< 25 July	27 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trius Therapeutics

[edit]

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

Non-notable drug company. All the coverage appears to be either routine coverage from the financial markets or coverage focused on Torezolid, which already has an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Company currently has no products for sale, just things in development. At first I thought this article from the San Diego Union Tribune amounted to significant coverage - but then I saw the telltale byline "Special to the U-T". What that means is that it was not staff-written, but supplied by an outside source (freelancer or PR firm), thus not subject to the usual editorial oversight. Search for the author's name reveals her to be a freelancer. Other news coverage seems similarly PR-ish. However, it's possible the company qualifies for an article under WP:LISTED. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of delete, redirect to Torezolid. (changing to Keep, see below) --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect sounds sane. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not sure how the fact that a newspaper article is by a freelancer makes it less of an indicator of notability; to me the main thing is that the editors felt the company was important enough to merit that much space in the paper. But anyway, I found some more coverage that goes a bit beyond PR/routine financials: Some AP stories; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], a San Diego Business Journal article about Trius and one other similar company ([6], Factiva link), a short WSJ article about the IPO ([7]), and a U-T article with several paragraphs about the company under its previous name, Rx3 Pharmaceuticals: [8]. Toohool (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the additional sources found by Toohool - especially if a few of these are added to the article by someone, for example this one about their IPO. Looks like WP:LISTED was right again: "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above." Good work, Toohool. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - often just looking for sources and finding them resolves the issue. Thank you Toohool!. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Toohool's links Zujua (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eder Arreola

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Has not played in a fully professional league. — Michael (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Michael (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 21:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was drafted but not signed by the Houston Dynamo so he presently fails WP:NFOOTBALL Perhaps he will be signed by a future MLS team at which point this article can be recreated. --Artene50 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our notability guidelines, but feel free to recreate when (if) the article does in the future. Jogurney (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. —Hahc 21 05:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Britten

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An actor that fails to pass WP:NACTOR. His only roles have been extremely minor bit parts. I can find absolutely no reference to what role he played in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, so I'm going to assume it was a very small part. As for the film mentioned, he is listed on IMDB for that film as portraying "Janitor", so that kind of goes without saying that it was not a signifigant role. His only other claim to notability is attending the Democratic National Convention in 2008 as a Myspace "Citizen Journalist", however, he only got this position by winning a contest, and the only source of information reporting on his activity there was the Vail Daily, a small local paper. Rorshacma (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His website doesn't list any noteworthy accomplishment. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the IMDB source suggests that he doesn't pass WP:NACTOR with so few credited movie appearances. --Artene50 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NACTOR. —Hahc 21 05:40, 2 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 WP:CSD#G5 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Berardo

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:CRIME and WP:BIO. Also, given that I couldn't find any evidence in reliable sources that might verify the claims in the article, I don't think a redirect is warranted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Only significant author is a now-blocked sockpuppet of User:King Genovese. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Buckner

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article may not meet our notability guidelines. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was the president of a notable organization for two years. That alone ought to be sufficient to render him notable. But in addition to that, he was also the author of several well-reviewed books. Every other president of American Atheists is notable (these include: Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Jon Garth Murray, Ellen Johnson, Frank Zindler, David Silverman), so why isn't Ed Buckner notable? Vintelok (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~For one thing, the statement that he was President of said organization is unreferenced in the article.~~ If the subject does meet our notability guidelines, then I'm sure the article will be kept. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added the necessary sources which reference that he was the president of American Atheists. I believe that should settle the case. Vintelok (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to his role as leader of an important atheist group. Also, a Google search shows he was among a group of atheists and freethinkers invited to meet with Barack Obama in 2010, and has been the subject of discussion in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some more information and sources to the article. In addition to the above, he is also past executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, another notable group, and he has gotten various media citations over the years. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand if possible with more information. I assume it meets notability per reading the article and checking references, as well as per above. —Hahc 21 05:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above and the newly sourced info from Vintelok Zujua (talk) 09:46, 2 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. A redirect, if desired, can be created WP:BOLDly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allanah Starr's Big Boob Adventures

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable porn film. Fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: although I've done some work to the article, it still doesn't meet WP:NF or WP:PORNBIO. Thine Antique Pen 19:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only basis for maintaining this article that I can see (using Notability (films) would be its nomination for an award and, if that were the sole basis for maintaining an article about one of the performers in the film, it would unambiguously fail WP:PORNBIO and WP:NF; there has to be something more that lends notability to this film and I don't see anything. (I can't recommend that this be turned into a redirect to Allanah Starr because the article's creator seems to think that this eponymous film stars Buck Angel over Mx. Starr, which is baffling but I've never seen the film and cannot say.) Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NF --Artene50 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not the subject of multiple independently published pieces of coverage in so-called "reliable sources," fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE stub article for lacking independent notability under WP:NF, and REDIRECT title to director Gia Darling where it can be mentioned in context as one of the director's works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that there are three possible redirect targets: the director (which would be the obvious choice if this wasn't porn), the star actor (which would seem like a better choice considering it's porn) or the star writer and probably producer who gave his/her name to the film (does that trump everything?). Frankly, if the film isn't notable, I'd rather have no redirect in this case. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to do here was ignore the film being "porn" and instead treat it as I might any other searcable topic by sending readers to a place where it might be spoken of in context. While a producer may be responsible for financing, a writer responsible for scripting, and porn stars responsible for (ahem) performing, I determined the director as being the person majorly responsible for what eventualy made it to the screen... and the thing did receive genre recognition through a genre award. We have enough to allow a mention or listing in the director's article... and such a mention does not require independent notability for a film, but simply verfiability of why it merited contextual inclusion elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a host for catalogs of non-notable porn videos. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one in this discussion, myself included, is suggesting we "host" a catalog of non-notable films. However, it is appropriate to mention a filmmaker's work within an article on the filmmaker. A redirect sends anyone looking for such a film (even if not me or you), to someplace where such are given context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 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 Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropotechnic

[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:N. The article enumerates a number of different examples where the term is used and attempts to define it from those examples. While the word definitely exists, it does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps it belongs on Wiktionary? Pburka (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Incorrect use of WP:SYNTHESIS, which governs the use of sources, and only peripherally governs article content, let alone article subjects; the latter is what we determine at Articles for Deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole book on it, by Jérôme Goffette of Claude Bernard University Lyon 1. He even gives the name translated into English on page 69 and mentions Peter Sloterdijk's "anthropotechnics" on page 70. Of course, this article is badly written, and ascribes this to Willem Schinkel, even though Schinkel clearly ascribes it to Sloterdijk if one reads the source cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Goffette, Jérôme (2006). Naissance De L'anthropotechnie: De La Medecine Au Modelage De L'humain (in French). Vrin. ISBN 9782711618415.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is as inappropriate as the vocab-stub on the article, really. This isn't be an article on vocabulary. It's at least supposed to be an article on anthropotechnics. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surprisingly someone has done a detailed analysis of the frequency of various more or less synonymous terms such as "human factors engineering", "industrial ergonomics", "anthropotechnics", "engineering psychology" (HF definitions). "anthropotechnics" seems to be a fairly uncommon term, but it is used sometimes. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The original German "Anthropotechnik" is probably more common, although they didn't look at other languages. Witness de:Anthropotechnik. But this is only really relevant inasmuch as we have to know that people like M. Sloterdijk don't necessarily write in English, and so we have to check for more than one keyword. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit down but keep - as an art term, it is possibly notable; see Effets de soir. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This reads an awful lot like a disambiguation page, should it be one? The meaning of the term seems somewhat divergent in its various contexts that are presented. I'm not familiar with the term beyond what I've read in the past few minutes, but is it related enough to other topics like Human–computer interaction (for the technology usage, for example) that it could have redirect pages for its various meanings leading to sections of such corresponding pages? Zujua (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the German wiki article seems to indicate a more unified definition, is that more accurate? It also seems to exclude the term's meaning in the arts; I looked at the source listed for "Oedipus Rex" painting, and I don't see the term there - is it often actually used in that context? Zujua (talk) 04:11, 17 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term denotes a concept, not just a dicdef. Does not improvement. Stedrick (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:DICDEF. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not Synthesis, as this article does not have any original research. Sources indicate that the concept passes the GNG with mentions in many books and scientific papers, and, if developed, should make an interesting and informative article. The fact that it is sparse now is not a good reason to delete. The Steve 01:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a stub and needs improvement, but there seems to be just about enough coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping this article. CodeTheorist (talk) 06:51, 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 Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denisa Legac

[edit]

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

Sex therapist of no real renown, founder of various red-linked groups. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't really see any english language coverage of her, there are a good number of hits in gnews and other archives in other languages (mainly Croatian) that look like they might constitute significant coverage of her. Playing around with google translate doesn't bring up any of them as obviously significant enough to make her pass the WP:GNG, but it'd be helpful if someone speaking croatian could take a look around for significant coverage about her Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's some significant topical coverage in Croatia, interviews in Nacional in 2004 and Slobodna Dalmacija in 2008, and Jutarnji list used her as a source in 2006, in 2010, also in 2010, etc. The article certainly needs help, but the person certainly appears to be at least as notable as the random 19yo footballer who played a pro game for the 11th club in Prva HNL. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 11 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) 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this article needs help from someone who reads the languages that the sources are written in ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 02:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reduced the article to the verifiable part, which now also more precisely demonstrates the extent of the person's notability. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 19 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Although expansion potential is limited the person does seem to be marginally notable per local press. Timbouctou (talk) 10:56, 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 no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koby Maxwell

[edit]

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

Non-notable musician/actor lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fails WP:BIO. Of the references included most are just listings and others are interviews (primary reference). I do not see non-trivial coverage. Appears to be primarily a promotional piece. In addition, the text closely mirrors bio text in referenced "articles." reddogsix (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Koby is an emerging Icon in Nollywood Films and Ghana Music. Here are a few other articles found not posted on page cite.

Dustyairs (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is sufficient links to establish notability and many of the links are reliable sources one of which include Golden Icon, etc. Though an interview may be construed as a primary source, it is the concensus that primary sources are permitted provided they are non-controversial facts. Further, the interviewers from these reliable sources believed the subject was notable enough to be interviewed.Tamsier (talk) 23:59, 3 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, -Scottywong | express _ 16:42, 11 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO. In the awards section, there are two references, one link dead and one contains only a passing mention of the subject. There are many interviews, but these aren't independent. We need indepth independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:31, 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) 02:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battery Energy Drink

[edit]

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

non-notable drink; links are no on notability of subject; cross-wiki promotion Baterioj (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Drink is sold in more than 35 countries and this fact is referenced by a reliable source. __meco (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cross-wiki promotion, notice that links are not on notability of subject. Arguments about This exists on other wikis are irrelevant. Skier Dude (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Skier Dude (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meco (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both references are clearly from the manufacturer Sinebrychoff - possible merge to that page, unless someone can demonstrate some notable coverage in independent sources. Oranjblud (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this drink has been around for ages, Google returns several pages of results from independent sources (it even gets some mentions on books and scholar) and nothing in that article screems 'promotion' to me. Plus merging it to manufacturers article would be dubious move as it is oftopic and outside Finland they license the drink to other manufacturers ~~Xil (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please list the sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay that is based on material that was rejected for addition to WP:ATA. Unscintillating (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please list the sources. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG per:

"New energy drink to be launched at Food Expo 2006". AME Info. October 14, 2006. Retrieved July 05, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
"Carlsberg debuts energy brand in Bulgaria". Beverage Manager. January 23, 2008. Retrieved July 05, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Britcher, Chris (March 15, 2007). "Williams Extends Two Sponsorships". SportBusiness International magazine. Retrieved July 05, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its now neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgdigitalfi (talk • contribs) 09:50, July 6, 2012‎ (UTC) — Omgdigitalfi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

no reason is provided for how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 9 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that additional sources have been added to the article since the time of its nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i find a few hits in beverage industry sources, but nothing indepth in mainstream sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Solid sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please specify which sources? LibStar (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As expanded the articles sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

interesting that AlanSohn and Richard norton turn up to the same AfD I'm involved in. and someone accuses me of... LibStar (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources provided are barely more than press releases, and aren't good enough to prove this passes the notability test. Robofish (talk) 19:50, 24 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the parent brewery Sinebrychoff. The Steve 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are reliable enough to keep article, albeit currently a weak one. Real work to be done is in making a stronger article.Rjp422 (talk) 12:39, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrani Hagbah

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax... Google books only return Wikipedia mirrors.--Rafy talk 16:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accompanied image and its description is laughable, first of all raising the gospel is found in almost all Christian denominations and is not exclusive to the Saint Thomas Christians. Secondly, since when was the Syriac Peshitta read to a Malayalam speaking congregation?--Rafy talk 16:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am unsure that it is a hoax but it is definitely a kind of POV fork from Saint Thomas Christians. The creator has been trying to spam their fringe-y "Jewish origin" claims across numerous articles and has been rebuffed at DRN and several other venues (ANI was one, IIRC). - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a single reference outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors describing any part of Saint Thomas Christian church services as "hagbah", or even drawing a similarity. This article was created by Robin klein, who was recently topic banned for issues stemming from his long push to introduce spurious material into Wikipedia connecting the origins of the Saint Thomas Christians to ancient Jews. Several items here ring false on their face. Most notably, in Jewish ceremonies hagbah is the raising of the Torah before the congregation before or after a reading; this article describes the "Nasrani Hagbah" as part of the Holy Qurbana, i.e. the Eucharist or Holy Communion, which is most certainly not a Jewish ritual. Thomas Christian denominations generally follow the East or West Syrian liturgies, including the Qurbana, and I can find no evidence that they differ on this point. The incomplete citations and the obscurity of most of the works cited makes verification difficult, but I have no confidence that Robin klein interpreted the sources accurately anyway. In my opinion, no option but to delete.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I notice many of the article creator's edits are on the Syrian Malabar Nasrani or Saint Thomas Christians. I don't see any WP:RS or almost any sources for this subject. --Artene50 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Woofboy (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is an ideal case of WP:OR with no reliable sources has any mention of anything called Nasrani Hagbah. The author has already been blocked for propaganda stuff like this and the article should be deleted. AshLey ^Msg 09:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any evidence that this article has a basis in sources. I have looked at online versions of several of the books cited in the article (some as full text and some as snippets), and I do not find any indication that they contain the information supposedly obtained from them. --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion below is copied from User talk:Robin klein --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasrani Hagbah, if you'd like to respond here on your user page I will not treat it as a violation of your topic ban. I'll make your response known at the AfD.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cuchullain, The article should be deleted. Having said that the practice of raising of the bible among Nasranis is based on the samaritan/jewish practice of Hagbah. This is discussed in oral Nasrani tradition. However I wrote this using primary sources. So I was wrong as per wikipedia approach of secondary sources. Having said that, the deletion of anything and everything Jewish on the page Saint Thomas Christians just on the basis of mere discussion and without sources is getting out of control. For one the inner altar of the house of worship is indeed Holy of Holies or Sanctum sanctorum in LATIN if that makes it any less jewish. This is basic. There is nothing propaganda about it. My edits were in that regard no different from these deletions. Thanks and with regards Robin klein (talk) 16:59, 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) 16:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawk Buzzcut

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable subject. This is an article about a brief fad that I'm not even sure qualifies as a fad. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability, only sources cite the logo. -- Luke (Talk) 23:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't doubt that it was done, but I'm not finding coverage about it in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It exists; there's many mentions on the internet, but not finding coverage in reliable sources about the topic (after several searches). If someone else finds reliable sources, please notify me on my talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. I've lived in Atlanta half of my adult life, regularly attended Braves games, and I've never heard of this supposedly popular fan fad. Delete with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 2 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. I believe that there is a narrow consensus to delete here, if someone wants the information for a category or merge I can provide it (the BLP compliant information, at least) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople cleared of doping charges

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is extremely POV and it is hard to see how it could make sense at all. Just look at the first 3 entries of "cleared athletes": Two "Tested positive for nandrolone, but was pardoned by national federation" and Lance Armstrong - it would be hard to find more blatant examples of doping than these 3 cases. And the basic problem with this list is a fundamental one: Someone might be cleared for one accusation by someone (e.g. sports court, civil court) for some reason (e.g. being pardoned, procedural mistake of a technically positive doping result), but that does not imply any general clearance. As an example, Marion Jones, who served half a year in jail for charges related to her proved doping, should logically be re-added to this list since a negative B probe in 2006 cleared her of the charges caused by the positive test for EPO in the A probe. Lumialover (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a notable topic with notable entries. Inclusion criteria should be addressed on the article's talkpage and AfD is not the correct forum for these issues. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your claim that there are clearly notable entries (or entries at all). Setting the inclusion criteria itself is WP:OR, or do you have a WP:RS for who to include and who to exclude on such a list? Lumialover (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR refer to an article's content. The inclusion criteria of a list is alway a matter of editors judgement and consensus. An inclusion criteria consisting of sportspeople charged with and subsequently cleared of doping has no subjectivity and hence does not requires WP:reliable sources to support the criteria itself. In such a case, the reliable sources needed are for individual entries showing they meet the criteria. All current entries appear to be supported by such sources. If a person meet the inclusion criteria for the list, and also the relevant notability guidelines for its own article, then they are included on the list, otherwise they are excluded. KTC (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I love how a nomination complaining of POV is itself riddled with POV statements regarding the list content. Lance Armstrong as of writing has never been found guilty of a doping offence. Akhtar & Asif were both acquitted of the respective 2006 charges and as such meet the inclusion criteria stated. It doesn't matter whether you personally, or for that matter every Wikipedia editors think they are or are not a drug cheat. If they were charged with a doping offence, and then cleared then they meet the criteria. This isn't a list of people that were charged with doping but are actually clean, now that's not NPOV. Merely saying they were charged with doping and then cleared is a matter of fact and does not pass judgement on the allegations (general or specific) itself. Re. Jones, if the inclusion criteria include athletes that tested positive in their 'A' sample but then negative in their 'B' sample, then yes Jones would be on the list. If the critera only include those that were charged after testing positive in both samples and then cleared (for whatever reason), then no Jones wouldn't be on the list. KTC (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong was once legally cleared of charges of doping in 1999 (even though medically he clearly used doping), but is definitely not cleared of the current charges.
Jones was once cleared for one specific charge (a positice A probe), and later disqualified and sent to jail after different charges.
Both were once cleared of specific charges, and even a later jail sentence doesn't change that fact. Both deserve being on a list of people being once cleared of some charges, and noone can be proven to belong to a list of people never to have done doping. That's the problem.
That is not a personal problem. I question in the afd if the list makes sense. If consensus is that it does I will follow and enforce the rules (e.g. re-add Jones and defend that if vandals would attempt to remove her name from the list again).
Lumialover (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is a notable one, the list is not indiscriminate, there is or can be a clear inclusion criteria that is unambiguous, objective, with each entry supported by one or more references a la WP:LSC. KTC (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing the sourcing which would support this classification generally per WP:LISTN. And the topic seems too sensitive as no smoke without fire considerations may make inclusion derogatory. Warden (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Covert to category or delete There are so many potentially BLP issues here that having them in a list like this is asking for trouble 'charges' and 'cleared' have so many shades of grey to start with. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your concern, how is having it as a category better than list? A list can provide references to reliable source to justify entry, along with brief explanation to exact circumstance, whereas a category can't. KTC (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and context/balance are the fix for BLP issues, and these are easier to address in an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this piece is to stand, it needs to be rock-solid with its sourcing. It appears that it meets muster in that regard. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is not a major problem. Statements like Marion Jones was in 2006 cleared of doping charges. are easy to source (e.g. from press reports covering the trial that sent her to jail later for different doping charges). The problem is that there are no criteria for inclusion that make sense. On first sight the list seems to cover people who never used doping. On second sight many of entries are more He clearly used doping but found a legal loophole to avoid punishment. Lumialover (talk) 18:59, 25 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, Sandstein 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article, and (although I am not an expert on WP list policy) seems more like a collection of raw data than a legitimate list. Nobody is notable for having been cleared of a doping charge. They were already notable as sportspeople otherwise the doping thing would have never been mentioned by the media. Info could be put in each person's own article and any really important cases could be mentioned in the articles on doping itself. I don't think we would have (for instance) a "List of people who are known heavy drinkers but have never been arrested for DUI" or "List of pit-bull owners whose dog has never bit anybody." These would be SYNTH, OR, etc. Borock (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So many WP:BLP issues... I think the text accompanying the names could be rife with possible opportunities for asserted libel.

As an example, "The test, while positive, was technically incorrect" at Diane Modahl's listing, implies to a casual reader that the source material states the athlete was guilty as charged but then got off on a technicality, but that is not the way the BBC("Diane Modahl was cleared of drug taking a year later after an independent appeals panel accepted evidence bacterial activity could have increased testosterone levels while the sample was not refrigerated") or the Telegraph saw it ("...for failing a drugs test at a meeting in Portugal - a decision overturned a year later after they received proof that the test was faulty..."). To even be mentioned on this List could have derogatory 'damning with faint praise' real-life connotations. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I agree with Shearonik, especially his 'damning with faint praise' comment. We already have a List of doping cases in sport about the athletes who have been "found guilty" of doping. Now we will have another article about those who have not been found guilty. Even though it meets the letter of BLP notability, do we really want seperate articles on people who have only been accused of something?

Instead, we could merge the article's main section with the List of doping cases in sport article in separate sections for each letter (with a new column for "Description"; that is, Reason for clearance or anything else), after getting rid of entries on Mark Hylton, Marina Trandenkova and anyone else whose reference(s) prove unreliable. This would turn a negative "faint praise" into a positive "they were accused of something but it proved not to have happened". Or maybe this is still too negative? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:36, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Friday Night

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC and likely does not meet WP:GNG either. No released albums, only a mixtape. Two singles are published through TuneCore. While the article has multiple links to articles, most of them only mention in the band in passing. The only substantial reference is the one from the Cecil Observer. Depth of coverage is not very deep. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:24, 12 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 19 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) 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable band, agree with nominator. Shearonink (talk) 18:27, 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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulge (masculinity)

[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 18:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A neologism sourced to urbandictionary.com. Verges on G3 territory. Not notable and not likely to become notable either. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is indeed quite close to blatant vandalism. Pichpich (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note This "male camel toe" is also known as a "moose knuckle".--Coin945 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Shearonink (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user insists on creating the same page in Persian Wiki and argues that when such a page exists in English Wiki, then notability is clear! -- Nojan (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: fully agree with Shearonink; totally unencyclopaedic. — Hebrides (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from being an unsourced neologism, falling under WP:DICDEF, my understanding is that the word "basket" is much more widely used to describe this concept. Therefore no point in transwikiing it anywhere. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think it's G3-able (I've heard the term before, so it's not like Eglov made it up), it does fall under WP:DICDEF, and it has no reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. No encyclopedic value. --Artene50 (talk) 19:30, 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of OEIS sequences

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable list per WP:LISTN - no indication this list has been described elsewhere, in particular not at at oeis.org. So the compilation of the list is original research/synthesis. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a list of integer sequences that have their own Wikipedia entries and are included in the OEIS. So this list has a twofold criterion for inclusion of sequences, this was done to ensure that only notable sequences were included and to keep the article of manageable length. So it is obvious that this list may not be referenced/mentioned elsewhere or even at OEIS itself. But you will find plenty of sources for a more general article along the lines of List of Integer Sequences. Novonium (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though possibly rename List of integer sequences, using the criteria of inclusion in wikipedia and inclusion in OEIS as a sensible way, per User:Novonium, to keep the number of sequences maneagable. Dsp13 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not an indiscriminate list of all entries in OEIS, but just those which have Wikipedia entries, and is a useful index. —Lowellian (reply) 20:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear and unambiguous inclusion criteria; useful navigation list. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep Far more valuable as a text-form list than as a category. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw nomination on reflection/reviewing the above comments. Still seems a highly subjective/impractical list to me (I think if all the articles with such sequences were included it would be a very long list) but I seem to be the only one who views it that way. So per the preceding comment best close this, and then perhaps someone can move it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:46, 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Tomic

[edit]

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

We should not be making articles on 14 year old sisters of notable people. Recreate in 3 years if/when she plays at a notable event. The-Pope (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NTENNIS. WWGB (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that she fails WP:NTENNIS as she hasn't won a junior Grand Slam yet. There is some limited press coverage mostly due to her relationship to her brother, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. CodeTheorist (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt meet criteria. Andrzej19 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NTENNIS Seasider91 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since she faisl WP:NTENNIS at present. However, she appears promising. Perhaps this article can be recreated in a few years time. This appears a bit WP:TOOSOON. --Artene50 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NTENNIS. --Wolbo (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "Tomic is yet to have competed in a professional event." That's all we need. Can be recreated easily enough if she becomes notable later. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:41, 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.

Cultural Knowledge Work (CKW)

[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was merge to A13 road (England). Jenks24 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M13 motorway

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find a more substantial reference for this, and came up with National Archives File AT 56/98. In this file, the sole mention of "M13" is on a draft map, and even then it's marked as not necessarily being the final number. I cannot find any other references to this motorway number anywhere in the Ministry of Transport's archive files, and while it's an interesting tidbit to mention on CBRD and Pathetic Motorways, there simply aren't enough reliable sources to make this stand as an article. Ritchie333 (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we wanted to preserve the content, a merge with A13 road (England) is a possibility, since the M13 proposal followed the same route as well as sharing a number. It could also be combined with coverage of the planned Maplin Airport, but that only has a section in Thames Estuary Airport, so it would unbalance that article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Maplin Airport would certainly be more appropriate. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - proposed Interestate/Motorway-grade highways are almost always notable; upon creation of Maplin Airport can be redirected there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief sumary to A13 road (England). The motorway proposal was no doubt succeeded by the upgrading of A13. There is a very good reason neither to have this article nor one of Maplin Airport: they were both proposals which were abandoned many years ago and have no chance of being revived. If we created Maplin Airport, it would probably merely as a redirect to Thames Estuary Airport, which would result in a double redirect. The motorway proposal was no doubt subsidiary to the airport one, and does not warrant the existence of an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the road and airport were cancelled a long time ago, but notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A13 road (England) - This was a proposed related upgrade. Dough 48 72 14:40, 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 redirect to Grimsby Town F.C.#Stadium. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conoco Stadium

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plans have been cancelled and the club is looking at a new alternative site and if that is viable. The company 'Conoco' also no longer exsists as is now known as Philips66 RM-Taylor (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an article in the local newspaper discussing residents objecting to a new stadium at a planned new site

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Blundell Park, the club's current stadium. Giant Snowman 12:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing of significance to this proposal that merits its own article — the corresponding content in Grimsby Town and Blundell Park seems adequate.—A bit iffy (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proposed new stadium has been cancelled. Blundell Park is reasonable. --Artene50 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grimsby Town F.C.#Stadium. Unless the Club manages to get itself promoted back the the Football League, it seems unlikely that it will ever be able to afford to get the stadium built. The Club and Blundell Park articles need attention as they are both talking of 2010/11 as in the future. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 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} 01:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAME ze GREAT

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a self-published book, posted by its author. I cannot find independent evidence that it has even been published: it is not listed on Amazon (though CreateSpace is one of Amazon's self-publishing subsidiaries) or Google Books, and the ISBN cited does not check out. In any case, this falls far short of the standard of WP:Notability (books). This was PRODded, but the author removed the PROD from his other book (see AfD), so to save time I bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Have been unable to find independent reviews or coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's absolutely nothing out there about this book that wasn't put out there by the author himself. There's nothing out there to show that this book (or the other book up for AfD) is notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for myself, my findings were ditto. Nothing not self-produced. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find anything online/print/etc that were not self-published. Theopolisme _TALK 15:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not notable with no coverage from reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 01:17, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romano-British road names

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mostly unreferenced, and possibly original research. The reason I'd prefer to delete this rather than merge / redirect to Roman roads in Britain is because I can't imagine anybody accidentally typing the article name into the search box. Ritchie333 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't add anything to Roman roads in Britain. I'm indifferent about whether to redirect: it may be very slightly useful to keep but not very. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent I originally moved the text (can't recall where from) rather than delete it, while reorganising the categories, as I thought it was a useful list. But I have no view on whether it really is useful. Bards (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]

Delete This OR-ish piece provides poorer and less well supported coverage of the facts than Roman roads in Britain and Ancient_trackway#Great_Britain which between them leave little room for more articles on the topic. Effectively this is an unsupported POV/content fork bordering on speculation ("There are no records of names used by the Romano-British for their roads"). There's also OR-ish confusion between British and (Anglo-)Saxon, i.e. English. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not much to say about the names of the roads, and what the article does say is unsourced. If there's a need for a separate list article, it can come from the list in Roman roads in Britain, which is more complete. ~~I would be interested though in hearing from the article's creator.~~ I see the creator is User:Bardsandwarriors, who has already spoken here. --Amble (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect into Roman roads in Britain per the above discussion. This is something of a POV fork of the other article, and adds little to the encyclopedia that is not already here. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect). This adds nothing to what should appear in Roman roads in Britain. This is not plain WP:OR as some later road names (such as street) are indicators that the road was paved at an early date, but "gate" and "way" have no such significance. The Saxons seem to have used way for a lesser (unpaved) track. A dyke is a ditch, though it is sometimes applied to the bank made with spoil from the ditch. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Tung Sheng

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that Chang is not notable enough according to both the general notability guideline and notability (people) for a dedicated article. A Google search results in some hits, but I don't believe they reach the "significant coverage in independant, reliable sources" standard. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article establishes his notability, and there is far more written about him in the Chinese language rather than in English. —Lowellian (reply) 20:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also think the article makes a good case. As an aside this is a biography of a non-living person so the bar with regard to references is a little lower. Barring English (and the guy was based in China and Taiwan) a couple of Chinese references would at least be something.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My search leads me to believe he is notable, but I'm having trouble finding independent sources in English to support this. The best I can find is at http://www.shuai-chiao.org/#/gm-chang-tung-sheng/4547027914, but I don't think this is independent since the founders of the organization are from his lineage. Jakejr (talk) 21:29, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey (novel)

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything else except for a short amazon page. Lacks sources and thus fails WP:GNG. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect to Journey to the West. The Penguin edition is many people's introduction to the Chinese classic, and the article title is a conceivable search term. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there's not really any content in Monkey (novel) that's not in Journey to the West and it makes sense to treat the different editions/translations on the same page as the original novel. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Merging seems like a viable option to me, but one thing to consider here is that Monkey has its own claim to notability. It represented a fairly novel approach to translating Journey to the West (ie. whereas most translations sought to summarize everything, Monkey selected key chapters in the narrative arc, and translated them in full), and thus became the most prolific English version of the book. As with the related AfDs, the book could probably satisfy WP:N, and adding more references wouldn't be too difficult. Homunculus (duihua) 14:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Per material provided by Lowellian below. I've also expanded the article slightly and added a modest collection of references.Homunculus (duihua) 22:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the original creator of this article, starting it over seven years ago, and the article has since had many other editors. ~~That said, I'm willing to agree with merge and redirect with Journey to the West, as it does seem sensible to deal with a translation in the same page as the original work.~~ Edit: Strike that, changing to keep; I was voting to merge on the basis that I assumed translations were generally dealt with on Wikipedia in the same article as the original work, but then I found Category:Translations, which establishes many prior precedents for the keeping of articles on notable translations. The question then is whether this translation is a notable one, and the answer to that, per the comment that follows, is a definite yes.

I must comment on the nominator's claim that "I cannot find anything else except for a short Amazon page" -- you must not have tried very hard, as this translation by Arthur Waley is the single most famous translation of Journey of the West in the English language and is very commonly cited within the Western academic literature of East Asian studies and Sinology. As the article states, "it was, for many years, by far the most accurate and complete translation of Journey to the West available in the English language. Due to this, it has been heavily cited by Western scholars of Chinese literature". Here [9] is a review of Waley's translation published in The New York Times. Waley's translation is sufficiently widely used to introduce students of Sinology to Chinese literature that BookRags has produced on a study guide on it [10].

In print, the translation is reviewed in An Introduction to Chinese Literature (Greenwood 1990) by Liu Wu-Chi and Wu-Chi Liu. In the preface of the translation of Journey to the West (University of Chicago Press 1952) by Anthony C. Yu, he refers to the "justly famous and widely read version of Arthur Waley". In the biography Timothy Mo (Manchester University Press 2000) by Elaine Yee Lin Ho, she notes, "the most popular and textually accessible translation remains Arthur Waley's abridged Monkey". In The Silk Road: Two Thousand Years in the Heart of Asia (University of California Press 2004), Frances Wood comments that Journey to the West is "better known in the West as Monkey in Arthur Waley's translation".

The translation is sufficiently well known to be referenced even outside the Sinology-specific academic literature. Waley's translation is excerpted and commented upon in Culture and Values: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings (Cengage Learning 2009), edited by Lawrence S. Cunningham and John J. Reich. The Encyclopedia of the Novel (John Wiley & Sons 2011), edited by Peter Melville Logan, Olakunle George, Susan Hegeman, and Efrain Kristal, notes that Journey to the West "remains better known to the Western reader in Arthur Waley's abridged version, Monkey".

Arthur's translation even appears outside scholarly works. In the Rizzoli & Isles novel The Silent Girl (Random House 2011) by Tess Gerritsen, Waley's translation is an element of the plot.

I could go on, but the point is that Waley's translation is not just any translation, but an extremely notable and highly significant one in Western Sinology.

—Lowellian (reply) 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merging would not be a catastrophe, but per Lowellian above, this is "not just any translation". There's clearly enough on it for a separate article - see the main article, this article and this AfD. Why overweight the main article with it?John Z (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Journey to the West article. I think I am reading the same thing at both pages.116.87.23.67 (talk) 03:12, 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 for both, without prejudice to a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've long been a supporter of the position that articles on incomplete ships should have their own articles here on Wikipedia, but after watching these two battleship articles mired in merge discussions for some months and seeing how much Wikipedia's standards for quality content have evolved in the years since I argued for the retention of articles on incomplete ships I now think it a good time to revisit the issue here. I am nominating the articles USS Kentucky (BB-66) and USS Illinois (BB-65) for deletion on grounds that since the FAC's for these ships our standards for an article's quality content have evolved to the point where it would now be preferable to cover the material presented in these articles in the class articles for the Iowa-class battleships and the Montana-class battleships. In nominating here I also intended to settle the various merge proposals that have been made which have garnered little if any attention and therefore have been inconclusive in settling the issue of whether or not the ship articles should be merged into the class articles mentioned above. At issue here is whether the ships still satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards and therefore have the ability to remain independent articles, or whether the notability standards have shifted such that they now fail the notability requirements to retain independent articles here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous afd for USS Illinois is located here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom rationale. Intothat darkness 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both of these ships had their keels laid and were partially completed before cancellation. In cases such as the Montana-class battleships, where none of the ships which had names assigned to them were ever laid down, merging and redirecting the individual ships to the class article makes sense. In cases where construction was actually done, however, the ships should retain individual articles. Also, the "shifting notability standards" argument here is a bit of a red herring; while the standards considered for the notability of ships that don't otherwise meet the GNG might be stricter, WP:GNG still applies otherwise, and the subjects of both of these articles clearly meet the GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the "shifting notability standards" argument here is a bit of a red herring... I know, but this is being done for two different reasons. First, I have no interest in working to restore the articles, nor would I imagine that others would be interested in restoring the articles, if the end game for merge discussions is simply going to see the articles cease to exist independently. Secondly, I'm tired of watching merge discussions with two or three people commenting on the matter. Its extreme, I admit, but afd forces the issues by demanding a consensus one way or the other. This'll settle the merge debates and at the same time serve as a motion of confidence for the articles on notability grounds. Not a bad way o kill two birds with one stone, eh? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no objection to merge though). The article is well researched and certainly meets criteria for inclusion in WP. How it is displayed/presented is immaterial to me. Buffs (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's tons of material on this ship so notability isn't a problem, and there's no reason why the article couldn't be developed so it regains FA status. Where has merging this been discussed recently? There are no discussions on the article's talk page or at Talk:Iowa class battleship. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm really not seeing how this discussion isn't in favor of merging both the Illinois and Kentucky. Performing the merge was even discussed somewhere (I think User:The ed17's talk page), and I volunteered to do the FA paperwork, but no one had the time to do the actual merge work at that point. Dana boomer (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kentucky at least incomplete ships in general don't deserve a separate article, but the Iowa class battleships are probably some of the most famous ships in history, and as such, even incomplete ships in the class deserve a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both USS Kentucky (BB-66) and USS Illinois (BB-65), (the latter of which is a Featured article). Both articles have received significant coverage in reliable sources, per the respective references sections for the articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both I find it strange that both are being considered for deletion. A quick scan of both articles reveals a plethora of sources, several coming form books, and the articles are, for the most part, well-written. The Illinois page is a FA, also. I don't see why they need to be deleted at all, they're both notable and both could be shining FAs again one day.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify a point I know that there is no real expectation that either page will be deleted, this is more a forced merge discussion to compel the community to settle a number of unfulfilled merge requests and merge discussions related to both articles. Really the only issue is whether this is going to close with consensus to keep both articles separate or put them in the class page. I admit its somewhat sidestepping the letter of an afd, but this does uphold the spirt of afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- notable enough for stand-alone article, but there's not enough information or controversy for a featured article (similar to, say Japanese battleship Tosa). All of the information here can be included at Iowa-class battleship. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is obviously enough information here to meet notability and to create a stand-alone article from. Too much good information would be lost in a merge and Wikipedia is not running out of space. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have pointed out, there is more than enough significant coverage for these article topics to support independent articles. --Oakshade (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even if you cover this in the class article, wouldn't you need to keep these around anyways, as redirects? WP:MAD (or are you proposing a merge through AfD?) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd end up leaving a redirect behind in the event of a merge, but I do not think that is going to happen since a vast majority of the above editors seem to be of the opinion that the article's have enough notability to stay here on there own without a merge. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see value in a merge since the distinct content (once background, general class information is accounted for) is fairly brief and further expansion limited. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have pointed out, there is more than enough significant coverage for these article topics to support independent articles. Oakshade said it well enough. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:47, 2 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Martinez

[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 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO. Reads like a promotional advert. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per personal advertisement and lack of WP:N from reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails relevant notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ulba Metallurgical Plant

[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 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable organisation. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a business directory. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources in Russian, I added one claiming this is one of the world leaders in a number of directions.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Per section D of WP:BEFORE, just clicking on the Google News link for this AfD provides a plethora of reliable sources for this company. An historic and notable joint-stock company that quite easily passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

Soviet nuke plant sheds secrets, thinks business - timesofmalta.com
NewsLibrary.com - newspaper archive, clipping service - newspapers and other news sources (subscription required)
NewsLibrary.com - newspaper archive, clipping service - newspapers and other news sources (subscription required)
NewsLibrary.com - newspaper archive, clipping service - newspapers and other news sources (subscription required)
NewsLibrary.com - newspaper archive, clipping service - newspapers and other news sources (subscription required)
NewsLibrary.com - newspaper archive, clipping service - newspapers and other news sources (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:44, 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 no consensus. Discussion about renaming/change in scope can continue on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Color of the day

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROD was contested by an IP editor. Completely unsourced article that is unlikely to deserve a standalone article, even if sources can be found. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written based on a colors set by Muay Thai association, claiming to be astrological rule of Hindu mythology. There are numerous such associations based in various countries coining their own so-called astrological rules. The information is completely unencyclopedic. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR sourced entirely with in-universe fringe blither of zero encyclopedic value. No reliable sources could ever be found to support the notability of this article, or to provide information to expand it. Delete and flush twice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment: I won't !vote keep, since I'm editing as an IP, but I have to say I find it amusing that readers were able to come off with the idea that this is some arbitrary idea made up by a random boxing organisation rather than a deeply ingrained aspect of Thai culture. I'm also wondering if the editors who failed to find sources had indeed bothered trying at all. The first two pages of Google search results for Thailand day colours reveals this article from Thailand's Ministry of Culture website and this Time Magazine article. If one follows the second link in the EL section to the article on Richard Barrow's blog (which, by the way, is as close to being an RS as blogs can get), he also suggests reading Cornwel-Smith, Philip (2005). Very Thai : everyday popular culture (1st ed.). Bangkok: River Books. ISBN 9789749863008. The subject is covered in a three-page essay in the book. --125.25.15.137 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) --101.109.218.176 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (Same person, on a dynamic IP.)[reply]

KEEP Based on the info above my comment, valid point. --PILTS (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content in this article describes about list of colors followed only in Thailand. Its not appropriate to have the title as Colors of the day. --Anbu121 (talk me) 03:45, 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aces High @ 23 Wall Street

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PROD contested by article author. Nominating due to notability according to the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article author is also the author of this self-published book. I can't find independent evidence that it has even been published - it is not listed on Amazon (though CreateSpace is one of Amazon's self-publishing subsidiaries) or on Google Books, and the ISBN cited does not check out. In any case, falls far short of the standard of WP:Notability (books). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FAME ze GREAT about his other book. With the increasing number of self-published authors trying to promote their books here, I wonder if we need a new speedy-deletion criterion analogous to WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have been unable to find independent reviews or coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as I have tried to find reliables sources but it was unsuccesfull, plus it fails WP: NBOOK. Electric Catfish 21:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This absolutely fails notability guidelines for books. I was unable to find anything that would show that this book is notable. I actually wasn't able to find anything that wasn't a primary source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since these are the only sources for this book, I have to agree that it fails WP:NBOOK sadly. --Artene50 (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable self published book Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 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) 15:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-trance

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for a subgenre of music that does not exist. I wonder if the creator and the people who maintain the article mean, Progressive Trance. At best the existence of this article reflects poorly on the creator of the article; at worst it reflects poorly on electronic music as a whole, and makes it look like a style of music not to be taken seriously because of the ambiguous nature of supposed genres such as this one. An aside, this article can't even support any valid references. If you google neo-trance under news, you'll only find one article written in Italian (that is if you search under any time and not archives). Why this article has been allowed to exist for so long, and even be allowed to be added to footers... you'd have to ask the people involved. I wholly stand by my decision to nominate this article for deletion. Lighthead ^þ 05:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 26. Snotbot t • c » 05:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are a few easily found sources online, which may be found by hitting the blue links above. However, there's not a lot out there. We have, in the past, deleted most new genres of music; see Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Music for examples. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, most of the articles that you find at google news (under the archives function), are old news articles that ascribe certain artists as neo-trance without any reason for doing so. That's not even enough to support this article with one adequate reference. Lighthead ^þ 18:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the online sources does not seem to produce much that supports the idea of notability (mostly just the term). This may be a significant genre in the future, but there is not evidence of it yet.--SabreBD (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was trying to say in my comment to Bearian. I hadn't fully absorbed your statement. Lighthead ^þ 00:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't get my head around what sound this article is supposed to be about, the mish mash of tech house / downtempo / minimal artists at the bottom is incoherent. Perhaps "neo-trance" is used to describe something, but from this (and the lack of decent sources) it's not really clear what. - filelake shoe  15:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think at best it's a subtle sound that only a few privileged people can identify. That's about all I can say. Maybe in some years it could develop into a coherent sound. However, Wikipedia is not in the business of prediction. To Filelakeshoe. Lighthead ^þ 00:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to your comment about the artists mentioned at the end of the article, none of them even come close to a trance sound in my personal opinion. Much less an ambiguous pseudo-genre. Letters from an obsessive electronic music enthusiast. Lighthead ^þ 03:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the references in Google Books to neo-trance are more descriptive of a style and not necessarily to a separate sub-genre of music. Look carefully at Spin magazine entry, Apr. 2002 above under Books. It's towards the end of the article. Lighthead ^þ 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An Aside I guess everybody's off for the weekend doing their weekend thing. It's okay. I can wait. I'm patient. Hahaha. To those in the arbitration process: if you view this as anything besides just a joke, you need to get off Wikipedia. It bears repeating: it's just a joke. Sheesh... Lighthead ^þ 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell I don't do this kind of thing too much. Lighthead...KILLS!! 22:46, 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 Copa Inca. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Copa Inca

[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Competition was cancelled. MicroX (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Being cancelled is not a reason for deleting something; once notable, always notable. My concern is that the sources are not listed. Perhaps they could be found. Stedrick (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect somewhere, ideally somewhere that mentions what this sport is and why this was cancelled. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a top-level futbol event and one that was intended to be a qualifier for international competition, this was notable, and notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copa Inca and write a section on the 2012 tournament and why this event was cancelled. Seasider91 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 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 and improve. There is broad agreement that this article is deeply flawed and written from a particular perspective. In fact the primary author's comments right here in this discussion show their own prejudices on the topic. However, the topic is broader than just the civil war, having been demonstrably present both before and after it. There is no agreement on if or how it could be merged, but that discussion can continue on the talk page if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka

[edit]

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

unsourced, no real point to the article, includes myths and legends to a present day situation. Sri Lankan Civil War article already exists. Blackknight12 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an apparent WP:POVFORK, all of which is covered under other articles. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the final version of the article. Currently I am adding references to this article. I will complete finding and referencing things within a month. Also I want to add more details than this first version which is more towards the structure. It is some tedious work which can't done in few hours. This is not a WP:POVFORK since no other Wikipedia page is created to discuss the history , tension situations, civil wars erupted. Sri Lankan Civil War is only a stage of the ethnic conflict. So it's scope is limited only to the civil war. Also history of Sri Lanka/any other country is a huge ,"non categorized" topic. In this article only subjective events were concerned. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There should be an opening paragraph (the socalled lead) where a short description about the topic is given. Also, the article must reflect both sides of the conflict. If myths and legends are to be mentioned at all, they should not be presented as facts, and myths and legends of both sides and the role and significance of these myths in the ethnic conflict should be presented. Otherwise you are absolutely right that the ethnic conflict should have an article on its own, where the article focuses on contributing factors to the ethnic conflict, how it developed and evolved. --SriSuren (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I will update according to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article is certainly not a POVFORK and should most certainly not be deleted. The ethnic conflict and the civil war are not the same. Let me explain it in a simple way - the ethnic conflict predates the civil war by several decades and it continue to exists even after the civil war ended. The civil war was just one result of the ethnic conflict. The present article is very one sided and has some irrelevant myths etc and therefore needs to be rewritten and improved, but it must not be deleted. It amazes me that there has not been an article on the topic until now. --SriSuren (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- I am not clear what else exists, but this looks adequate to me. There are conflicting views between the Tamils and "natives" as to history. This is probably too raw a subject for a NPOV consenus to arise on the history of the issue. If necessary, it should be userified, so that the main editors can bring the article to a more finished state. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a WP:POVFORK. The user who created this article believes that the information in other established articles to be fake ([11], [12]) and so they have created this article to put across their POV. Without a lead it's difficult to say what the point of this article is. If it's about the "Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka" then there are plenty of other articles which deal with this: Sri Lankan Civil War, Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war, Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism etc. But as it stands now the article is actually about the entire history of Sri Lanka, going back tens of thousands of years. Again, there are plenty of articles dealing with Sri Lanka's history - History of Sri Lanka, Prehistory of Sri Lanka, Ancient history of Sri Lanka, Medieval history of Sri Lanka, Colonial history of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka in the twentieth century, Post conflict history of Sri Lanka. Most of the article has been copied from other articles, most of it is unreferenced, it contains original research, it contradicts itself and it's full of factual errors.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war is in Sri Lanka is over. Not the Conflict. Still some popular topics are spreading through the world. eg : Tamils are the Natives to Sri Lanka. There should be no Sinhalese colonies in so called "Tamil Home Lands". From this article I want bring the complete picture of the ethnic conflict. That means History, civil war, ethnic conflicts after the war (homeland,traditional land, natives,...) --Himesh84 (talk) 17:26, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. We should keep articles which give interesting information about countries. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Sri Lanka or Sri Lankan Civil War. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep-I agree with Peterkingiron, this article clearly has some POV material, however it is a notable conflict that does predate the civil war. It needs to be copy edited/cleaned by multiple editors, but it is a notable subject.CouchSurfer222 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Sri Lankan Civil War, as it is an unnecessary fork. —Lowellian (reply) 20:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated that Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is a combination of Sri Lankan Civil war + History of Sri Lanka. Logically it is correct. But it is not practical. History of Sri Lanka is a huge subject. Also it is very much brief description about all the history which can't be written in details within a small wiki page. For me it is very much difficult to find specific details about ethnic details from the history of Sri lanka page. We must implements detailed specific things in derived pages for a subject like history. Also "Sri Lankan Civil War" only contains about things happened after 1900 and the last battle between two groups. But ethnic conflict containing more details. More battles (Magha invation, Parakramabahu VI's Jaffna invasion, ... ) and relationships (king Senerat and Cankii) agreements, how intermediate parties settled tension in past (Portuguese, Dutch, English) .... Those things can't be talked from "Sri Lankan Civil war" wiki page. It is out side the Topic (which target the last battle) and scope.--Himesh84 (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that I have one supporter. I am not qualified to undertake the necessary restructuring of the articles. This probably needs a multiple merge to otehr articles on the history of Sri Lanka, undertaken by a NPOV expert. If no one will come forward to do this, the aritcle will have to be deleted, as it is undesirable to have multiple articles all covering the same subject, unless they form a tree with a general article pointing to more detaield main articles, which may in turn have main sub-articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to merge this page to "History of Sri Lanka" or other way around ? I believe it is not a good idea since History should be brief. Also this article contain some extra details which hasn't not covered in any articles. I think Ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka is huge subject and there should be a wiki page for that. Also recent civil war is huge subject , there should be another wiki page for that. There are lot of wiki articles which talk history about particular subject from that page without merging into the history of that country or continent. Logically we can merge every wiki-page into History except what is still going on but practically not. So we have to merge all the kingdoms into history of that country,no wikipages about kings that belongs to the history. Battles, empires, rebels,Olympic games, football games,elections,famous presidents,famous persons also into history. More than 75% wikipages are logically belongs to History. That will be not good.--Himesh84 (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting a multiple merge to the histories by period. If I knew about the subject, I might do it, but I do not. Or perhasp what I am saying is that much of the content needs to be merged to those articles, leaving a much shorter summary, covering the main points. Lowellian is wrong, becasue most of the article is not about the recent civil war, but about the source of the tensions that lay behind it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Leonard (publisher)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David Leonard (publisher)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non Notable google:"David Leonard" "publisher" returns very few results about the topic. Yet this article does not state notability))

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 18. Snotbot t • c » 09:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking depth of coverage in significant independent sources. If such sources are added tot he article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dancebooks.co.uk/about-us-z-1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dances43 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an SPA appears to be trying to say that there are many passing mentions in [13]. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't appear notable from the sources. --Artene50 (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FutureProof

[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 16:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability. They've released two singles, and have toured as a supporting band. Sourced to their own web site, a forum, press releases, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third party sources in the article, and Google searches have found MySpace, Face3Book, YouTube, download sites, write-ups of press releases, and so on. Not notable. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:43, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent WP:RS to indicate this band's notability that I can see. --Artene50 (talk) 06:56, 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. Wifione ^Message 11:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PickUp 101

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Third party refs are passing mentions. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems well enough sourced to me. Specs112 t c 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that at least two of the four current references are passing mentions. They fail the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:N. The Strauss book is not independent, so I don't believe it should be used to determine notability. Of the three remaining, they're all puff pieces that demonstrate little notability beyond that at one time the company did enough marketing to get some notice. The San Francisco Magazine has slightly more information than the other two, but it's still little more than a blip of local interest. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 suitable sources, each with suitable coverage. Could not evaluate the 4th. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 June 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, Blurpeace 21:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although there are only 4 sources, they are all credible, reliable, and independent. --MMMMadManiac (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CORP, or merge to Pickup artist. There are passing mentions but no coverage of the subject as a company. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have looked at sources so far included: all passing mentions but 1, and not sure of the 4th source's reliability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulltiming

[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 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about what itself describes as "a loose term" referring to a subset of RVers. It is completely OR with only three somewhat relevant external links and is linked by only four articles. It would be best if it were covered in just a few sentences in the Recreational_vehicle#RV_lifestyle section. 69.255.170.55 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above nomination was copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Fulltiming at the request of the IP editor. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 26. Snotbot t • c » 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - I added three books to the article, with "Fulltiming" or "Full Time" in their title, with reference to RV'ing. So, it's a real thing, which may merit its own article, or at least a substantial section if merged. --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - No valid rationale for deletion has been stated per WP:DEL-REASON. This topic has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources.

Moeller, Bill; Moeller, Jan (1998). Complete Guide to Full-Time RVing: Life on the Open Road. Trailer Life Books. ISBN 978-0934798532.
Maxwell, Gaylord (1993). Fulltiming: An Introduction to Full-Time Rving. Gaylord Maxwell. ISBN 978-0962915307.
Hofmeister, Ron (1998). Movin' on: Living and Traveling Full-Time in a Recreational Vehicle. R&B Publications (OH). ISBN 978-0963731913. ((cite book)): |first2= missing |last2= (help)
Ethridge, Joy (2007). Yes, You Can Full-Time RVing for the Single Person. Lulu.com. ISBN 9781430312840. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Bernhagen, Stephanie (2000). Take Back Your Life!: Travel Full-Time in an RV. Bernham-Collins. ISBN 0970026307. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
More sources: Google Books search.

Also, 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) 08:06, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cardozo Corvalan

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daniel Cardozo Corvalan

(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 17:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has not played a senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 26. Snotbot t • c » 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both the football specific guideline and the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:42, 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.