is essentially local for this person. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per everybody DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phaëthon (band)[edit]

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

No sources, and the only external link is a MySpace page. The band's notability has not been properly established. McDoob AU 93 15:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. --McDoob AU 93 15:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I declined speedy (speedy was declined in 2007), but agree that it should be deleted. Reasonable search for sources comes up empty beyond myspace/facebook type materials.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, FWIW, the 2007 speedy was withdrawn by the original nominator, rather than being declined. I have no idea if that makes a whit of a difference. --64.85.217.15 (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, I'm not going to stand in the way of a snow delete.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, still not notable, just as it was in 2007. Declining speedy was silly. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Maynard Smith[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. Only claim is to be the father of someone notable. noq (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The cited British Medical Journal obituary runs to over 1200 words, and certainly amounts to significant coverage in an independent reliable source. It was published when John Maynard Smith was eight years old, so I very much doubt that the BMJ published Sidney's obituary only because he was John's father. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to John Maynard Smith. (changing to "Weak keep", see below) Admittedly it is hard to find sources on someone from the 19th century, but Google Books should have turned up at least something significant if he was notable. Instead it turns up passing mentions. The obituary is the only thing to be found, and elaborate obituaries such as this appear to have been routine in the BMJ the early 20th century. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't really see the need to defend this but there you are. Firstly, I find it evidence that the person who nominated this for deletion in the first place had not read the reference provided. Anyway, he meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography #1 The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor (sic), twice, having received both a knighthood, specifically the Knight of Justice or Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, and a Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath. He was also chief surgeon at St Mary's Hospital, which is a pretty important position, and also Grand Deacon of the United Grand Lodge of England, i.e. a significant position within a national organisation. Phil is quite right that the Doctors may seem to work miracles occasionally but even they can't see into the future. The idea that they publish the biography of someone because they were the father of an 8 year old boy, with an interest in amateur natural history, and quite good at maths, and still being prepared for the Eton 11+ is prepostrous. Sidney is also commenting that he was the father of John, but that John [4]. Additionally, we're going into speculation a little bit here but, his death at only 52, at the peak of his career, prevented further recognition. Merging this to John Maynard Smith is neither necessary nor is it a good idea. If one is reading about John, we need to know about John, not the details of his father's extensive career both military and civilian; only maybe that his father was a surgeon, died when he was very young, and was very busy with little time for family life. The BMJ as a source is OK, it sits with both the records as found in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes. All this should be obvious if you read the source. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (Note: Barney the barney barney is the author of the article in question. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Well, I do not see how having a "knighthood" is notable. --UnQuébécois (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very surprising. You don't seem to understand much at all really. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should view WP:PA--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how you can basically admit you don't know anything and then complain when I agree with you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough factors, taken together, to indicate notability to me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head of service at a major hospital has normally been considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would need to see some of these things you are talking about, Barney. I guess the knighthood is mentioned, and is referenced in the depths of the obituary if that's what "created C.B." means. (Neither the article nor the obit made a point of these awards; you have now modified the article to make it clearer.) However, I have seen differing opinions at AfD about how notable a low-level knighthood makes you. An American like me is not qualified to judge, but I know there are a lot of levels of knighthood and some of them seem to be handed out like candy. "Companion of the bath" appears to be the lowest level of that order, and according to this there are almost 2000 Companions at any given time. However, that might still make him notable, particularly if additional sources can be found besides the one BMJ obituary. I am willing to reconsider my opinion. You suggest that there are additional records available besides the BMJ obituary, in the London and Edinburgh gazettes; those would certainly add to his notability (under the Multiple Sources rule) if you can give us more information about them. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Created C.B." means that he was made "Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath", which is not a knighthood. His knighthood was different, namely the "Knight of Justice or Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem". Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:34, 29 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are admittedly few RS, but the Gazetted information, the full obituary and the confirmation of the key details in articles about his son make it clear that Sidney was a notably distinguished doctor, attracting notice for his exceptional hospital dealing with appalling numbers of seriously wounded soldiers with battle injuries from Passchendaele, and then becoming head of St Mary's, Paddington (one of the world's most famous hospitals). His CB was not a mere formality; it should be explained for non-Brits that while "of the Bath" sounds humble and domestic, the point was that it was (centuries before) close to the king, hence highly honoured. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even I am aware that the Bath is a highly prestigious order - almost comparable to the Garter, wouldn't you say? - but I'm not convinced that "companion" is a notable level within that order. As a "knight" of the Venerable Order of St. John (which is still not mentioned in the article) he can't call himself Sir Sidney, and the Croix du Guerre seems to be awarded to entire units as well as individuals, so I am still left in doubt as to how significant these achievements are in establishing notability. I wish I could see these Gazette references that several of you have mentioned, but at this point I have only seen a single source, namely the BMJ obit. Don't we need multiple sources? One more question: you indicate he was "head" of St. Mary's Hospital. Is "senior surgeon" the same thing as "head"? I thought it meant head of the department of surgery. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a PDF from The London Gazette Issue 29848 published on the 5 December 1916, Page 3 of 78, showing the knighthood granted on 1 December 1916. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am now leaning toward Weak keep based on additional sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography and with sufficient information in reliable sources to write a decent size article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of Notability, could possibly be included with John Maynard Smith. --UnQuébécois (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to hear why you think Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography, point no.1, does not apply? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant, as in important; of consequence. No significant award or honour is in question. Knighthoods in the Commonwealth are like honorary college degrees in the US.--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You don't think a knighthood and a CB are significant honours. Well, we shall see whether that is the consensus. FWIW, I think that they are, and that's why I !voted Keep. Oh, and I think the comparison with honorary degrees is invalid. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CB is a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's references demonstrate sufficient notability per WP:BIO. Deli nk (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with American handball and Chinese handball. Swarm ^X 05:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wallball[edit]

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

This article has been left with an unreferenced template since May 2010. Also, the article does not mention much notability. I am familiar with this game, but it's a street or school game, which doesn't show much notability. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced and fails to establish any sort of notability. A search provides no reliable sources of the game, or at least none under this name. Rorshacma (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Folk games are not automatically non-notable, they're just sometimes harder to document because they aren't national sports with television coverage and Sports Illustrated cover stories. And "harder to document" doesn't mean "unverifiable" or "non-notable". That said, this appears to me to almost certainly be Chinese handball#Australian variation filtered through someone's borderline-WP:NFT "this is what we call it and how we play it where I live" filter; I've notified that article of this discussion, in case a merge is in order. I think a strong case could be made for merging that article, American handball, Butts up (the text of which needs a de-capitalization spree - we don't capitalize the names of non-trademarked games or sports), and other related articles, frankly. They're all minor variations on the same theme. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent Comment, I agree with you, however, this article can be merged with both, American handball and Chinese handball respectively. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 04:36, 20 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American handball. I was leaning toward delete as unverifiable, but a reasonable search immediately brings up this site; the page referenced reports this subject as another name for AH. The LinkedIn profile of the site makes the whole thing look less impressive. However, the large number of mentions and varied quality of the mentions during a search tend me away from asserting delete. BusterD (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JCRules and my previous comments (some of it may be better merged into Chinese handball than American handball. I reiterate that Butts up and other related articles are also suitable for merging. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 03:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Laroche[edit]

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

Delete. "Suggestion", and it is only that, of notability due to presumed racial characteristics, are not persuasive. WP:NN Student7 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her father, Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche (also undergoing Afd), has been written about, but not the then one-year-old daughter to any significant extent. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is notable not only as one of the three Black passengers aboard the RMS Titanic, but as a published witness to one of the 20th century's most written-about events, and as one of the disaster's last remaining survivors. I notice Millvina Dean, Mary Davies Wilburn, Edith Brown aren't having their entries deleted. Her race shouldn't be a reason to delete this article. Am86 (talk) 04:08, 26 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article from the glossy, mass circulation Ebony magazine, "What Happened to the Only Black Family on the Titanic? should get this bio 90% over the notability bar, in my estimation. I ordinarily would have argued for merger of this piece with Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche, but it appears that this is large enough and substantial enough to continue to stand on its own. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While she may just meet WP:GNG, I think it would probably be a better idea to merge this with her father's article or create an article specifically on their family. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge The article on her father was reasonably enough kept. She had no particular noteworthy role apart from him. One article is sufficient. Additional coverage of her is just incidental. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ^X 05:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bahador Kharazmi[edit]

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

borderline artist. Article was nominated for speedy, and was stopped by intervention of army of sockpuppets (see sock investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bahador_kharazmi Creator is now blocked for sockpuppetry, and has been previously blocked for COI conflict editing.

Article claims charting, but this is unsourced.

All sources in Persian, I sent a request to wikiproject Iran for a source review, which is available on the article talk page. Copied here for convenience :

"Among all of the mentioned sources, I think just [5] and [6] are reliable. There is no doubt that [7], [8], and [9] are blogs. Other sources don't seem to be independent, as they are from Avang Music or Radio Javan that Bahador Kharazmi is an employee for them. Americophile 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Of the sources deemed reliable, both are BBC. A single site reviewing the guy in 2006 does not meet multiple reliable sources in my book.

Let the consensus decide. FIGHT!

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please search the name in english not in persian but even if the search has been made in persian, the links are from http://bbc.co.uk, http://iransong.com, http://irtaraneh.com, http://beshkan.co.uk , http://aftabir.com, http://100ahang.com which in my persian books they are all considered as reliable sources of persian music and entertainment websites. Please define some noticeable and useful persian websites you may know so that we may be able to take it from there. Isaaccohen (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please find further description on the talk page. Thanks for your kind consideration.Isaaccohen (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I searched his name in Persian but Google returned no useful results. He is far from being notable! Americophile 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you may not find so many Persian websites written in Persian font, so as suggested please be kind to make your search in English. Having the name in the list of the biggest Persian label in America is proof enough the artist is notable and as discussed the links are reliable (the B.B.C links). For calling the guy not notable you may compare this to an artist appearing on EMI or Sony/BMG wiki page and call them not notable. Because the name of featured music labels is considered as their brand and they may barely abuse their brand by signing some not notable artists. So as offered please take a harder look at the provided references and consider the domain names of all the offered references. Their domain name is also known as their brand in the virtual space and they won’t expose something far from notable under the name of their brands.

About the part mentioned about charting, the website in charge of exposing the Persian charts is now out of business and if you review the other Persian artist wiki page you may see some of them have linked to that website as well but you will find the page does not work, please go to avang music and click on the names of the artists that have wiki page and you will find the link to http://www.eworldrecords.com on their reference category, which used to be the website in chart of Persian charts and now it’s gone.

The main idea of wiki pages are to be edited by different persons to get it close to the neutral point of view, for something that the source is not in hand anymore is a bit fast decision to command on deleting the page. You may not question the results returning on google and only concentrate on one un-sourced sentence and if you have the will to correct the context rather than speedy deleting it you can help make the article more neutral by removing the un-sourced materials. also the page on http://www.last.fm/music/Bahador+Kharazmi is a page made by various people and shares some common policies with wikipedia and also last.fm does not allow not notable artists on their page either.DopeBeat 11:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. per WP:Notability and WP:RS.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. As someone involved in Iranian music community from Iran, I know the artist and the article about his music career is true and some of the links are reliable to prove his notability. My opinion he well deserves to be here and I think the criticism about his notability is unfair.Sharamkashi (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Sharamkashi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As I was reviewing the history of deleted pages I saw wikipidians have deleted the created page of [Kamran & Hooman] for very similar reasons not being notable or reliable links! These two singers are considered as the a-list singers of Persian music industry inside and outside of Iran. Only because of the fact we don’t have billboard.com in our virtual community does not mean they are not notable, people who have deleted their page for 3 times are far from being educated about Persian entertainment and music industry and similar decisions for deleting the pages of Persian music singers by relying on some people out of the Persian community will deeply question the fact about Wikipedia being a fan of neutral point of view. Please stop deleting the pages of Persian artists.Sharamkashi (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the correct venue to protest deletion of a different article. Having a notable charting organization is just a shortcut method of proving inherent notability of a music subject. If that shortcut is not available in the case of persian musicians, the WP:GNG or other criteria in WP:NMUSIC still apply. Information must be WP:VERIFIABLE. If it is not, then it does not belong on wikipedia. If persian musicians are not meeting these neutral criteria, then they do not belong on this wiki. You may certainly propose a change in these policies (not here, in the appropriate venue), but I think you are unlikely to get much traction in that regard, as any exception that would allow musicians without coverage to have pages would open the floodgates to every high school garage band (let alone other non musical articles)Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point about some garage bands wanting to appear on Wikipedia and I don’t find any resemblance between those bands and this artist nor Kamran & Hooman and… but speaking with reasons and logic there are only 4 Persian major labels outside of Iran and they are all based in LA, California. The title of these labels are Avang Music, Caltex Records, Taraneh Records and Pars Video.The potential audience of Persian music market outside of Iran is an estimate of 6 to 7 million Persian people around the world out of 73 million Persian people living inside of Iran who may barely be counted as potential audience to take part in the financial part of the business because of the limitations inside of Iran. It is not so hard to see that in the risky market of even international music none of these 4 major labels are ready to take the risk of printing & publishing not notable artists in their local criteria. There are not so many artists listed under their pages (and even some of them are common among 4 labels), so you can be sure they are notable enough to be signed by any of these 4 major labels.I used to create pages for Persian artists, actors/actresses and singers 4 or 5 years ago. But only for the misjudgments of wikipidians I left Wikipedia and I just got back only for this artist on a call. Don’t even recall my old user id anymore but please judge by the references and situation of different countries, you can see most of the Persian artists have pointed out the Islamic revolution and how it has affected their career negatively, otherwise we could all offer more sources for our sayings in a land which welcome their own artists and do not ban them from acting and breathing freedom of art.Sharamkashi (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG and NMUSIC. It's entirely possible this subject is a popular and notable figure, but I can't find sources to back such an assertion and the ones presented don't pass the bar of multiple independent sources directly detailing the subject. Likely autobiography, and socking in and prior to this process seem to point toward someone using the English Wikipedia as a promotional platform. That not being our purpose, delete. BusterD (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 17:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seongho Cha[edit]

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

Advertising page for non-notable dancer. None of the sources provide in depth coverage of the dancer, only giving passing mentions. 1600 results at Google. DengFong (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources indicate subject has competed at the highest level of his chosen field both nationally and internationally. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My google-fu is weak today, and my patience for machine-translated Korean even weaker - but is it possible that there might be more sources in Korean? I concur with Suriel1981 in that dancers at the highest level nationally would seem to be notable, in general. There's a bit of fluff here, but certainly some notability - if we can document it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, he appears to be a top level athlete [10][11]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you search for "Jimmy Cha" or "Jimmy Cha Dancer" on google, you get far more results. He performed under that name for most of his career, but now uses his Korean name. TrailerTrack (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTE, there seems to be a lack of significant, in depth coverage of the subject from reliable third party sources. NTDTV and Renminbao are sources sponsored by the Falun Gong movement which does heavy promotion for the Shen Yun group which Cha belongs to. As for Google, most of the results for "Jimmy Cha" directs to a South Korean poker player, while "Jimmy Cha dancer" provides numerous false positives with the "cha cha cha" dance.--AstrixZero (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in my last comment it wasn't clear, when I search for the following, I get 8,160 results that mostly seem to be about the right person: "Jimmy Cha" dancer. I'm also wondering if search results are the same in each country. Hopefully this helps, sorry about any confusion. Also, I don't speak Korean, but when I search for his name in Korean along with the Korean word for dancer I get a lot of results that have media articles about him. TrailerTrack (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to qualify per [12]. The subject need not have received significant or in-depth coverage, merely "if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject." The references in the current article show that to be the case. Of course the FLG sources don't count. (Of note: OP made account to submit this deletion request.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the small number of comments, I trust Phil's negative search for references DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone Information Systems Software[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous spam: ....develops travel automation software for travel agencies that automates many of the complex and time-consuming aspects of making travel reservations. Their products are categorized as mid-office automation and information management products. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 16 February 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, B music ian 06:01, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure why the word "Software" was added to the subject's name to form the article title, but even when omitting it (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) the Google News hits only seem to find press releases and one quote from an employee in a local newspaper, and the Google Books hits a couple of directories and another employee quote. None of this amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Il Moo Do[edit]

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

Article is about a new martial art that was "inspired" by the Unification Church. The main part of the article is lifted directly from the organization's web page and there are no independent sources. I did not find any significant independent coverage of this martial arts style.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no reliable sources that show this style of martial arts is notable (or even that it's a unique style). Astudent0 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no independent coverage of this style that confirms any claims of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Screen Actors Guild. and redirect. Per User:Dondegroovily, deletion is impossible, as content has been merged into another article. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Screen Actors Guild labor dispute[edit]

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

This was nominated two years ago before the outcome of this dispute was known, back when a strike was a possibility. The notability was marginal even then. Now, that there hasn't been a strike, the notability is nonexistent, and the sources are routine coverage that don't indicate notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Main information has been merged.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't delete now, redirect. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete which explains that under our copyright, we can't delete an article that has been merged. Mad Scientist, don't merge pages that are under AfD, since you may be wasting your time if everyone would have voted delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Tourism Society[edit]

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

Not notable and reads as a promotion. --NavyBlue84 01:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find anything beyond blogs, forums and primary sources; no notability is established. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: In addition to the very low level of participation in this discussion, the author of the article was not informed of the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamesBWatson (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article needs a complete rewrite, the subject organization is WP:N via inclusion in third-party books (google book search found several), and the founder of the org is frequently quoted by mainstream press on space tourism topics. I will drop a few of the references on the article talk page for later use after AfD. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:30, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. I'm not seeing sufficient coverage here to demonstrate that this is a notable organisation in its own right, but I think a brief description of it in the Space tourism article can be justified. (Indeed, it is already mentioned there, alongside various other organisations.) Robofish (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Building information modeling. After two relistings, merge seems the best solution DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBIM[edit]

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

I am just not finding sources that aren't primary in nature. The article is vague at best, and without secondary verification, notability is far from established. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources. Berlotti (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I appreciate the effort, but those seem to either be primary sources, commercial links, websites talking about BIM but not OpenBIM, or similar. They don't really establish notability by being a reliable source covering the topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Building information modeling: this is not a software or a product; instead it is a niche term for a standard with an industry-wide importance. As such, it can find a place in the article about the industry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As previously suggested, I think a Selective merge of this topic into Building information modeling is the best option Paul W (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 some. Consensus to delete all but the first. v/r - T P 01:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Living senior housing project[edit]

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

A new user seems to be on an advertising rampage for planned senior housing projects in Hong Kong. None of these articles are referenced, and none appear to exist at this point (they all appear to be only in planning stages). None are notable. This nomination includes four articles total:

—SW— ^express 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first and second ones. Merge the third and the forth ones into the first one. The second one is probably more notable than the others since the site was formerly another public housing estate. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and probably a sock[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none are referenced, from a quick read there appears to be overlap on the subject matter. No use in relisting these, toss them and when referenced material exists someone will re-write them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep the first one. Delete or redirect #2, 3, 4, which I have merged into the 1st. The 3rd one is exactly the same as the 4th, just with wrong title. This is pretty much Hong Kong's first wealthy retirement community project and it is generating a debate, mostly in Chinese, though. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first, with the others as redirect, per Underwaterbuffalo's explanation. I usually say delete with articles on housing project, but this is ufficiently notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Refucussing on the union itself should be fine Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Agricultural Labour Union election, 1968[edit]

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

Article on an internal election for a trade union, which I do not believe is notable in itself. Perhaps if there was an article on this union, the details could be merged into it, but at present there isn't one. Number 5 7

Delete as not notable (the union might be, but a specific election won't be) ~~unless an article on the union is created - in which case, merge with that~~. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any sources to suggest that the union itself is notable either, so deletion seems to be the best option. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing as how the page is a virtual orphan, I suggest that it first be turned into an article about the trade union itself before adding pages about elections. Please expand since this would seem like a notable subject of early Israeli history. --Shuki (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2 Main Hebrew article, nonRS, but good resource nonetheless. --Shuki (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was a contested (by various political groups) election with an electorate of 45,000 (out of whom around 30,000 participated), carried out nation-wide. Thus a major political event in Israeli politics in that year. Notably one of the first areas were the two communist factions clashed in seeking public support. Also the first such election to take place. I wouldn't mind merging details into a broader article on the union or elections in this union, but awaiting the creation of such articles this one should stay. --Soman (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ,but rewrite as suggested into an article on the union itself, which needs an article. Quite sufficiently notable, with enough available sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presagis[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article's text is better than most (did some minor cleanup) and this business does seem to have some coverage in reliable looking sources; this book contains some fairly substantive information[13], and this less substantial bit shows some potential significance.[14] Not sure if this gets to encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smerdis,-- and I do not often get the chance to say that :). He's right there is enough third party information to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goalzz[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for a year for lack of notability and lack of third party sources, and no improvements have been made since. The only references and external links provided are only to the site the article is about, and thus fails WP:RS. Although it makes claim of notability by saying it is the "Leading sports site in the Middle East", no references exist to support this, and I can find none elsewhere, thus the article most likely fails WP:N. Rorshacma (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after over 6 years of editing football articles on here, I can confirm it's a site of questionable reliability and doubtful notability. Giant Snowman 21:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloudz 679 13:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 quorum, making this a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humza (comedian)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. All references in the article are to his YouTube sketches, and one to his Facebook page. I found this at BBC News, but I don't think it can be used on its own to support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I found two sources, which I used to cite some of the personal information and the viewership claim for his original Youtube series. The problem is that the entire rest of the article, 80% of it or more, is sourced to Youtube and covers things that I just can't find any sources for. Believe me, I tried, because the first two sources came pretty easily so I thought the article might be worth rescuing, but everything under "career" and "comedy tour" doesn't get any press, so it's not verifiable in relation to notability. What is covered in the press is his participation in a different comedy tour, but I don't have the energy to rewrite the whole article when I doubt the notability myself. If anyone else wants to look at the references I've added and see if there's an article to be built from them, be my guest. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of this article was blocked as a sock of RunBholaRun (talk · contribs). Singularity42 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Cow[edit]

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

Historical caffeinated milk product, might be worth a footnote in the manufacturer's page, but none-such exists. Very light coverage, best I could find was this piece] in a local journal; not enough to establish notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:15, 24 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable topic. Cloudz 679 19:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Institute lawsuit with World Programming[edit]

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

Deprodded without comment by IP. Rationale was Overly specific title, no sources, dubious notability. Most lawsuits do not warrant articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about litigation like this is at least potentially suspect of axegrinding and promotion. This gives that impression strongly; the point of the article apparently is to announce that one litigant's software has been judged not to infringe the other's copyright. The article does seem to indicate that a ruling has been made by an appellate court, but doesn't say that it was a published decision. The article says that the ruling was discussed in trade related circles, but doesn't establish that it is a precedent with lasting significance in the development of European copyright law. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: This article is in need of improvement but should not be deleted. SAS.v.WPL will be fundamental to European software copyright law and someone who really understands what is going on should write this up for future reference. There are several good articles on the websites of law firms, both those involved in the case and those that are not, but these are volatile and may disappear in a year or so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelmany9999 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is User:Modelmany9999's first, and so far only, edit. JIP | Talk 04:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; needs to be cleaned up and renamed (e.g., to SAS Institute v. World Programming), but it's a substantial case that is very much talked about in IP circles, the first that actually takes on whether a programming language syntax is subject to copyright. Some coverage: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. TJRC (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; it actually was not deprodded without comment by the IP. Before the IP deprodded, he added an explanation on the article's talk page (which he expanded on the next day). It wasn't a lengthy discussion, but it was enough to make clear that his reason for deprodding was not arbitrary. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the ip's discussion on the article talk p. and TJRC's discussion. Individual law cases with major commercial impact are notable, as are those with major legal impact. As for promotionalism, I don't see how one can write an article on a lawsuit without giving the result. the article doesn't just "indicate" that there's been an appellate judgement in a court of international jurisdiction, but proves it by actually quoting it. The article, however, could be a little clearer, and more exactly indicate the quotations from the judgments. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Circle (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. I found a few sources that refer to it, but not much. There are a few other albums by the same band created by the same editor that have the same format (and zero sources). So, I thought I'd see how this article fares at AfD before nominating any more. Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of independent notability. Insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus, but rename as indicated by Arxiloxos DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pan (film)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Reason was "Any released film from 1922 (and based on a Knut Hamsun book) is likely to be notable. Even if not, merge/redirect to Pan (novel) would be a better option." Most films from 1922 are not likely to be notable. Wikipedia has articles on 246 films from 1922 and IMDB has 1846 films from 1922 listed with 93.5% of them with less than 5 votes. That the film was based on a book by Knut Hamsun is irrelevant because notability is not inherited. The film article doesn't say anything about the novel it's based on and the novel's article only says that the novel has been adapted into a film 4 times. It doesn't say anything about those films besides what years they were released. A merge or redirect to Pan (novel) is not the best option either considering there are 14 films with the name "Pan" and most of them are not based on the novel of the same name. For An Angel (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should improve, not demolish, stubs on subjects of historical importance. Here's a 1997 Michael Wilmington review in the Chicago Tribune: "A fine film and a real discovery."[20] Norwegian film expert no:Gunnar Iversen describes the film as being "important in Norwegian film culture".[21] UCLA professor Arne Lunde discussed the film in his article "Knut Hamsum at the Movies in Transnational Contexts."[22] Hamsun himself apparently didn't like the film so much, according to Donald Dewey's article in the Scandinavian Review ("If the public liked Pan, the author himself wasn’t too impressed. Reached by telephone by a reporter for his reaction to the screen adaptation, the fleetingly personable Hamsun snapped “I don’t understand film and I am in bed with the flu,” and hung up."[23], p.30. There's more potential sources hidden behind "snippets" in GBooks[24], including something in a 1923 issue of the Scandinavian Review. Mention may be appropriate here of WP:BEFORE, WP:OFFLINE, and WP:BIAS.I do think the article could (eventually?) be retitled to Pan (1922 film), ~~although according to the DAB page there apparently aren't yet articles on the other films based on Hamsun's novel~~. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there is an existing article for Pan (1995 film), which I've now added to the DAB page. I suggest renaming this article Pan (1922 film).--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested merging them to a "Film adaptations" section under Pan (novel). As it stands now there is not enough information to warrant separate articles for each adaptation. Even the 1995 film article has no references. For An Angel (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos, it seems to have a decent amount of coverage for 90 year old film. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly established, and it should have dawned on nominator even without the added reference. __meco (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Without the added reference the article would have no references. The entire article when I first saw it said only, "Pan is a Norwegian film from 1922" and that's ALL it said since its creation over 5 years ago. It said nothing about the novel it was based on. I looked for references before but couldn't find any. If there are more references out there then they should be added. The one that's there now doesn't qualify as "significant coverage" in reliable sourceS as it only spends 2 whole sentences discussing it and is still only one source. For An Angel (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apology! I should have checked what the article looked like when you nominated it. __meco (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Chicago Tribune reviewed a 1922 Norwegian film, it is notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as been improved, and more can be done. Being originally unsorced was a far better reason to look for sources, than delete.... and in finding it covered in books, even if full text is available only WP:OFFLINE, we do not delete films sourcably important to Norweigian cinematic histoty... we instead try to improve them, even if it takes a while. WIkipedia knows that it is itself a work in progress and does not demand immediate perfection. The way I see it, needing work is no reason to delete what can be fixed, and stub articles are fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 quorum, delete as a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesalaccia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Only one of the "references" even mentions "Pesalaccia", and that one does not give any significant coverage. In fact the only statement in the whole article that is supported by a source is that someone named Vincenzo Pesalaccia, aged 50, emigrated to Brazil, arriving on the 14th of May, 1895. This article was written by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (to judge by their username), and it appears to be an attempt to produce a record for their family's surname. That is a perfectly good thing to wish to do, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. (Author contested PROD, without giving any reason.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While surnames can be notable, in this case, as it seems to be written more from a genealogical point of view of one particular family, I don't see any notability. 21:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Borneo Incident[edit]

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

PROD contested. Appears non-notable, with no reliable sources to be found (all I could find were social media chat, blogs etc). The Facebook link that has been added a couple of times (and removed by bot) makes it appear to be an amateur project of some kind? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have head of this movie and it is going to be a major film in the asian region. I am familiar with the actors they are celebrities in southeast asia, particularly malaysia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.192.209.221 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this article is premature. A complete lack of verifiability in reliable sources shows this as failing WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ewan_McGregor#Personal_life. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Mavrakis[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. The article merely states that she is a film production designer. Notability is not inherited and is not associated, so the fact that she is the wife of Ewan McGregor does not mean that she warrants an article in her own right. Biker Biker (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Ewan McGregor, per nom. All the coverage about her appears to be in relation with her husband. I'd also say merge, but the key informations of the article are already included in the "Personal life" section of the Ewan McGregor article, and any further infos could be added there, at least until the Mavrakis' work will be worth of notice.Cavarrone (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the small amount of discussion, the consensus is quite sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Stray Animals Day[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted via prod, and recreated today (which is acceptable per the rules). However, the article has no indication that this "holiday" is notable, nor was I able to find any reference to this "day" in anything other than blogs and social networking sites. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no notability. Anyone can claim a day for anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There's nothing out there to show that this holiday is actually observed in any notable way. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Candidate Deserves My Vote![edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Fails organisation notability guidelines. Less than a handful of candidates stood, with derisory results. No current or contemporary campaigns. We already have an article on this kind of novelty candidate (see None of the above. Failed novelty one-issue candidates do not fit Wikipedia article policies. doktorb _words^deeds 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to None of the above#No Candidate Deserves My Vote! party. Some coverage so not a candidate for outright deletion, but as their notability is entirely connected to a campaign for None of the Above, that looks like the best home for this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Refactoring confusing blue link of unsigned entry above. The actual link was to None of the Above, not to a fork article on this specific party. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, used wrong symbol. Should be clear now. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to the inclusion of political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. As this is a registered political party which has stood candidates for election, this is an easy call for me. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Registered party that has fielded actual candidates. Enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish at least marginal notability. If not kept, it should be redirected to None of the above, not deleted.--JayJasper (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think, as does Carrite, that we should be on the very inclusive side about political parties (and, for the same reason, religious movements) in order to provide NPOV coverage and avoid conscious and unconscious bias. In any case, the basic requirement that there is WP:V for their having actually run a candidate has always been held sufficient here. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. G12 copyvio of http://www.friending.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=5. Dpmuk (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial friending[edit]

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

Pure original and synthesised research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research and patent nonsense: Commercial Friending ideas started to develop based on a need to differentiate marketing instruments and marketing solutions according to the criteria of the communication participants’ interaction. Conventional advertising results to be less effective, future belongs to direct advertising. Therefore advertising processes are to be improved. 2000s is the time of Friending worldwide expansion. Interactive technologies contribute to marketing communications development. Commercial Friending aims to break one-way communication finding solutions to identify communication participants’ status, figure out whether partners are ready to accept information. Friending concept also serves as a standard in communication. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is also almost literally a word-for-word repost of content that was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friending. It was unreferenced nonsense then — beggar robots? magazines that pay you to read them? Buddhist prayer wheels? interactive flooring? "objects implementing needs in communication with artificially enormous art-solutions"? — and it hasn't been improved a whit since then. The term "friending" has no meaning outside the specific context of social networking websites, and the listed examples fail to provide any properly cited evidence that there's any real world phenomenon of "friending" that has anything to do with public art installations or religious iconography or talking floor tiles or homemade robots or whatever. Put simply, the concept of "friending" does not exist in the context described here; rather, the editor seems to be promoting his own personal pet theory. Delete, possibly even speedy as a repost of deleted b*llsh*t. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the AfD runs its course. Then future reposts can be speedied as reposts of AfD deleted 'stuff'. Nothing to stop a snowball, should that happen. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This just got a whole lot more interesting. Check out this link, which more or less confirms that this is basically the quirky spitball theory of some Russian marketing communications group — in fact, the whole article is literally a straight copy-paste of their own statement of concept, right down to the ridiculous examples and the nonwiki formatting errors and the "IFC = IV+II+NS+IS+IN+ISS+IF" nonsense and the complete lack of any real reliable sources. So add WP:COPYVIO and WP:COI to the list of reasons why this article needs to be tossed in the trash. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gravity Falls. v/r - T P 01:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gravity Falls episodes[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of possible future episodes of an unannounced TV series. Per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Pointillist (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pointillist (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no need to disambiguate a list of for a show that hasn't aired yet. Until it gets a second season, a section in Gravity Falls (created after the show's premiere) will work just fine. Nate • (chatter) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should keep it because for example a show like Jessie only has one season and they have there own list of episodes page since the first episode and A.N.T. Farm and Austin & Ally had the same thing --Quantum Waffles! in Gravity Falls (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to having a list article for a first series. But you can't start the article until there are reliable sources about the episodes. List of Jessie episodes has eighteen references. List of Gravity Falls episodes doesn't have any, because it hasn't been broadcast yet. The article should be deleted now. It can easily be created if/when broadcasts begin. - Pointillist (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gravity Falls The only reference in the article is one referring to "Spring 2012" as the premiere date for the series and there isn't enough content to support a standalone article at this point. While one might be tempted to delete this article, "List of foo episodes" is the naming convention for episode articles and it's where people will be looking for an episode list, so it's best to redirect it at this time, rather than delete it. When episodes are actually scheduled, the page can be redirected to Gravity Falls#Episodes

But Gravity Falls#Episodes links to List of Gravity Falls episodes. AFAICS the only proof we have that the show is being made and will air is Disney's Press Release reprinted by Futon Critic. That's not sufficient to justify a "List of" article, per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. - Pointillist (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Falls#Episodes doesn't exist. It was commented out on 3 March[25] and removed entirely the next day.[26] Even if it did link as you say, that's easily fixed. I agree that List of Gravity Falls episodes shouldn't exist, but since there is a main series article it should be redirected there for now. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LED-embedded glass. v/r - T P 01:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ledglass[edit]

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

Mostly original research by the same author whose other original research article is up for deletion (for the same reasons) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LED Headliner. Biker Biker (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any usable info to LED-embedded glass - no need for us to have two articles on the same subject. Could feasibly be slapped with an A10. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is salvageable in the material? "LED-embedded glass" is also in a dire straight with no evidence of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if sources can be found there are defintely some technical details which could improve the existing article. LED-embedded glass has already survived an AfD (although not by much), but I agree it needs improvement. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable material, the article creator is also personally involved in the development of the material, a search does not give up any significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree with Yunshui that this is essentially a content fork. The material itself is non-notable per WP:GNG, so I depart slightly in concluding that none of the contents is particularly salvageable. Rather, anything that might belong in another article needs to be re-written entirely by a non-WP:OR, non-WP:COI author. JFHJr (㊟) 22:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LED-embedded glass - the two articles are nearly identical. Stepho talk 04:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect to Emela-ntouka is an option but the suggestion was not mentioned in this AFD. v/r - T P 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kasai rex[edit]

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

A nice imaginary animal, but unfortunately there are no reliable sources that I can find anywhere. Do a Google Book search, and you'll find some self-published fiction and a couple of sensational books by non-notable publishers, and the rest is all Wikia and Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for reliable sources shows nothing but a textbook list of unreliable sources. It's all a load of hooey. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More importantly, can it fly an F-14? Someone another 09:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response More to the point, can it land it in one piece? Emeraude (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment^2 No it can't, for it ain't no ROFLCOPTERANODACTYL. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've also failed to find any good sources. Emeraude (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this is not my subject area, at all, but looking through google/books/scholar has brought up various blog-style sites and a few books which appear to be published by very specialist/minor publishers, none of which strike me as reliable sources, leaving only the newspaper piece from the Rhodesia Herald. That said if editors with background in cryptids etc. can step forward with relevant sources then please discount this !vote. As an aside, I see no indications that this beast, hoax or not, has any skill in flying/landing fixed-wing aircraft or ROFLcopters. Someone another 22:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Default to keep Zagalejo is quite right, there are sources for this other name, Chipekwe, such as this beard-stroky academic type book from Brill Publishers. Not only that, Chipekwe redirects to Emela-ntouka. So, we have 2 articles (Kasai Rex and Emela-ntouka) which have both existed since 2005 and appear to be covering the same subject. Rather than !vote merge and encourage a copy-and-paste job or a redirect pretending to be a merge, I think it would be a good idea for someone who does have knowledge of this subject to figure out if Kasai Rex and Chipekwe/Emela-ntouka are the same 'thing' and therefore merge them, or if a separate entry is needed for Kasai Rex on List of Cryptids, or something else. Someone another 13:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a cryptozoologist citing a few other ~~nuts~~ folks, and he doesn't call it kasai rex. I don't see an argument to keep here--and I think I may put Emela-ntouka on my list also. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one really takes this story seriously, but it's been circulating long enough that it might be worth mentioning somewhere. Not all sources seem to call the creature "Kasai rex"; see this old issue of Boys' Life, for example. Zagalejo^^^ 05:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there don't seem to be any reliable sources to the reptile, nor to the actual name of "Kasai rex", my !vote is for deleting the article, and burying it for another 65 million years. Maybe part of the article could be moved to Cryptozoology#Notable hoaxes. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some more background The Rhodesia Herald account is discussed in the book On the Track of Unknown Animals, by Bernard Heuvelmans. The picture is also reproduced, though Heuvelmans dismisses it as a hoax. He does not use the term "Kasai rex"; I'm not sure if that term even existed before the Internet era. (I'm also not sure how the "chipekwe" became conflated with the "emela ntouka", since they sound like two different kinds of creatures.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that if it is discussed in a substantial way in the Heuvelmans book, which is the standards modern work on the subject, then it is notable . As the naming is uncertain, we should keep the articles separate. It is for informations on subjects just such as this that people come to comprehensive encyclopedias lie Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyvio. JIP | Talk 05:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Minecraft 1.2[edit]

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

Lists updates to a future version of a computer game (Minecraft). Content is not notable and seems to be directly copied from here. Alxeedo TALK 04:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is a direct copyvio and should be G12ed - the license on that site is not compatible with Wikipedia. 74.207.78.189 (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation[edit]

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

This article is about a book which fails notability per WP:NB

1. The book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The article sources, and a search of Google and Google News show no reviews or other coverage of this book in reliable sources other than routine reprints of press releases announcing of the author's book tour promotional appearances. There are listings on various best-seller lists, but that does not establish notability, as bulk purchases by interested parties or organizations can grossly distort sales figures. Other coverage cited is in blogs, user-created sources and other promotional and self-published sources.

2. The book has not won any major literary award.

3. The book has not been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

4. The book is not the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.

4. The book's author is not so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Although the author has a Wikipedia entry, the author does not appear to be of exceptional significance such that his life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.

Note that this is not an academic or technical book, but one for general readership, and thus is not to be judged for notability by academic standards. By those standards it is not published by an academic press, is not widely cited in academic publications and media, there is no basis to conclude that it is influential or that it is taught or required reading at a number of reputable educational institutions Fladrif (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the creator of the article[edit]

I created the nominated article but I am happy to go by whatever is decided by members of the community who have not been involved with the Transcendental Meditation topic area. I'm sure it will receive a fair assessment. Some information for the community members to consider:

According to a Google Scholar search the book appears to have been cited in other publications: [note, these were added to the article on March 3, 2012]

THEMA: Transcendental Meditation and Medical Care Transcendental Meditation and Medical Care 4 Monate, 3 Wochen her# 216

B Zeiger - tm-darmstadt.de

“Norman E. Rosenthal, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at Washington, DC's Georgetown

University Medical School and author of Transcendence: Healing and Transformation through

Transcendental Meditation, recently completed a small study of TM's effects on veterans ...

[PDF] Simple Natural Ways of Reversing Effects of Stress due to Life's Uncertainties

A Hankey… - aims-international.org

day stress management program. J. Ind. Psych, 2000, 18(1&2). 25. Rosenthal NE

Transcendence: Healing and Transformation through Transcendental Meditation.

2011, Penguin; New York. 26. Kumari S. Nath NCB Nagendra ...

Just Say Om: Meditation May Alleviate PTSD Symptoms

D Brauser - Mil Med, 2011 - medscape.com

Environmental Therapeutics. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial

relationships, but Dr. Rosenthal is author of the book Transcendence: Healing and

Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation. Dr. Kondwani ...

Vedic Principles of Therapy

RW Boyer - EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 2012 - Elsevier

[CITATION] Transcendence

NE Rosenthal - 2012 - Hay House

KZZAD ŽIVLJENJE… - … –IZZIVI IN PRILOŽNOSTI V … - zbornica-fizioterapevtov.si

Medicine), podrobnosti o raziskavah o tehniki TM. " www. ncbi. nih. gov/entrez/query.

fcgi? db= PubMed 19. Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through

Transcendental Meditation, Norman E. Rosenthal, MD, 2011 148

Also the following sources ~~have not yet been~~ [have today (March 3, 2012) been] incorporated into the article ~~(which I would be happy to do given the opportunity)~~:
The IndependentSays: "Now a psychiatrist with 30 years' clinical experience, Dr Norman Rosenthal has written a book, Transcendence: Healing and Transformation through Transcendental Meditation, which gathers all the available evidence for TM and urges healthcare professionals to offer it to patients suffering from mental illnesses ranging from mild depression to bipolar disorder......"Those spiritual cravings explain why Rosenthal's boo is now riding high at number 14 on America's Publishers Weekly non-fiction list. And according to TM UK's official representative, David Hughes, there's a similar surge of interest on this side of the Atlantic; figures are vague, but he reports that "there's definitely an ongoing increase month by month" to the estimated 200,000 people who have learnt TM in the UK since 1960."......The bestselling Dr Rosenthal came to public prominence through his work on seasonal affective disorder at the National Institute of Mental Health in Maryland, where he also pioneered the use of light therapy to treat it. His interest in TM was piqued when one of his bipolar patients described how practising TM alongside his regular medication had helped him move from "keeping his head above water" to feeling "really happy 90 per cent of the time"......Dr Rosenthal began to examine the large body of scientific research into the effects of TM on long-term users, and also to collect anecdotal evidence from meditators. His book Transcendence is the result, though as he acknowledges in his introduction, "Some of you may find this preview of the benefits of TM – this seemingly simple technique – exaggerated and hard to believe. I don't blame you." He draws on 340 peer-reviewed research articles to back his argument that TM can not only reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease, but also assist in treating addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD and depression, not to mention helping high-functioning individuals achieve greater "self-actualisation".
Fox News October 8 2011 (note: article written by Rosenthal) says: Norman E. Rosenthal, M.D. is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical School and author of "Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation"
USA Today says: Rosenthal also suggests meditation. He published a book this year called "Transcendence: Healing and Transformation through Transcendental Meditation."
Wall Street Journal (note: article written by Rosenthal) (Subscription needed to view source)
LA Times June 1st 2011 says: Dr. Norman Rosenthal, clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University and author of "Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation."
NY Times Book is on the NY Times bestseller list for June 19 2011-Ranks #7
Fox News May 29 2011 (note: written by Rosenthal) says: Norman E. Rosenthal, M.D. is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University and the author of "Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation."
LA Times June 1 2011 says: People with winter depression often oversleep, overeat, gain weight and are generally lethargic, says Rosenthal, author of "Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation."
CNN says: A Georgetown Medical School clinical professor, Dr. Norman Rosenthal, said he has the facts, figures and testimonials to show that meditation can be a low-cost, low-risk alternative to strong narcotics often prescribed by government doctors. The Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs "are big institutions," Rosenthal said in a telephone interview. "Our hope is someone will raise an eyebrow and say, "Well, well." He includes case studies in his new book, Transcendence-healing and Transformation through Transcendental Meditation. In one case, he quotes a Marine gunner on a Humvee who saw heavy fighting in Iraq. The Marine wrote that PTSD symptoms disrupted his sleep and derailed his family life upon his return to the United States, but "TM (transcendental meditation) has helped with organizing, prioritizing and just being calmer overall. I just feel better."
Washington Post says: The author, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School, and also in private practice, discusses his new book, "Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation,"
Washington Post 6/10/2011 Says: Georgetown University Medical School professor of psychiatry Norman Rosenthal, author of a new book about TM, titled “Transcendence,”
Washington Post 6/12/2011 Book on the Bestseller list for June 12 2011--Ranks #8
ABC News says:"The study demonstrated feasibility in doing it with a limited number of people and at low cost," said Rosenthal, author of the book "Transcendence."
The Sunday Times (South Africa), June 26, 2011 Sunday, Hollywood loves SA doc's therapy by Rowan B. Philp says: Dr Norman Rosenthal, who left South Africa in the '70s when he was aged just 26, reported that war veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder showed a 50% reduction in symptoms after two months of routine transcendental meditation. The results were published this month in the US journal Military Medicine. Rosenthal has also written a book, Transcendence, about his findings. The book contains interviews with Paul McCartney, film director Martin Scorsese and actress Laura Dern. Movie director David Lynch has used the findings as a basis for a campaign to train 10000 US war vets in the practice of "TM" and to lobby the US government to fund the training. Rosenthal won world scientific fame in the '80s for becoming the first person to define "seasonal affective disorder" (SAD), after suffering symptoms himself when he left sunny South Africa and lived through the cold winters of the eastern US. He pioneered "light therapy" to counter its effects. Now a professor at Georgetown Medical School in Washington DC, Rosenthal, 61, said TM could also offer healing to thousands of South Africans traumatised by apartheid and criminal violence. "In 10 years of looking at all the major drugs coming across my desk, I have not seen one drug as effective as TM with stress disorders," he said. "Of course, there are those who see it as woo-woo and New Age, but these results - and actually many others - speak for themselves. "When I proposed light therapy, the idea that you could get medication through the eyes instead of the mouth ... there were people who thought that wacky as well." He said trials showed that meditation kept patients' blood pressure lowered for hours after sessions and that electric brain signals were shown to "cohere" in a healthy pattern. Rosenthal said of Scorsese: "Martin found it helped with his panic attacks and with his creativity." For Lynch: "It turned his whole life around." -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NB says: "This page in a nutshell: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: (1) The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A NYT bestseller, with multiple reviews. The bestseller information was in the article when it was nominated, and the reviews could easily have been found. Another good example for why WP:BEFORE should be required. (I was asked to take a look at this, by the way, but I don't see why that matters; in view of the sources, there's nothing else I could possibly have said.) The article tone should be more descriptive and less advocacy, but that's an editing matter; I assume it may have been that factor that led to this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect it is TOO SOON to create an article on this book, given the paucity of reviews (the newspaper mentions I checked are either listings or about the author) and as nom says the lack of any other grounds for inclusion. The one review quoted seems to be from a reasonably stable site but it's not enough on its own as we need multiple sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references that show up on Google Scholar do not establish notability per WP:NB The THEMA reference is to a blog entry on a SPS website of the TM Movement, not a RS. The Hankey reference is a paper at a conference, not a published RS, and the book is simply a footnote with no substantive discussion of it. The Medscape reference is user-created content on a website, not a RS. It contains no discussion of the book, but simply notes that Rosenthal recently wrote it. The Boyer article simply references the book as part of a string citation in a footnote with no discussion of the book or its contents. I have no idea what the last reference says - can't read Slovenian. The book shows up in a footnote only , not in the body of the text. These are not the kinds of sources that WP:NB requires and do not contain the kind of non-trivial, critical commentary required. Fladrif (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 14 sources listed by KBob above as potential additional sources to establish notability, only one appears to have any independent, non-trivial discussion of the book itself. Four are by the author himself, and thus are not independent; three are about Rosenthal's advice for treating seasonal affective disorder, not about the book, and simply mention in passing that he wrote this new book, without discussing it at all; two are simply best seller lists, with no substantive discussion of the book at all; one is a press release for a book tour event; one is coverage of a David Lynch Foundation fundraiser in which Rosenthal is interviewed and the recent book is mentioned in passing; one is coverage of a veteran in Fairfield Iowa with PTSD who took up TM, in which Rosenthal in interviewed and the recent book is mentioned in passing; one is an interview with Rosenthal in which the recent book is mentioned in passing. These 13 sources don't meet the requirements of WP:NB for independent, non-trivial analysis and coverage of the book itself. As Chiswick says, the one review is not enough to establish notability, at least not at this time. Fladrif (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had a look around, and decided to go with the keep option here. Reasons: On the WP:GNG side I think there's enough significant coverage over reliable source (Fox news, USA Today, CNN, WSJ, NY Times, LA Times, etc.) that I think it could stand on that alone to some extent. While a couple of those are "self published" in that Rosenthal was the author - it does persuade me to the point of number 5 in the criteria of the WP:NB guideline. (which I find to be a bit undefined if not ambiguous). Not saying he's an Edgar Allan Poe or anything, but his GA article certainly establishes him as a notable author. Now WP:CRYSTAL won't tell us if the book will win any awards (still too early in its release for that) - the fact that it has made some of the best seller lists I find also persuasive. guess that about covers it from my view. ty, and luck to all. — Ched : ? 16:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --In addition to the citations already in the article, there are 14 notable sources above. The Independent, CNN and The Sunday Times all give significant coverage to the book while the other high profile publications give it a mention, plus two, high profile, best seller lists. In my opinion, this is beyond 'trivial' coverage. (Note: I am the author of the article and Fladrif has nominated the article for deletion. We are both 'involved' editors who have many edits on the Transcendental Meditation topic and its corresponding arbitration cases)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So long as interactions between the two of you remain respectful, and there's not rush to just XfD all TM related stuff, I doubt it's much of a problem. Neither of you are under any kind of topic ban, or interaction ban as far as I know. — Ched : ? 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ched, I didn't mean to indicate that I anticipated any problems here. I respect the opinions of those that are participating here, whether they agree with me or not. I just wanted to identify Fladrif and I as involved editors in order to distinguish us from others and make it easier, for the person who summarizes and closes the AfD at the appropriate time. Thanks for allowing me to clarify this point. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments and evidence of notability above. Many book articles in WP passed notability threshold criteria on far less favorable news coverage. Hitting NYT list alone seems adequate. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NB does not list being on a best-seller list as a factor in determining notability. The reason is obvious - sales figures are easily, and frequently manipulated through bulk purchases. That is clearly the case here, as the NYTimes list notes that this book is one with bulk purchases. The coverage, as noted above, is clearly only trivial. Fladrif (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject has multipile non-trivial independent reliable sources, including multiple best-seller lists. There is sufficient verifiable source material to create an encyclopedia article about this book, so there's no doubt this is a keeper. Dreadstar ☥ 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article appears to have made a small splash in the tabloids. I think it's rather dubius as to how reliable they are about the specific claims though. We need more reliable sources to actually include specific claims of the book. The sourcing in the article currently needs to be tightened up keeping in mind the WP:FRINGE guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sampson[edit]

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

Unambiguously fails WP:GNG and, to the extent that it is relevant, WP:MUSICBIO. All sources are either literal mentions (interviews with bands whose albums he has produced wherein a band member mentions that he produced their album) or are album liner credits. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG, and does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO either. Jenks24 (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Also fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find coverage for the subject sufficient to meet WP:GNG; does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 17:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Burneika[edit]

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

Subject's only notability claim is to have won regional and national bodybuilding championships. Not enough to pass WP:ATHLETE, fails WP:MMANOT since he has not yet fought even one fight, and can't really find much in the way of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no support for any notability. Two of the sources given are about him promoting some product, while the other mentions he has an upcoming MMA fight. Astudent0 (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has no MMA fights and there's no support for any claims of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Hofer[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The content from the article might belong at Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran but it is difficult to justify a separate article on Mr. Hofer. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Sasha (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per CBM's reasoning. Tkuvho (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk)
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kubigula (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1852 Indian Ocean storm surge[edit]

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

Could not verify occurrence. Sourced (with broken ISBN) only to a biographical book concerning the ancestor of someone who supposedly died in the incident. Did not find any non-mirrored mention via Google search. Article is also a near-orphan with parts copied from 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Paul_012 (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we can't confirm that this actually happened, I imagine we'll have a hard time proving notability. But the date would imply that off-line sources would be available; perhaps someone would have a look? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 23 February 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, →Σ τ c. 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are no sources there can not be an article. It also seems that if the one shipwreck (the only specific information in the article) is the most notable point, then it would probably be better to have an article on that. BigJim707 (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's one rather doubtful source - can anyone substantiate it? If so, happy to reconsider. But no sign yet of multiple RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 status of the refocus stands unchallenged Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May House[edit]

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

I feel it's no more notable than any one of the hundreds of skyscrapers in the city. No sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would've thought its being police headquarters makes it a bit different from any other skyscraper? Der yck C. 12:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved the May House article to make it part of the larger and until this move not yet existing Hong Kong Police Headquarters article. This article as a whole is now a stub and the notability of the topic should not be controversial. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and per Deryck. Jeremy Hopkins (talk) 14:09, 27 February 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, →Σ τ c. 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Institute of Technologies and Applied Sciences[edit]

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

No sources or assertion of notability. Nothing about the institute itself, just a spammy intro and list of courses offered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on notability, but it seems to be a significant institution in Cuba : a Google search yields 1,170,000 results (most of them can probably be discared), and the university appears in several LinkedIn profiles, suggesting significance as a degree-granting institution. Full disclosure: I declined a speedy deletion for 'unambiguous promotion' and asked the nominator to reinstate the article after a deletion for this reason. Personally, I fail to see the spam/promo part in the lead, the whole article seems factual to me. The author of the article previously created Instec, which wad (wronly, in my opinion) deleted as a copyright violation, perhaps due to the bulleted section. Again, no comment on notability. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - Adding native language search terms. — C M B J 14:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article rather needs a rewrite, but the subject is clearly a properly accredited degree-awarding institution, and we standardly keep such articles. PWilkinson (talk) 19:05, 26 February 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, →Σ τ c. 02:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has been cleaned-up and organized as of the time of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Higher education institutions are notable. Much better since clean-up. Emeraude (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proper tertiary educational institutions are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Litéra Software[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. The subject of the list appears to be products for a non-notable organization. The article lacks reliable third party sources and fails the stand-alone list criteria. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 07:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I noticed that the company's article has yet to be uploaded by the original editor, with it remaining on their namespace. I'd also like to make aware that there is another editor adding the company Litéra [27] (and claims of the company holding copyrights) to various articles. I mention this because if the company is non-notable, there is going to be an immense amount of cleanup and checking up to do. I'm a little leery of this, especially since the other editor started editing on the same day for the same company.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find press-releases, their own sites, sites with promotional stories which allow uploading of own articles and directories. Is included in businessweek directory though, but otherwise no good secondary sources. Thus, it seems to by non-notable and promotion-intended. JHSnl (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 19 February 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, Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of the subject. A non-notable short-form catalog of a non-wp:notable company. North8000 (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable products of a non-notable company = no basis for a list on Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sprunt[edit]

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

Non-notable architect, no reliable in-depth news sources about the individual. With a name like that, any significant online coverage should be easy to spot. I can't see any. Sionk (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seems like a pretty standard career for an architect. However, he does seem to have some journal hits here and here, among others. I'm not too familiar with his field, so I'm not sure if mentions like that would establish notability, but my guess would be no it does not. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 February 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, →Σ τ c. 02:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catalencoder[edit]

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

I found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all I found is staff review on French download site and short review on some obscure site. Just not enough for WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, given that this is a software that can be reviewed in depth. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:25, 13 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:09, 21 February 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, →Σ τ c. 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failure to establish notability. Cloudz 679 08:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 quorum, so a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSR Micro[edit]

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

This reads as advertising, and doesn't look very fixable. Math321 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small US branch of a Japanese corporation that we don't seem to have an article on yet (not mentioned at JSR, in any case). If it turns out we do have an article on the parent, selective merge. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 23 February 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, Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 06:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Bennett[edit]

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

Although Bennet's wartime experiences are laudable, they do not rise to the level of WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG required for an article at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 23 February 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, →Σ τ c. 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, per nom; but I'm borderline - it seems like he's notable enough to be mentioned somewhere, just not in his own article. I just can't think where, but if someone can find an appropriate place to include a blurb about him in a more general article, I'd support that. Of course, I could just be being sentimental about this, so the closing admin may feel free to regard this as a stronger support for delete than I've expressed here if my rationale for wavering is faulty. - Jorgath (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Swimming to retrieve a badly needed food parcel, even in shark-infested waters, is insufficient grounds for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'll repeat my original statement on the talk page. "I too have concerns about the notability of this individual. The story is a familiar one for thousands upon thousands of merchant seamen in the Second World War, and the awards for bravery by themselves do not confer notability (only the very highest awards, i.e. the VC or GC do this). If the other achievements (the three times torpedoed, or the open raft) have themselves become notable, then I would expect to see them recorded in histories of the war. The Lane book is a step towards this, though he merely uses the captain's report, which mentions Bennett, as an example of attitudes after a sinking. In the absence of this significant coverage in secondary level sources, I think this would fail the WP:GNG..." He could receive a mention in articles on the ships he sailed on as they are written, as these are generally held to be notable. So the SS Saugor, MV Bhima, and especially MV Sutlej. Benea (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per Tinton, Carwil's comments, currently keeping the article. Wifione ^Message 06:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional geography[edit]

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

There is not a sufficient agreement on this (or any other) particular definition of the term "emotional geography" to have a specific article on the term. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself is not a reason to delete. If there are competing definitions, we can discuss their differences and the difficulty in defining the term. If some of the meanings are something completely different, it maybe should be a separate article. As football perfectly demonstrates, difficulty defining something is not a reason to delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the case of football, this may be true. But a term such as emotional geography is likely to have as many different meanings as writers who write about the topic. The term is too vague. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:DICDEF. I can't see mcuh more being added. Am I wrong? Bearian (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick look at the sources suggests it is a notable concept. The current entry may be substubbish, but that article can and will be expanded into something better. Give it time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What sources are we talking about here? The page lists a single reference, whose definition of "emotional geography" differs from other definitions found if one searches for other sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you noticed the "Find sources" link above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page needs expansion, not deletion. If the nominator would click the links above, either news, books, scholar, etc, then we might not have this discussion. Several hits come up, and I suggest the nominator withdraw this. Tinton5 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 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, →Σ τ c. 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — The subject of this review of recent literature (sorry for the paywall) in the academic field of geography. There's a coherent topic here that should be explored.--Carwil (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus on the strength of the sources. v/r - T P 01:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Garth[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with general or topical notability guidelines for bands. Unsigned band with recordings consisting of self-published and unreleased material. Sourcing is limited to local press, local band/scene rags, and local public radio. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can and will provide sources from multiple states on the subject if that is what is needed to prove notability outside of any one locality. The subject is from Las Vegas, so I used mostly Las Vegas sources as they were easier to research. However, I believe that by using these sources, notability is established under criteria 1. and criteria 7. of the topical notability guidelines for bands and is certainly established under the general notability guideline as well. Maybe I am unclear as to exactly how many of the guidelines the subject must qualify for under the topical notability guidelines. I believe the subject of the article is at the forefront of the Las Vegas music scene as is implied by having been on the cover of that city's widest circulated weekly publication, and further evidence of his relevance to the music scene in Las Vegas can be verified by his multiple appearances on that city's public radio where the subject's opinion, specifically of that music scene, is the topic of concern for the broadcast. When I find sources from other cities, will this page live?Sal (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You need to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You can see my comments below for an analysis of the sources thus provided. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "He is most widely known for his role as one of the co-founders, guitarists and vocalists of Black Camaro" (redlink) says it all. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The delete 'votes' do not give good grounds for deletion. In-depth coverage in local sources is perfectly acceptable to demonstrate notability of individuals. Redlinks exist to encourage editors to create articles, they do not demonstrate non-notability per se. The article already cites three very in-depth news articles about Garth in three different publications. Sionk (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is subjective importance, meaning that it is assumed that the subject is notable by seeming important or appearing to stand out to a person, group, or locality. CityLife is a nightclub tabloid. Of the four CityLife articles, two are gig promos, one promo for a self-released recording and how to get it, and the "cover issue" mentions them in one sentence. LVWeekly is another nightclub tabloid. One LVWeekly is a "list your band here" link, while the other is a one paragraph mention of new local bands with a link to their Bandcamp profile. Bandcamp doesn't support notability. The KNPR interviews were promotional pieces for a local indie festival. Essentially, anybody calls in; they get on the air. The RJ blog is more than a passing mention, but one such article does not equate to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As far as the redlink, it most certainly is questionable. The article claims notability based on the subject's role in the band. The band has not been established or determined to be notable and according to sourcing provided, is highly unlikely at this point. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re the "cover issue", are you referring to this, which is a 1,800 word article entirely about Garth, if so, I don't understand the "mentions them in one sentence" bit. I'm not familiar with the term nightclub tabloid, are you claiming the source is unreliable? Quasi human | Talk 23:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Nope, that source is a mere promo for a gig that night. The term "nightclub tabloid" is how locals refer to the newspaper inserts and street stand publications that provide tourists with a list of local nightlife activities. (I'm a transplant from Henderson.) The one sentence cover story is here. Overall, the tabs fail independence. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - RE the "cover issue". The 'cover issue' where I write, "Garth was on the cover of Las Vegas CityLife Magazine's music issue in 2011", is not the same as the one mention cover story. The Issue that Garth was on the cover of was this issue. The actual 'cover' in this case, would be this specific cover that I am still in the process of finding a more verifiable link to. I also have never heard of a night club tabloid, though I have found more sources connecting Garth to Black Camaro from other US cities, but I feel they too will be condemned as 'nightclub tabloids'. Should I even bother? As for KNPR's State of Nevada being a 'call in and get on the radio' type of show, I cannot disagree more. One should easily make the distinction between inviting a guest in to speak on the air vs. a random caller getting through and getting his /her 15 minutes of fame. In both instances, one was used specifically to bio Garth and his band Black Camaro, while the other was a sit down to discuss the local music scene in las vegas that happened to be at the same time as the Neon Reverb music festival, which is sponsored by Zappos and features national acts on their bill. However, the mere fact that a publication would want to specifically bio Garth at the same time a radio station would, struck me as reason to believe there was notability. I think what is being underestimated here is the influence and notability of an independent artist, and what is being overestimated is the ability for that particular artist to have such an influence over his/her local media for the sake of promotion - albeit free promotion - as opposed to the demand for the information by the community, which is clearly the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvador Calyso (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 68.104.0.87 (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. First off, I would recommend providing as many references as you are able. Something that you might overlook could establish notability. The fact remains that this: http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2004/06/23/cover_story/cover.txt is one sentence in an article. This article, for which he was on the cover was a mere promo gig: http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2011/03/11/music/stories/iq_42794819.txt. I generally don't prefer to give more information about my personal life here, but I think several people know my background. I served as VP of an organization and worked to promote the organization and individual for three years, using the same (and more) of the PR tools that you have used. I took the organization national, international, then left. Of course, not before writing my first article for which I had a significant conflict of interest. As far as KNPR SON, I've been the scheduled guest twice and know the staff very well and how the shows operate. The interviews may be reliable, but they fail independence. Promotions included working with all the publications that you mention. There has also been two entire pages of a life bio in the LVRJ, Sun, and indepth reports on television. There has been a short three ep doc on cable and a full-length doc currently making the rounds at festivals. A book is in the works. Quoting a portion of your claim, "the mere fact that a publication would want to specifically bio Garth at the same time a radio station would, struck me as... " a promotional blitz for the indie festival. If you work with the band, keep doing what you're doing. Find a notable indie or major label. Bypass self-releasing your music. Get out of LV and generate some press and reviews that are not mere gig promotions. And good luck. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think the source I linked above is just a promo for the gig. The gig is not mentioned until half way through the article, the main substance of which is dealing with Garth himself, not the band. We should expect that people get more coverage when they are promoting something, this happens in the most bulletproof reliable sources, so I don't think that it makes this source any less important as regards the GNG, especially as it goes well beyond WP:ROUTINE. The source appears to have an editorial system, and I don't see a reason why it would not be an RS, its target audience does not seem relevant. I would consider revising my !vote if you can make a case for it being an unreliable source. Sal, I agree with Cindamuse, if you have access to more sources let us know, it can only help keep the article (sources that address the subject in detail are preferable to those that only mention them in passing, regardless of where they are from.) Quasi human | Talk 11:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - More Sources Added: I found and added 11 more sources to the article. Also, I am still perplexed as to why Las Vegas CityLife, Las Vegas Weekly, Las Vegas Review-Journal, and KNPR are not reliable enough sources to establish notability. They all have their own Wikis, apparently they have passed through a proper notability screening. Is this sound logic?. Sal 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Let me make it clear that I am not a promoter for the band, or for Garth. I do live in Las Vegas, and I hear about this guy all the time, though I hear mostly of his rants online that I suppose he is becoming more known for locally. However, when I inquire about these rants of his, it always comes back to "You know, he's the guy from Black Camaro". I also do not believe it is a promo for the gig. It is a bio of Garth, who represents what Citylife feels is a staple of the Las Vegas music scene (and apparently his community's facebook collective, which I completely understand the exclusion of as a source). Please help me clear up the "one line" mention. I'm not sure if you are referring to the headline, or if you are referring to the entire article written about Garth's band where the magazine basically reprinted with permission, Garth's words (or his band's words, that much is not exactly clear), though they represent events that happened to Garth as is clearly stated in the forward to the source "Interstellar Overdrive". I placed that source at that particular place in the Wiki article, not to establish notability, as I thought I had done with the previous sources, but to establish a reliable source that shows information concerning Garth being on tours of the US. I do have a college understanding of sources, however, I am new to the Wiki-way. Sal 20:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I think there is enough here to meet the GNG. From my research, Black Camaro is likely to be notable also, so it being a red link is irrelevant. Quasi human | Talk 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See above. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 February 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, Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator makes a strong case that none of the produced sources surpass WP:ROUTINE coverage in entertainment sections of news sources. Nothing here impresses sufficiently to keep a BLP. BusterD (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP: ROUTINE, In what way? It should be recognized that the original "nomination" came before 13 additional reliable sources were added to the article to support notability, independence, and reliability. The Nominator certainly makes "a" case, but I would not go so far as to call it a "STRONG" case. Please allow me to explain why. A person being on the cover of a magazine in which the "cover story" is specifically about that person, goes far beyond WP:ROUTINE, despite it being a monthly, weekly, or even a daily periodical. There are well over 20 references here, most of which are absolutely not for promotional purposes, and all are completely verifiable and from respectable publications. In fact, most of them were written about events that had passed, so clearly they are not for promotional purposes, as they mention events THAT HAVE PASSED. Clearly every argument made against this article is fallacious. First it was a "notability" issue, which was found to be a false alarm. The subject is clearly notable; his name is mentioned in well over 20 references (and I've found even more). He certainly is not world renown, but what percentage of wiki subjects are? Then, the "notability" argument became a "source reliability" argument. This was also challenged, and I'd like to think proven to be false as well. Soon after, a third argument was made - that the subject is not "independent" of the sources. Really? How so? In what way is the subject of the article connected to these multiple publications, other than being from the same town as most, but not all of the sources? Is it possible that Brian Garth is such a mover and shaker that he has every major publication in Las Vegas in his back pocket, despite the fact that they are all in competition with each other? Unless that ridiculous notion is the case, I think anyone arguing in favor of these supposed guideline violations is delusional. I have looked over several pages that are up for deletion based on notability. I get it, most of them have maybe one or two sources, but no solid info on the actual person. It makes sense to delete that. I've looked into routine, most of these go beyond routine, far beyond routine. I've looked under the guidelines for topical notability, this qualifies under 1 and 7 , I suggest reading them again. I can't exactly prove that the subject is "independent" from the sources, but it is unlikely that he has a connection to any of them personally. Unless you can prove he does, which I'm sure you cannot, "Independence from the source" should not even be considered. Besides, they are all respectable publications - that would be a serious conflict of interest on their part. You're not impressed? I've read some of the stuff you've worked on. I'm not impressed either. Sal (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the other 2.5 million articles on bands and performers standing on en-WP were sourced out so well, we could all sleep soundly at night. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Two dozen articles/reviews are listed in this article, including one I found in the Las Vegas Sun from 2009 about the release of a new album. As a whole, I believe they demonstrate notability. AuthorAuthor (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ^Message 05:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Smith (fighter)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable fighter. Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. The only attempt at notability is a future appearance on a reality TV show. TreyGeek (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced BLP about a non-notable MMA fighter. He has no fights for even a second tier MMA organization. Astudent0 (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the previous editors said, the article has no sources and the subject fails all notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and fighter is not yet notable. Glock17gen4 (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G4 The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slaviša Ubiparipović[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As already stated on the talk page, this article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. There is no sourcing I've seen to indicate that the MISL is fully professional, and the coverage on this article consists of routine sports journalism and statistics. I think the article is still elidgible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, hence the tag on the article, but it has gone unadressed for two days indicating that more discussion may be necessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering here, are indoor football leagues even accepted as being professional. I mean I can prove it is if it has not been already but I am just wondering. If not then yes delete. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was discussion closed as moot, and a redirect to tea culture looks like an Obvious Right Thing anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tea drinking[edit]

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

Unless I've missed it, I can't see a speedy deletion criterion for an essay and instruction manual. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted on user request - looks like it was a test -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this, I have redirected it to Tea culture after the user-requested deletion as a probable search term for the subject. Nate • (chatter) 05:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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