< 24 July	26 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2012#District 10. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharen Neuhardt[edit]

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

It is political silly season once again. Being a candidate for office is not in itself an automatic notability qualifier, they have to have done something, anything, else...something significant to catch the attention of reliable sources and satisfy the general notability guide. This person in question though not notable in the slightest, having only run a failed campaign in 2008. What scant appearances there are in sources such as the Dayton Daily News is a single name-drop with no depth, or endorsements that are routine in an election year, i.e. the Emily's List link. All in all, no WP:POLITICIAN #3 of that guideline talks about this kind of candidate in particular. Note that redirects to the district were rejected by an anon IP (one that geolocates to Dayton, Ohio, the candidate's home turf, so we're dealing with a probably conflict of interest here as well) Tarc (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article has been added. The race is receiving quite a bit of attention regionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.188.43 (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — 65.185.188.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:POLITICIAN guidelines only dictate that the politician in question has received significant press coverage - a dozen articles in various media sources seems like it would suit this requirement. The subject of the article also has qualifications other than political campaigning, including significant local notoriety due to work with a land trust, which is also documented with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.241.113 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — 98.218.241.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge and Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2012#District 10, where her candidacy is already appropriately mentioned, unless coverage from outside the campaign area is included. Of 16 refs at this moment, 1 is her campaign site, 2 are obligatory election results, and the remainder are local, although at least one discusses support by a national group, Emily's List, and tracked by Ballotpedia and Project Vote Smart, I'm unable to find any in-depth coverage that is non-local; I'll switch to keep if such coverage is cited here, and no prejudice to restoring the article if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Emily's List stated function is to support all pro-choice female Democratic candidates; their endorsement is as rote and routine as the National Rifle Association's is of any candidate who supports the 2nd amendment. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2012#District 10 per WP:POLITICIAN. Fails all criteria for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article - The US House of Representatives only has 435 representatives. Being a candidate for this office is notable in and of itself. In Ohio - a state of 11 million people - there are only 32 candidates for US representative. This particular race is competitive. An increasing number of voters will be looking to learn about Ms. Neuhardt. Finally, few voters know the name of their district, this is especially true this year after redistricting. Wikipedia users will be looking for Ms. Neuhardt's bio, not a description of the race itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.99.178 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — 64.59.99.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, if the article is redirected, anyone who searches for her name will be automatically directed to the election page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the article's creation, the guidelines were sufficient similar to now [1] that candidates for this office were not assumed to be notable, though the editor may have been unaware of it at the time. While not created specifically for this election, the article did not meet this guideline when it was created, with no significant coverage outside the local area since to indicate any change. Dru of Id (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above and per usual consensus for unelected political candidates. Based on the coverage available she is not notable in herself; every citation is about the election and her candidacy, not about her (as well as being purely local in scope). The article contains almost no biographical information, and the available links don't provide much more. What has she done all her life, other than run for office? It's impossible to tell from the available record. In other words she fails WP:GNG, and as an unelected candidate she fails WP:POLITICIAN as well. A redirect is appropriate because it preserves the history and allows for the article to be recreated if she should win election. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete !votes have the strongest arguments. It looks full of OR and, unless multiple works have been published doing an in-depth histiography of the subject, is not a viable encyclopedic article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Iraq War to the Algerian War[edit]

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

I've just remembered this article, which I came across a couple of years ago; it still suffers from the same problems, so I've taken it to AFD. While interesting, I think this article is largely a piece of original research. Certainly, the Iraq and Algerian wars have been compared; the sources show that, and links were drawn even by the Pentagon itself. But the actual content of this article is mostly unreferenced and based on the views of the author. Note that a similar article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Iraq and Vietnam wars, was deleted in 2008; again, such comparisons have been made, but there's probably not enough material to base an article on the subject. This kind of compare-and-contrast exercise is best left to the reader. Robofish (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete unless a better place for the cited content is proposed. There is clearly considerable content that's not attracted any post facto citations though the fact that the core argument did attract such citations is worth noting positively.

I see here that no deletion would normally happen until at least Aug. 1. I'd hope that would be the case.

How about cutting off the 2/3rds+- of the entry that's not been backed by citations and leaving the part that has, most or all at the beginning? That would also leave the deleted blocks in revision history for further research/citework/revival if/when doable. I'd help on it in a reasonable time period, say a couple of weeks. This article could I assume be better linked in to the other Iraq War articles and I'd work on that, too.

Is there a reason the deletion-proposal template on the article doesn't link to this page (it's a red link)? I am asked, there, not to tamper with it. Separately, I'm assuming updates to this page also appear on the July 25 deletion-proposals page. I'll see.

Thanks for the notification. I'll check back. Swliv (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the link to the deletion page from the article's template will appear as a redlink until the cache is purged. I've no idea why. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can purge the page by adding "?action=purge" after the URL in your browser's address bar and then pressing ENTER. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be an essay, and fails WP:OR. It's also hopelessly outdated; the 'Iraq is like Algeria' argument was going around in about 2004, and the comparison doesn't hold much water these days for fairly obvious reasons. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's OK to respond to a vote like this: I think you're misstating what the article is. It's history, now that the war is largely history. So it's not saying Iraq is Algeria. It's saying that during the war, the war was looked at by principals to some degree as analogous to the Algerian War. Do you really want to blot out that part of the history? Isn't history part of the encyclopedic mission too? The essay part I've made a counter-proposal on -- i.e. delete that part. Doesn't that make sense? Swliv (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't say that at all - it's an OR essay arguing that there are direct comparisons. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask again: Are you distinguishing between the citation-backed (i.e. non-original-research) beginning of the current article on the one hand and the extensive (2/3rds I've estimated above) unfootnoted text that started (chronologically), and now finishes, the article? I know my contribution to the article was not original research and I see other parts which seem not to be, either.

Taking in Buckshot06's concurrence just below, I will refine my proposal to include, if it's preferred, an "explore merger" kind of template on the proposed, cut-back article. (Guidance on exact template appreciated.) I accept this article may not have a big free-standing future -- it's sort of a "footnote to history", in my view, though not one to be thrown out with the bathwater. I feel it has at least a mid-term free-standing future if and until the citation-backed portion finds a good home.

I am prepared, based on this discussion in total to date, to undertake the drastic edit that I propose. I'm not ready to do it conditionally, in other words, to let you all then "decide if we like it". But, if there's agreement on the "mid-term" future of the article (one year?), I'd do the work. Thanks all. Swliv (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited material is certainly a lot better than the rest, but I think that this is a case where the article needs to be started more or less from scratch. I'd be happy to recover the article if it's deleted and post it in your user space. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. Would your recovery bring back the revision history, may I ask? I copied the article copy out for myself a few days ago against the possible deletion. The history, though, of course I couldn't reasonably copy out and is part of what I'd hate to see lost in this deletion process.

Another question I have: Do you agree with the proposing editor's comment that "[t]his kind of compare-and-contrast exercise is best left to the reader"? That seems to be a tighter standard even than you are proposing and really a rather astonishing statement given the scope and depth of the dialogue and history covered (in albeit a flawed fashion).

Finally, in case you're not counting, if you change your vote to "Prune Severely" and noone else joins in, this deletion needn't happen (assuming majority rules in the process). With that in mind, may I finally ask whether there is anything I'm doing wrong, here, in pursuit of my goal, from your perspective? Is my "one year" unreasonable? for example.

Thanks for your attentions, and cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prune Severely per Swliv. Wikipedia *cannot* do historiography, which is effectively what this article seeks to do. That's WP:SYNTH. What we can and should do is report the historiography that others (commentators, academics etc, RSs) have done. Thus all the unreferenced material should be removed, and as much stubifying as this article needs should be carried out. If this articles does not quickly turn into a reporting of cited comparisons only, then I will personally nominate it for deletion again. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. "[H]istoriography" scares me a bit as a word but I think I get your meaning. One fine point: You say it "seeks" to "do hist.". I would say the article sought to do so, originally. Others came upon it and, first, put the challenges to the OR in as a template, seeking citations; and, second, some like me came upon the article with citeable additions to make, and made them. Yes, we later ones could have taken up the shears and cut the original work but we didn't. Now I'm hoping it's not all to be lost and I appreciate your support for my proposal (see more above). Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with sections deleted under G4. Selective deletion with a revision to the stub status incoming. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transnational organization[edit]

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

While I'm not an admin so I can't check for myself, I'd be willing to bet the greater part of this article, which compares the Muslim Brotherhood with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, duplicates the article by the same author deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Muslim Brotherhood and the CPSU: Architecture and Functions. Although it purports to be an article on 'transnational organizations' more generally, this article seems to suffer from the same problems as that one: it's an elaborate piece of original synthesis. The sources given don't actually describe the Muslim Brotherhood and the CPSU as 'transnational organizations', nor do they compare them with one another. The comparison is entirely the work of the author.

I would suggest reducing this article to the stub it was before User:Dagnytaggartmoxie came along, but I'm not even convinced 'transnational organization' is even a notable term. A better solution would be to delete it and replace it with a redirect to International organization. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV-driven original research. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that I have never seen the CPSU referred to as a "transnational organization" in the scholarly literature. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carrite.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be edited but there is a sound basis for the article in the literature. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this stub. The term appears in scholarly literature and needs a proper treatment. I have no opinion on whether the current expanded version is sound; it may be that we need to revert back to the stub version. But the topic is encyclopedic <rant>(if a bit esoteric, and if I personally think it is a lot of hot air blowing by some people who were not happy with the term international organization, for no good reason I can discern</rant>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An international organization implies formal, recognized structure, while a transnational organization can also be an underground criminal network. rwityk (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2012

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

Keep Concur with Jason from nyc and Piotrus. "Transnational organization" is a scholarly term found in literature. Further, while citing the Center for Security Policy is dubious, most of the articles cited possess primary sources and evidence found in policing operations. FOUO (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although the OR/POV comparison of the CPSU and Muslim Brotherhood is inappropriate, a look at the article's history indicates this isn't fundamentally an attack page. Google Scholar demonstrates scholarly usage, though the lack of JSTOR sources makes me think this is a neologism. I think the distinction from an international organization is pretty tenuous, but that's just an opinion. Overhaul and remove attack material, but don't delete. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.1.215 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to Piotrus's stub and revision delete contributions after Dagnytaggartmoxie (talk · contribs)'s expansion to the article per CRD5/CSDG4, with merging with international organisation to be decided at a later date; both editors are correct in that this is a recreation of a POV essay deleted at AfD which hijacked an earlier revision of the article. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert per Sceptre, and I agree with him that some of the earlier versions are suitable for revdel as slander. There is appropriate content possible for this article. Better there be a decent article here than no article. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert per Piotrus, Sceptre, and DGG. This is a decent stub that was hijacked to make a point. --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mannequin Factory. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swallow My Bullet[edit]

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

This song is definitely not notable enough for an article. Besides the fact that it's not an official release and has not charted, the references used here are also iffy. Most of them are tweets and third party sources are merely minor music blogs. Fixer23 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mother-article album Mannequin Factory. PS- This page is not correctly hyperlinked in the articles AfD message, since it is coming up as an uncreated article on my side. I had to go to the pages talk page to find the correct hyperlink to get here. Must be a wikipedian glitch. WikiUhOh (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually the pages creator, so this can go ahead and be closed as Redirect. WikiUhOh (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mannequin Factory. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MEGA International[edit]

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

Independent sources have been recently added for a claim that MEGA is "a leader" in their sector. They're paywalled so I can't check them, but it doesn't strike me as sufficient to meet WP:NCORP when the rest of the article is unsourced and looks like it came from a MEGA press release.

An IP editor contested the prod and another contested the contestion. I will notify both of this AfD. Kilopi (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kilopi - Thanks for the comments. Regarding the paywalled content, typically this type of information is sold at a high cost, although I admit that it's easily found through a Google search. This makes it difficult to add this copyrighted document to the cited sources (specifically the Gartner MQs and the Forrester Waves). The way the sentence is designed meets specific guidelines from the aforementioned analyst firms - MEGA cannot say "the leader", but rather "a leader". Technically, adding up the scores from both analyst groups results in a figure in favor of MEGA that surpasses all other vendors in those reports. Because the mention of analyst reports in based on opinion by those firms, I will remove any reference of them or MEGA’s positioning.

For the issue regarding "reads like a press release", I will edit the Products & Services section to be more precise to include specific product names (not high-level categories).

Here’s unique/factual information that supports the removal of the deletion notice: In 1986, MEGA developed the first European enterprise modeling software for Windows. MEGA International was officially formed in 1991 by current CEO Lucio de Risi. It was created as a spin-off from Cap Gemini. The company has its headquarters in Paris, with satellite offices in other parts of Europe, North America, and Asia;

Based on the information I have provided here, do you think that it will be appropriate to remove the deletion notice? Thanks for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.215.173 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — 23.25.215.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, that's not sufficient. The problem is that we don't decide WP:notability, which is all we care about at AfD, based on WP:FACTORS such as rank, e.g., being first. To establish notability requires not just that the subject seem notable, but that others not connected to the subject have actually taken note and they did it in reliable sources. Routine coverage of press releases doesn't count. A good rule of thumb is that it takes two good sources, e.g., two magazine articles about the subject to establish notability. Hope this helps. Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for the 'first' claim? Some of Wikipedia's readers and editors will assume the worst when a promotional claim is presented without one. Was it hailed as a significant development by respected, widely read journalists? Or did MEGA's communications department review a list that included dozens of American, Asian, or UNIX based software from the 1970s and work out what adjectives were needed to move them up to first? Or did someone just make it up hoping nobody would care enough to question it? Kilopi (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish WP:notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Having searched, e.g., 1, I just don't believe they exist. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the lack of notability masked with a specially crafted language. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. All hits at Google News archive are about the similarly named commercial bank in Taiwan. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Lad[edit]

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

Unsourced and a good faith search could find no indication of notability (although I'll happly withdraw the nom if I've missed sources due to language issues). Dpmuk (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now pending a search to find more sources using the Japanese title. I did find a source (one lone English source) stating that an anime adaptation is in the works, but other than that I couldn't find anything else that's reliable. However, since basing a subject's notability on the number of English sources (or lack thereof) can be considered systemic bias, it neither establishes notability nor does it endorse deletion. Hopefully, if more Japanese sources are found, then the article can be kept. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to see what I can find when I get home. I'm at my school's library, which unfortunately won't let me download any browsers or add-ons that help with translation. There does seem to be sources in Japanese, but it's hard to see what is or isn't reliable without a translation program.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An anime adaptation has been announced and it is licensed in English (although the first volume isn't due until December), German and French. There are currently 6 volumes, the most recent published last month so it is presumably still ongoing. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been found to establish notability. Article needs fixing however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY: [2]. Cavarrone (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are any of those sources enough to establish notability? From what I can see, Spick Mich might not be a reliable source and Kadokawa Shoten is not independent. This could leave just the Anime News Network to establish notability and I'm not sure that's enough what with it being a single specialised source. If there is precedent that that's sufficient then I'll withdraw the nom but at the moment I'm still not convinced this meets our notability requirements. Dpmuk (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Law Review[edit]

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

Non-notable student journal. See Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) Hairhorn (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - I de-prodded it to give us a few more days to check on its notability, which according to the nom, is correct; this journal is not notable. It has almost no citations on the two largest social science databases. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whpq. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the rankings at the Washington and Lee University School of Law the journal is ranked by impact 804th out of something like 1500 journals (difficult to see, as many journals get the same rank and the lowest ones are not numbered). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it is quite normal for law reviews to be edited by students. In fact, almost all US law reviews are student-edited. I don't know much about what makes a law journal notable, though, so for the moment I'm abstaining from !voting. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have found the following source in Google Books: Political and Social Science Journals: A Handbook for Writers and Reviewers. ABC-Clio, Inc. 1983. Page 145 et seq. James500 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team Aeronuts’ radio-controlled plane[edit]

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

fails WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apart from promotional press releases I can't find any reliable 3rd-party coverage. Both the team and its aircraft aren't notable enough for inclusion. De728631 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and early childhood education[edit]

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

An article that seems to be just someone's personal opinion of geography in regards to education, and is composed entirely of Original Research. There's really nothing here that is not already better covered in other geography related articles. It looks like this was brought up for deletion at a VFD way back when in 2004, but at the time the consensus was to keep. I really see no argument to do so now, so I renominated it. Rorshacma (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. I really can't believe this article has lasted as long as it has. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. I would have thought that Nutrition has more impact on early childhood education, rather than Geography since one can have access to the Internet school resources almost anywhere today. But if a child is hungry, then how can he or she be expected to study? --Artene50 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article started out as a school assignment whose content was not really suitable for Wikipedia, after which most of the content was deleted, leaving it with pretty much nothing. (The 2004 VfD can now be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Geography and early childhood education.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If anyone is interested, here is the version of this article that was nominated for deletion in 2004. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite logarithm[edit]

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

Term introduced in 2005 arXiv paper as name for collection of all possible logarithms and not widely used elsewhere. Xnn (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 23:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Certainly indefinite logarithms are often used in Big O notation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And it does appear, in the same general sense, in Hennyey 1962. So the article can be reliably sourced. (Of course the presence of sourcing, alone, does not guarantee inclusion.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully with an indefinite base that is definitely > 1. Would you consider O $(n 2)$ as using the indefinite quadratic function $λ c .λ n . cn 2$ ? --Lambiam
Delete. Neologism that has not got any traction; in other words, fails notability. --Lambiam 23:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion does not take into account recent findings which are mentioned under #Linear electric circuits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator says, the term was introduced in a self-published 2005 paper. This usage does not seem to appear elsewhere in the published literature. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This opinion does not take into account recent findings which are mentioned under #Linear electric circuits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, fair enough. I don't think mention in one book that is only available in three libraries in the world is exactly a slam dunk notability-wise though. So, I'll emend my deletion rationale to: Not notable. The only in-depth coverage appears to be a self-published source from 2005. Passing mention in a not well-known book does not confer much in the way of notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The place for discussing general properties of logarithms which are true for all bases, are implicit in big-O notation, etc, is in the article logarithm. I've never heard the term before, so I also doubt its notability.- Virginia-American (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion does not take into account recent findings which are mentioned under #Linear electric circuits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For above reasons. Moreover the notion intends to formalize the notion of "logarithm up to a multiplicative constant" but fails to give a workable definition. Thus, this is not only WP:OR but also WP:FRINGE. D.Lazard (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~This opinion does not take into account recent findings which are mentioned under #Linear electric circuits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
The fact that one has found one book using "indefinite logarithm" does not make the notion notable nor show that is is not fringe theory. It does not even prove that the article is not WP:OR, as this book is not cited as a source (it is not rare that two people give independently two similar definitions).D.Lazard (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is perfectly relevant. D.Lazard's claim on "WP:OR" does not appear to be compatible with existence of Zoltán Hennyey's book. But D.Lazard did not strike his "WP:OR". Instead, he stricken my comment. There is a guideline which discourages meddling in other user's comments. Does a policy exist which discourages making comments to D.Lazard's postings? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable: I can't find any reliable sources for this (only the arXiv paper mentioned above). Jowa fan (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion does not take into account recent findings which are mentioned under #Linear electric circuits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original author of the article is mpfrank. The author of the Arxiv preprint is Michael Frank. So there's clearly a conflict of interest, and it's original research. Ubermichael (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. This seems a much better reason for deletion than the sourcing, which I think is a non-issue. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious ad hominem argument which might have relevance to WP:COI, but has nothing to do with notability. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Note the Logarithmic units is a section in Logarithmic scale article, which is not right. Such units as "bit" are indeed not perceived as steps on a logarithmic scale. Should "logarithmic units" be made a separate article, probably using parts of "Indefinite logarithm"? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The number of bits of information is indeed the logarithm of the number of equally probable messages from which one message was chosen. If you don't "perceive" a logarithm there, that doesn't mean no one else does. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I know the formula for the entropy of a discrete uniform distribution ☺ I even once made image: Units of information.svg which some contentious people persistently throw away of units of information. Try to think better on what I said. If we "add" two signals, their powers in dBm would not add, so decibel is logarithmic. There is no operation on signals which add decibels. But amounts of information can be added (concatenation), multiplied to dimensionless coefficients (various encodings), as well as to dimensioned ones (bit/s and so). A large piece of information can be split to parts (with rather arbitrary ratio)… all this looks just like extensive quantities in physics and has no resemblance to decibels (although I know that in DSP 1 bit ≈ 6 dB). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books search gives an tantalising snippet of Linear electric circuits by Zoltán Hennyey, published 1962, p.321: "... i.e. the indefinite logarithm of a number is equal to the product of the definite logarithm of the number and the indefinite logarithm of the base. This latter may be regarded as the numerical value of the standard." Appears to be talking about the same idea, much earlier than the Archiv preprint. Looks like the full text would be hard to obtain, unfortunately. Qwfp (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got the book from my library. Indeed, it does discuss the indefinite logarithm on pp. 320-321, a section defining notation for the rest of the book. (I can send you scans if you're interested, email me if so.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed by your library: WorldCat finds holdings in only 3 libraries in the world. I'll pass on the scan as i'm not that interested in this, but thanks for the offer. Qwfp (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It *is* a nice library (and just a 5-minute walk away!), though not any of the ones I see in the WorldCat results above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article, but ahead of its time. Delete. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Substantiation? A source from 20th century does exist. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big data[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of deleted article, with the same problems as identified in that AfD; not a well defined concept (as the first line states); not well sourced (relying on many blogs and wikis, or on articles that are on data that is big but not data as a concept); articles already exist for actual techniques and technologies for large datasets. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I see this is actually the third nomination; a second intermediate one resulted in a keep. Even reviewing that it still seems to be a loosely defined and poorly sourced term, used occasionally in different contexts but not a concept in its own right.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may not be a well defined concept, but that hasn't kept it from being heavily discussed in WP:RS. From the first page of Google hits alone you have discussions from IBM, McKinsey & Company, and Forbes. I'm not surprised that it was deleted in 2009, but the second nomination was a pretty clear keep over two years ago, and the idea has only become bigger since. It was also a cover story in Nature, one of over 8000 Google Scholar hits. References already in the article include The Economist and Harvard Business Review. It's a bit of a buzzword (buzzphrase?) these days, so I'm sympathetic if you want it to go away, but this isn't the way it will happen. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poor sourcing and even poor article quality is not a valid reason for deletion. Concept is notable. Greglocock (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poor sourcing and even poor article quality is not a valid reason for deletion. Concept is notable. Scotttsweeney (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Some examples include, but are not limited to: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What a bizarre nomination. This term survived two deletion attempts by many of these same editors. When does this become an edit war? The only thing that has changed since then is

1) improved quality

2) term is now undeniably mainstream

Could it be that the nominators and strong deletes are British and this term is used more in the US? jk (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: it didn't survive the first AfD, quite the opposite. It was recreated and survived the second.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply: Indeed - I restarted it. Back then I spent some intense effort over several days. but now I don't think this term needs much support. Honestly - I'm just very puzzled here. I know JohnB is a dedicated editor - and lives in the UK. So I've got a strong hunch here that this term is an Americanism...? jk (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Pointy-haired Boss in this weekend's Dilbert has quoted the Book of Wikipedia when talking about Big Data. If that doesn't establish notability, then nothing is notable. ~~(Reference is made to a previously deleted article -- how can we look at that article IOT compare deficiencies, etc.?)~~ --S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I picked this up from another entry, and found it useful in realatively simple terms. It does not get lost in detail which is helpful for anyone like me new to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiselsgerry (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Grice, MMA Referee[edit]

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

Non-notable, Could not find any reliable third party source. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason to believe it meets WP:GNG and seems like an advertisement (note the promotional content I removed) Ducknish (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reliable source I could find was this and its a direct reference to the subject but there's nothing more on him from a WP:RS. I agree this individual seems to fail WP:GNG at present. --Artene50 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could have been simply Prod'd for the no reference of Living People rule.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adaikalamatha College[edit]

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

Copy and pasted from a rejected AfC submission; has no independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two references from a national newspaper. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - Per the two sources added by User:Anbu121. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time the article was nominated for deletion, it was one sentence. It has been expanded since then, and has references. I don't see why all colleges of a reasonable size aren't automatically notable anyway. Dream Focus 11:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basically, they are! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Yankovsky[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article seems to have little notability, with only a claim to fame of being a conductor of a dubiously notable orchestra. Ducknish (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't read Russian but the sources generally seem to consist of vk.com and Facebook. --Artene50 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I do read Russian, and there are some sources available (for instance, I added the news from the website of the Ministry of Culture, there are also several local Novosibirsk papers, and I did not search too much). The Meritous Artist is confirmed (I added a ref), on the other hand, just having this title by itself in Russian Wikipedia would not be sufficient to keep the article (in contrast to the People's Artist of Russian Federation, which is sufficient). This is clearly a machine translation, I have done some copyediting, but one needs to do more. (Not my specialization at all).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough reliable, independent secondary sources. FB and other social networking sites don't count...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Novosibirsk Youth Symphony Orchestra. Any verified content from the current page can be merged there, where he is already mentioned as conductor "since the beginning". --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Giant Snowman 16:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yassine El Had[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally deleted by PROD in 2010. This player fails WP:GNG; he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has yet to feature in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 15:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moroccan league fully professional as of last season, terribly bad luck Seasider91 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zero appearances. Terribly bad luck indeed. Giant Snowman 17:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down it lists apperances in the Asian champions league. Surely this confers notability? And I was right about the FPL bit as well Seasider91 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Suspect the rather misleading Soccerway link has been misinterpreted. Looking at their page for Raja Casablanca, it seems they don't yet carry appearance stats for any players apart from in the CAF Champions League, so the questionmarks in Mr El Had's profile mean "don't know" rather than zero, and the zero totals are only counting appearances they know about. His page at footballdatabase.eu gives him 13 appearances in the fully pro 2011–12 Botola, as does his page at eurosport.com. They also give him 19 appearances the previous season when his club won the league and qualified for the Champions League, so I doubt there'd be any problem for a reader of French/Arabic on the GNG front. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Speed: Most Wanted (series)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as similar articles in previous deletion discussion. This article is a copy and paste of content form the other two game articles. Has no content that distinguishes it individually, also WP:VG guidelines recommend that game series should have at least three entries before the series article is created. - X201 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - Subseries of the series doesn't need its own article, and itself not a likely search time. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - Per outcome of the previous discussion, listed in nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous discussion. --JayC ^(talk) 08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per very recent discussion of the same sort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (series) --Teancum (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by User:Yunshui as a copyvio. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Llamas Memorial Institute[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an advertisement but not too much for CSD.Needless to say, fails NPOV completely TheStrike Σagle 15:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not promotional enough for CSD, then it's probably at least partially salvageable. I think the question here should be whether the institute is notable or not. If it's possible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on this school, then the promotional content really won't be doing much harm in the article's history. I'll check for sources later. CtP (t • c) 15:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there's NPOV issues with the article, fix it. AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant COPYVIO of http://deo-antonio.blogspot.com/2012/01/something-interesting-about-llamas_8249.html, which in turn was apparently taken from a FaceBook account. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ Rusticate. Blatant copyright violation. If actual reliable sources are found, then please recreate from scratch. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. The article and the activities in this AFD discussion are essentially one big lump of it.

I've watched this mess get messier for an hour now, and it's only going to get worse. I considered semi-protection, thinking that at least the article creator had been acting in good faith, but it's clear from what has happened and from a few checks on my part that none of this is good faith activity.

The article creator started off with outright copyright violation, since deleted, and has progressed to tagging everyone in the discussion with a delete opinion, even the nominator, as being canvassed. One of the single-purpose accounts did tit-for-tat SPA tagging as well. The edit histories gave away the sockpuppetry. And the article at hand is an improperly attributed hodge-podge of other Wikipedia articles; the article creator simply having progressed to copying from within Wikipedia rather than from without.

This is outright vandalism and disruption. If there is an article to be written here, it will be written properly, by a good faith contributor. All single-purpose sockpuppet accounts, including the account that created the article, have had their editing privileges revoked.

Uncle G (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and state terrorism[edit]

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

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

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

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

The article is based on anonymous Daily Mail speculation that does not discuss 'state terrorism', and accusations by Erdogan regarding the Gaza flotilla. Almost all the content and the sources make no mention of 'state terrorism', e.g accusations of apartheid, detention without charges, and are already included elsewhere. This does not have notability as a stand alone topic. Ankh.Morpork 15:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be deleted. Nearly all the references are either from an anti-Israel website, or from Erdogan about flotilla. On same note about flotilla, there's a reference from The Guardian (that has been accused of disproportinately singling out Israel and having a heavy bias), but it's irrelevant now, as the United Nations Palmer Report said that the blockade on Gaza was legitimate and while Israel committed mistakes, Turkey should not have let the flotilla embark. Either way, that one incident should not be the basis for an entire article. Recommend for deletion, it clearly pushes a POV based on terrible or outdated sources. --Activism1234 15:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am in the process of adding more references and additional content. This does have notability as stand alone topic. MahdiTheGuidedOne (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi is a very loaded term in regard to Sunnis, i would consider to propose your nickname for blocking on herecy and religious incompatability.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article certainly has room for improvement, but it is notable enough to justify existence, assuming reliable sources can be found. Ducknish (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does have notability as stand alone topic. Regulararmy (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Regulararmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does have notability as stand alone topic. 113.203.142.92 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — 113.203.142.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CFORK (or at best, duplicate) of the much more comprehensive, more NPOV and balanced, and better cited Human rights in Israel. The content doesn't even match the title or intro, as none of the allegations relate to state-sponsored terrorism, making the selected human rights abuse allegations an even poorer excuse to slip in the "terrorism" label. postdlf (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources talk about single cases, however no one talks about Israel's involvement with terrorism. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just removed whole paragraphs that did not include sources that connected them to "state terrorism". Apparently this ostensibly new editor is trying to beef up the article with irrelevant information in an attempt to make it look like it has a lot of sources supporting it and thus is notable. Someone should keep an eye on this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have to distinguish between figurative and literal. Does Israel literally engage in terrorism? No, it does not. Is it inconceivable that someone critical of Israel could figuratively use the word terrorism in reference to Israel? Certainly. But we should not be creating articles with titles in which terms are being used figuratively. To do so is to mislead the reader. Wikipedia should not be used as a WP:SOAPBOX or a means of promoting an idea unsupported by sources and Wikipedia should not be used for WP:ACTIVIST purposes. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article does have notability as stand alone topic. Pagebirdspagebirds (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)— Pagebirdspagebirds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This article does have notability as stand alone topic. Rolepaper9876 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Rolepaper9876 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - WP:CFORK with poor sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or even speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10). This is an amateurish, non-NPOV laden, sockpuppet driven attempt to circumvent existing, balanced articles on the topic. If there is anything salvageable it can be merged into Human rights in Israel, Israel and the apartheid analogy, or other articles critical of Israel. Peacock (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am being harassed. Check out my talk page. MahdiTheGuidedOne (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn per sources found. As a side note, this was originally a speedy deletion nomination, which means WP:BEFORE doesn't apply here since it was a matter of the article giving one no reason to suspect that sources could be found. Speedy deletion is for the "don't bother looking" cases, which fit the early versions of this article pretty well. If any of the sources below is added, the article can no longer be speedied. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emis Killa[edit]

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

Speedy tag removed by an IP. No assertion of notability, speedy contested solely on the grounds that this rapper is "new" (which is usually a good reason to justify deletion if "new" means "not yet discovered by the public"). Speedy delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy deletion tag restored and IP warned. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per patent lack of WP:BEFORE. Article already has a RS (from Italian magazine TV Sorrisi e Canzoni), the relevant article on Italian Wikipedia shows more (such as Panorama), a minimal search on Google reveals a lot more (Wired, Rolling Stone, La Repubblica, Il Corriere della Sera, TGCom, again La Repubblica), Il Cittadino). Cavarrone (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but because of notability, not because of lack of WP:BEFORE. The sources provided by Cavarrone do show notability, but the onus to provide evidence of notability rests on those wishing to add or keep content. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability.) WP:BEFORE says that one should "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources", but I have frequently taken significant efforts to find such evidence and yet missed evidence which someone else found very quickly, because they happened to look at different links than I did. We should assume that the nominator took reasonable steps in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry James, but if you do not make a minimal search on Google News [7] nor you take a look at relevant articles on other-languages-Wikipedia, it means you have not done "significant efforts" to find such coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate: article has been moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Adhisaya Ulagam 3D. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adhisaya Ulagam 3D[edit]

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

Article based on claims about a movie proposed for the future. Unsourced. Notability not demonstrated and impossible to demonstrate because it is merely proposed for the future. tausif(talk) 11:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Found this link, but I'm not sure if it's reliable or not (it does appear to be so), but I can't seem to find others. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON? Will try searching for more by the end of the week, as I'm quite busy with school work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are correct... Twitch Film (February 29, 2012) IS an accepted reliable source for independent films... and confirms that while not India's first dinosaur film nor India's first 3D film, Adhisaya Ulagam 3D is India's first 3D dinosaur film.[8] Indiaglitz (March 15,2012) is another source for Indian media that is acceptable.[9] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate This film is getting some coverage, has apparently completed principal filming, and appears to be slated for a late 2012 release. Article is NOW looking better than when first nominated.[10] Twitch Film tells us this Tamil lainguage film will likely not be seen in the US, but we can at least wait until we have more from Tamil language sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate I agree with Michael. tausif(talk) 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incubate per MichaelQSchimdt. While there are reliable sources to be found, It's just a little too early to have an article at this moment. Maybe in two to three months, then we can have an on it article again. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Apartment People[edit]

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

Promotional article about non-notable property management firm, fails WP:ORG as all independent sources are local. G. C. Hood (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:

Delete both Nothing to suggest these are anything other than run-of-the-mill agents, Emeraude (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Spam/advert. They must think we are the yellow pages or facebook. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - not the spammiest 'article' I've ever seen, but very promtional in tone. I removed the CSD tags to allow AfD to run its course and get a consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The April 2012 Chicago Tribune article reference here doesn't seem to mention 'The Apartment People' from my view of it. --Artene50 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unless you can show out of state (not counting Wisconsin or Indiana regions of Chicago metropolitan area) WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Rush[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much notice of an elected "Stated Clerk" in a relatively small (<50K) Presbyterian denomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding no reason to believe this seemingly minor church official is notable. Ducknish (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I intned to adjust links to the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, not enough secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- without an article on General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, it is difficult to judge its significance but I presume it is the governing body of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. This is a denomination with under 50,000 members in 800 congregations (according to that article). Unless some one will tell us that the "stated clerk" is the equivalent of a moderator or a bishop, with real power over the denomination, as opposed to being as mere functionary (as the title implies). I cannot belive that this is a notable position.

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

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

The result was Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birch Hill Cemetery[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage, contested PROD Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has had significant coverage, both local and national as it was profiled on the PBS doc A Cemetery Special by noted documentarian Rick Sebak. [11][12] [13][14][15] It was correct to contest the prod. --Oakshade (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to History of Fairbanks, Alaska - I see two things here. First, the creator of this article previously created Death of Jamison Thrun, which is utter piffle, showing flagrant disregard for WP:NOTNEWS, and an article which should have come up for AFD long before this one did. Since Thrun was buried at Birch Hill, I get the impression that the motivation was to create this article as a coatrack to that article. Speaking as someone who has lived in Fairbanks most of my life, this would come across as some rather bizarre reasoning, especially since there are a lot of actually notable people buried at Birch Hill. Perhaps it may be necessary for that user to chime in on this discussion. Second, this cemetery is just as notable as the Clay Street Cemetery. Both articles are underdeveloped to the point of being practically useless. We really should take into consideration that NRHP articles proliferate on here because copying and pasting templates and PD material is far easier than writing and sourcing an article from scratch, not necessarily because the places are of greater significance. Far too much undue weight is given on Wikipedia to an NRHP listing as a determinant of historical significance.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of surprised Birch Hill isn't an NRHP site already, it certainly is a landmark in Fairbanks. I've been traveling the last 21 hours so I won't be going through all the refs I've found with my Highbeam account right this minute but at a glance it looks like there is some useful stuff there. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cemeteries should have a very low inclusion bar for the same reason that high schools do — they are community landmarks and apt to be mentioned in comprehensive biographies. These links should be blue, not red. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the principle that cemeteries should have a very low inclusion bar, and I agree that they are useful for links in building the encyclopedia. But I think cemeteries have a connection to the gazetteer and populated places more than to high schools. In this case I haven't had any success in finding a decent map for this cemetery, which in my mind makes it of questionable notability as a part of the gazetteer. Nor have I been able to identify the nature of the business. There was an appeal to replat the cemetery listing "Birch Hill Cemetery, Inc." Another source claims the land was donated to an association 70 years ago. And the USA Today source says that the cemetery is run by the public works department of Fairbanks. Meanwhile, Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp. shows a "Birch Hill Cemetery, Inc." in Soldatna and also one in Kenai. Has anyone found a web page for the cemetery? The NRHP nomination was for another cemetery in Fairbanks. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GhSMART & Company, Inc.[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The firm does seem to be notable, but the promotional format and language is so pervasive that it would be better deleted and rewritten. It was nominated for Speedy G11, and I would have deleted it but another admin saw it first & suggested AfD instead. I think for this sort of puffery, the balance should lie towards deletion first, and rewriting second, , so as not to leave WP page histories cluttered with bad examples--and to make it clear that this sort of work is not tolerated. As I advised the editor involved, jargon like "maximizing the leadership ability of company CEOs", "maximize career success", "building companies" , and "core competency" should be avoided. not to mention such PR-puffery as "received praise in the autobiography of a prominent client".

If people are going to write articles for their company or for a client, it does the subjects no good to write in this manner. We tolerate COI editing only when it follows good encyclopedic writing practice. If it sounds like a PR piece, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If people can not avoid writing in PR-talk, they should not be writing in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete partly per DGG. I denied G11 since I think it could be rewritten (I'd let two sentences stand, maybe three), but removal is warranted since despite the fluff this is not a notable company: I can't find a single reliable source that discusses the company in depth and yada yada (insert excerpt from DGG's talk a few days ago here), and it's clear that the article is written specifically in this way to mask that fact. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree with the pervasive promotional problem. Agree that the firm does seem notable. So to make review easier, I stubbed the article down to some basics. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Appreciate the stubifying. Reducing the page to mere sources helps me see what's actually present, and there's something here worth keeping. IMHO, the Business Insider first source and the WSJ source cover WP:CORP. I'd like to see more direct detailing, but the book itself seems to be likely to meet GNG and WP:NBOOK. BusterD (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 09:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per: [16], [17], [18]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. Coverage like this [19] proves notability. Dream Focus 11:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightlitching[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Original Research and personal experience Anbu121 (talk me) 09:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable original research. — sparklism ^hey! 10:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An essay comprised of original research. Zero Google news hits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEDAY. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kind of like writing a dictionary for you and your brother's version of "twinspeak". Might make sense to the author, but really, who else would care? Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan-Zico Black[edit]

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

Falls well short of WP:NFOOTY. Guernsey are not a FIFA recognised national team, and he is as eligible for England as if he were born in Guildford, Grimsby or Gateshead. Kevin McE (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the FA Cup on a number of occasions and has also represented Northern Ireland at under 21 level. Easily meets WP:GNG with articles such as [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].Simione001 (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playing for non pro teams in the FA Cup does not reach NFOOTY level, nor does playing in U21 internationals. Some of the websites (those from local media or past clubs) do not necessarily cut the GNG ice: I'm ambivalent on the BBC ones. But if article does survive, then this shows its inadequacy in its current state. Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've heard of his player and he's fairly well-known in non-League circles. However, this does not necessarily mean that he's notable. Playing in the FA Cup does definitely not confer notability on players and occasional BBC Sport coverage is not exactly enough to justify an article (otherwise I could write one on Leiston manager Mark Moresely based on this, this and several other mentions). Number 57 11:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think whole articles dedicated to him would suffice? and, although Guernsey is not with FIFA he has played for his nation and would have received significant coverage. Simione001 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guernsey is not a nation, and their representative XI's matches get basically no coverage at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played for his country (Northern Ireland) at U21 level. Him now playing for his island of Guernsey is a red herring. Would him being an author (has written his auto biography) make him notable?(GsyFootball (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- It has long been established that youth caps (U21 etc) do not confer notability.[27][28] Number 5 7 14:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not play in a FPL, Guernsey is a club team, NOT an international side just like Monaco participate in the French league system despite being a principality. As he has only got under 21 side apperances that does not confer notability I'm afraid Seasider91 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of articles i've listed above totally dedicated to Mr. Black. Therefore passes WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's no doubt he fails WP:NFOOTY by a country mile, but the media interest he's recently attracted in Brazil (including having a documentary filmed about him by TV Globo, one of the largest TV companies in the world) means that he easily passes the general notability guideline.[29][30][31] ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 11:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage passes GNG. It seems daft to me that the guy has played loads of games at level five in England but fails WP:NFOOTY, while someone who plays once at level four - then falls off the face of the Earth - gets a free pass. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds a bit like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Jimbo^[online] 20:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bald Zebra's links, superseding his only playing at the u21 level. matt91486 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real coverage beyond that of WP:NTEMP and WP:ROUTINE that pass GNG. Quite clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. --Jimbo^[online] 20:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I understand that U21 does not count towards it, but as an author of a published book and his recent media coverage in Brazil surely this is enough to meet the standards? (GsyFootball (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - definately fails WP:NFOOTBALL. But I can't say that he have received "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources", so he also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. The author moved the blanked page to "Unknown Article", which I have taken to be a request for deletion. The consensus here is clearly for deletion too. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Girlz[edit]

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

Per the article "Everything is not yet fully confirmed though". Not sure if this is a hoax, vivid imagination, or something that's possible. Reliable sources don't tell me anything about this. —SpacemanSpiff 06:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. (Ofcourse unless closing admin thinks that redirects are cheap.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search fails to find anything that may be reliable. In fact, I fail to find any relevant hits (except for a Blogspot post). What I did find was sites about Desi Boyz, a possibly related film. Must be one of those hoax/speculation/obscure Indian film projects again. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NFF as article itself tells us "Filming starts in October 2012", and we have no reliable sources speaking toward the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to lack of sources and per WP:NFF --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsuitable for Wikipedia article, the filming is not yet release and no history or sort of production may content. Jonas'VM ☼ 19:14 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, as of now no sources. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 09:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in a rare July snowstorm. NAC.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. No sources given for so many years. Fails guidelines as the page lacks sufficient and reliable third party independent sources Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a degree-granting institution, which would indicate notability. Obviously 3rd party references to cover this and other statements in the article would be preferable, but that is a matter for normal article improvement rather than AfD. I've added a first reference to the article. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve – Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - this is immediately seen to be a major institution, with abundant Reliable Sources to prove notability. Google News finds 336 entries including Channel News Asia, New Straits Times, AsiaOne, VNExpress. For example AsiaOne 26 Dec 2008 shows 70 year celebrations of arts at Nanyang. ChannelNewsAsia 22 Aug 2009 shows that Singapore's Education Minister spoke about Nanyang. There's much more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (and admonish nominator) Prestigious tertiary arts institution in Singapore. An articles-only search of Newspapers.SG finds 3933 Chinese-language results for "南洋艺术学院" and 2780 English-language results for "Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears there are reliable sources on the subject -- just from a short Google Search, of all things -- so I don't buy the nom's argument. But, I do think the article needs a great deal of help in citations and making some content more concise and readable. Lord Roem (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I very much understand that this school exists. But, though notable, this page clearly lacks independent third party sources. Per WP:GNG, such refs need to be added promptly. If sufficient refs can be added, I will gladly withdraw my nom. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without wanting to labour the matter of WP:BEFORE, point C1 says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." and D3 says "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." AllyD (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified tertiary institutions are deemed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This instition exists is Singapore and has many local verifiable sources for it. --Artene50 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is for deleting non-notable subjects, not to force improvements on articles of clearly notable subjects, and even a cursory search reveals many available sources. When Wikipedia accepts articles on even high schools, this institution should not even have been nominated for deletion. —Lowellian (reply) 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unproductive labour in economic theory[edit]

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

This is purely original research. The citations to sources are misleading and the sources don't support what's cited to them. It is a pure and simple snow job. There's a proposal to merge it to Productive and unproductive labour but that'd be pointless, because everything in the current article which is worth keeping is already in the proposed merge target. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Productive and unproductive labor isn't much better, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "productive and unproductive labor" is encyclopedic, an esoteric side street shooting off of labor theory of value boulevard. That piece covers this topic well enough and in context; it has sourcing issues but is on target. This piece rambles all over the map. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd just as soon see Productive and unproductive labor go too, but I didn't have time to look into it carefully enough to nominate it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Productive and unproductive labour as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as essay/synthesis. We may have two different articles on the same subject but to be honest I think it would be better if both were deleted and somebody started from scratch at a later date. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably hundreds of thousands of pieces at En-WP that need a full rewrite. That may or may not be one; it may just need heavy editing; it may be argued that maintaining an imperfect piece is better than nuking it — which is my take. This one seems like a fairly easy call as an inferior fork of Productive and unproductive labour. Carrite (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR essay. —Lowellian (reply) 20:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Roorbach[edit]

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

This person does not appear to meet WP:WRITER as not enough secondary sources. Not enough secondary idependent sources to clear hurtle of notability. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article were sourced it might pass WP:WRITER 4c.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article passes WP:WRITER; however, there are no citations for the article. Just because an article does not contain citations does not mean that they don't exist and does not mean that the topic is not notable; however, I have a feeling that those commenting after me will vote delete due to not having sources so I would advise those who care enough to keep the article get busy with the citations. --SimonKnowsAll (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Ouch! Article subject edits article and accidentally deletes all the references in the article while doing so. I've now restored them all (leaving the COI edits otherwise in place as, apart from the COI itself, they all seem unobjectionable) - unfortunately, three of the four are primary (and so only help to the extent of verifying that he has been published in some very reputable magazines) and the fourth is an online magazine which, while it looks reasonably reliable, I had never heard of before. So far as other sources go, GNews produces a Boston Globe feature article (which looks reliable and substantial to me), a large number of open access newspaper articles which tend to be either from his local paper or event announcements (and therefore at least tend not to count towards notability) and almost as many paywalled reviews for quite a few of his works from a number of sources we generally regard as reliable. To be honest, this one really depends on some of the paywalled reviews showing he meets WP:WRITER#3 (which I think probable), someone finding one or two more clearly reliable sources (which I think possible though far from certain) or his Flannery O'Connor Award for Short Fiction (the O.Henry Award looks like one of about 20 for the year, not one of those specially recommended by the jurors) - but on balance I think that one or more of these will be satisfied. PWilkinson (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Harpers ref is no good. Other refs are kind of weak, but it has some WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, he didn't remove his references, he merely added personal details, so not sure where the ouch statement comes in. Anyway, that aside, the references listed, only direct to his work. No reviews. As mentioned, not enough secondary coverage to meet threshold of WP:WRITER.

Keep - Coverage in reliable sources exist although it appears much of it behind pay walls. I have a Highbeam account and can confirm that this Boston Globe article is about him as the primary subject, and this Boston Globe review is a review strictly about his book and not a capsule review tucked in as part of a longer list. This Minneapolis Star-Tribune review is also only about his work and not a capsule review; furthermore it shows that the coverage is not localised to Boston. I don't have access to Newsbank, but this Denver Post article appears to be about Roorbach as the primary subject given the article title being "Roorbach no blip on the screen". One of his short stories also received an O. Henry Prize as verified by this primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dayspring Campground Ministries[edit]

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

The organisation is non-notable. The editor who created the article admits that "very little has been written about it." Google news[32] has exactly zero coverage. The article appears promotional, is written from a religious POV and unverifiable claims are made. Smcg8374 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The faith-based philosophy section was edited to remove bias, stating religious assumptions as existing from the ministry's POV. Regarding the question of significance: if significance is only measured based on online and print citations, then yes, this camp is insignificant. I would argue that based on its length of operation, number of campers served, etc, that it is significant even though it has a nonexistent web presence. What kind of sources are necessary to prove significance? Typative (talk) 3:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Third party reliable sources independent of the subject. Newspaper articles, books, scholarly papers, etc. See WP:RS and WP:GNG.--SGCM (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, notability is not the same as "significance" in a social sense. When editors say that an organisation is not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines, this is not intended to imply in any way that the organisation is trivial or unimportant. Rather what this means is that to be included in an encyclopaedia it must have been written about by people who are not involved with it. This is a core principle that applies to all subjects. See for example, WP:NOBLE.--Smcg8374 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not meet WP:ORG notability criteria. There's no coverage by reliable third party sources, and the article appears to be an advertisement.--SGCM (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability from third-party WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tend towards delete -- A holiday park with a Christian view hardly seems notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure, article was speedily deleted by DGG under criteria A7 (notability). Article title salted. GregJackP Boomer! 04:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CMX Technologies[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:CORP. 2 GNews hits, both trivial mentions, no WP:RS in GHits. A7 CSD tag removed 9 times by page creator and IP. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not notable at all, fails WP:COMPANY. Ranked 2,603 on the Inc. 5000. As mentioned above, CSD tag removed multiple times without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsFionnuala (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and MsFionnuala; possibly Speedy delete per db-corp. —Hue Sat Lum 01:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article makes no assertion of importance. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, the AfD tag has now been removed twice by User:Cgcastleman. MsFionnuala (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-corp. Hairhorn (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I nominated this for A7 when I first saw it on NPP. The author (both logged in and editing as IP) removed the CSD template several times without explanation. The article makes no claims to significance, and the two sources are just the the lamest of database entries you'll find. There's nothing here to argue about, it's a clear A7. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer not a speedy, in view of the threats to repost until we follow our own rules. If this is AfD deleted, we can follow our rules and G4 it... Peridon (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the two references. One is a mention of the company's name in a list that goes on and on and on. The other is a profile. We don't usually count profiles as reliable independent sources because very often they rely on company supplied information, and also because they often, as here, are of the order of 'BloggsCo is a company making synchronised crange pins based in Little Whinging'. Peridon (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I concur with Peridon and would prefer delete over speedy in view of creator's repost comments. GregJackP Boomer! 23:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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