< 30 March	1 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appote[edit]

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

Definition of an unsourced, original research neologism; Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. Prod was refused. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and per WP:NEO -- Whpq (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation album[edit]

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

Unsourced. Nothing but a dicdef and OR. I can't see any way for this not to be dicdeffery. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a 'thing' not just a term and there's more there than a dicdef. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs to be developed, referenced, etc., but this is a type of album which is important as a marketing tool in its own right, and some times (eg UK various artists compilations in the late 60s/ early 70s, and late 70s/ early 80s) has contributed significantly to the development of popular culture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is linked in ((Infobox album)) in every album article of type "compilation". —Bruce1ee^talk 12:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per all comments above. While the article here currently mightn't be great, it's an essential part of the music industry. K-tel, solely in the compilation record world, was Business Week magazine's 1994 "7th best publicly traded company in the US, based on growth and profitability." -- Zanimum (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may not understand the nominator's rationale, but I believe he says that he intend to nominate anything for deletion, be it an influential king or a high-profilic novelist, that is unsourced and contains original research (eg Edgar Wallace).--GoP _T ^C _N 09:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has he specifically stated this as his intentions? While unsourced and OR are bad practice, obviously, is there any way AfD organizers can just instantly close his requests, if this truly is a habit? He needs to learn how to add templates to pages, like the rest of us, not waste people's time. (I only end up on AfD every few months, whenever something I've edited in the past decade appears, so I had no idea of this being common practice for him.) -- Zanimum (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seeing this is perhaps not the place, as he's the subject of a Requests for comment. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and a ((trout)) for the nominator - Hammer, you do some good work, but there's alltogether too many of your AfDs that leave me shaking my head in order for me to leave the seafood on the shelf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ponyo. v/r - T P 03:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Lost My Little Boy[edit]

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

A stub with no major edits since 2008. Not notable with only a couple of references with questionable reliability (which are also non-english). I think this article meets the requirements for an AfD. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Talk:Ponyo#I Lost My Little Boy - M0rphzone (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - May only be notable because of the Miyazaki rumours, may be notable in its own right, but I suspect most of the sources that could clarify this are offline (such as the Nanjing Morning Post, which appears to be the source of the rumour). As the article currently stands, it would do better as a footnote to the Ponyo article. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ponyo per above. No evidence of notability outside of mentions in relation to Ponyo. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Young and the Restless minor characters[edit]

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

This page is no longer needed as all the characters that were once listed here have been moved to more properly organized pages. Creativity97 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the characters included, plus some, have been moved to decade and/or year pages. So this page is merely not required anymore. I fully support a speedy deletion. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters (or another appropriate target). The article history needs to be preserved to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. - Eureka Lott 01:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above reasoning, stated by Eureka Lott. — Status {^talk_contribs 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters per Eureka Lott. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that Eureka Lott makes a good point; the article history must be preserved. List of The Young and the Restless characters needs some work though I suppose redirecting Y&R M.C. to that page would be a very good idea. I withdraw my previous opinion to go with Redirect. Creativity97 14:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- per all above. This is clearly the best solution. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So have we reached a consensus?? Or do we need more opinions?? Creativity97 (Talk) 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These discussions usually run for about 7 days, so it will most likely be closed late today or early tomorrow. Reyk _YO! 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hera[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. None of the references are sufficiently reliable for WP:GNG to be met and I can't find any coverage in google news/books. Article is also bordering on spam, not surprising as it was written by a paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references look suitable for wp:notability. Article reads like promotional material or a resume. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with those above. 86.** IP (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article, despite the reference bombing, does not include any coverage about the subject independent reliable sources. My own search turned up none as well. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly merely a resume posted onto Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lufthansa Flight 592[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and no WP:PERSISTENCE A google news archive search shows all articles on the hijacker were written at the time. The article even says he surrendered without incident. What's notable about that?...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As evidenced by the sources cited in the article, this incident has received ample and wide coverage in reliable sources. Ergo, it is notable. --Lambiam 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The news coverage is routine. Secondly to quote an FBI negotiator 'We didn't do anything different.' How is it notable again?...William 22:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  It's perhaps precisely because he did everything by the book that the negotiator who spoke these words (not an FBI agent but NYPD detective Misino), who received international acclaim for his handling of the case, used it as an illustration in his book: Dominick J. Misino (2004). Negotiate and Win: Proven Strategies from the NYPD's Top Hostage Negotiator. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-142803-8. The case is also treated in detail in a section of: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., ed. (2006). Terrorism: Documents of International and Local Control. Vol. 9. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532475-4. --Lambiam 12:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an aviation accident this fails the relevant standards, but as a crime I believe it passes notablity. Note that the negiotator's handling of the incident is held up as an example in a 2011 book by the Harvard Business Review ([1]), it is also mentioned in several recent books on terrorism, including Oxford's Terrorism: Documents of International and Local Control series. I believe there is sufficent evicence to demonstrate that the WP:GNG is met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the other hijacking articles with questionable notability are in AfD and I feel that the subject meets the notability requirements.Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE as well as (obviously) WP:GNG. Not only has the coverage been way beyond the scope of "routine" (sports events, wedding announcements), but in addition to the long term coverage found by Lambian, it was very easy for me to find more coverage years after the event. [2][3][4] --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantially per Bushranger. Also, links by Oakshade are persuasive. Lord Roem (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Jerome (author)[edit]

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

Created by a blocked, likely paid-editor sockmaster and group account, I'd like to ask that the notability be considered carefully, as it's not entirely clear if this author is notable, or, if he is, what for. 86.** IP (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems almost impressive at first glance, but all it comes down to is two self-published books, two mentions in one local paper, and some non-notable awards. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DoctorKubla. Considered carefully, a check of Google books and Google news reveals no new sources to confer basic notability for a person (though a couple Passing mentions and a duplicate to the OC Register article). Also fails WP:AUTHOR. Valfontis (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable, a legitimate author will eventually write an article. No need to reward sockpuppetry and possibly payola with allowing there works to stand. Thought experiment: we allow the article to stand, the paid author gets paid, gets a new internet provider, gets a new account, and does it again. Not good. Thought experiment: we delete the article, paid author does not get paid, goes away. Or gets paid, but clients then complain that the article about them is no longer there and wants their money back. I'm going to have to !vote delete on the ground of not encouraging bad behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Paid editing is not a deletion criterion, as far as I know. Can you direct us to the guideline that says it is? Per WP:ATTP, please address the article, not the editor--what policy based concerns about the article's content do you have? Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:NOTADVERTISING. It's hard to say that hiring a PR flack to put something on Wikipedia isn't advertising. Anyway, though, this one also has major notability issues. 86.** IP (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was addressing UtherSRG (should have indented), as you had already asked us to consider notability carefully, which I did. But thank you. I hate spam, but since this isn't a !vote, we have to argue here based on policy and guidelines. Sometimes it is possible to salvage something useable from a spammy article. Valfontis (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR. Put aside WP:ATTP for the moment. Is my logic above sound? Do we want to encourage paid writers and their bias, or do we want to weed them out? While I agree that most of the time, we can ignore the author, but when doing so threatens the foundation of the project, we most certainly can not. If the subject is notable, there will, in time, be a proper article written by a proper author. Until then, we should feel free to discourage improper authors from writing articles, because to do otherwise encourages improper articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Joachim Hambro (philologist)[edit]

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

His only claim to notability is that he was the son of C J Hambro; this is insufficient for his own article; 5 years as a journalist, a few as a university lecturer, a few as a minor diplomat - in all of which fields he was non-notable; cultural output was also minor. It is doubtful that he would be included in Store norske leksikon were it not for who his father was. He was not a notable philologist. A few words could reasonably be added to his mention in his father's article, but to say in that article that this chap got a degree in philology, worked as a university lecturer, then as a diplomat, translator, university lecturer again, and wrote a few novels, would be too much I think. Mountainousgoat (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, an entry in a paper(-turned online) encyclopedia is cited; award-winning translator. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An individual with his own entry in the second most comprehensive Norwegian-language encyclopedia (now online-only, because of the success of WP) does not automatically merit an entry in WP. This chap's work as a diplomat, university lecturer, and philologist are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Nor is winning an award sufficient. His family relation to the politician C J Hambro is certainly insufficient (WP:NOTINHERITED). But this may well have been the main reason the Store norske leksikon gave him his own article. How many other individuals does it give their own articles to who are not notable for anything other than winning the Bastian prize? List of winners is here. Many don't have their own articles either in the Leksikon or in WP. The issue comes down to whether or not his being awarded the Bastian Prize by the Norwegian Association of Literary Translators (which today has about 300 members) in 1963 makes him notable. The answer is surely no.Mountainousgoat (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the Delete since the nominator can't "vote" in the discussion he started. Geschichte (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, anyone winning the Bastian prize is among the literary establishment elite of Norway which clearly merits notability. Also his own literary production is sufficient for notability. __meco (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So each of the winners of the Bastian prize should have their own WP entry, saying where they went to university and what jobs they've done? I think that would be going way too far. By all means list them in the entry for the Bastian prize, which article incidentally doesn't even say what most of the prizewinners translated! It would not do to rush to expand Norwegian-language lists into sets of biographical articles, copying birth jobs and death info (and in the latest revision, burial info!), without much care to describe (or demonstrate) what actions and events in the person's life are really worth being recorded in WP. You can say his literary production is sufficient for notability, but where are the multiple and independent secondary sources (substantive reports or discussion) that establish this? Do you agree that he was not notable as a philologist? (In fact, did he do anything whatsoever in philology after getting his university degree? Philology - the way the term is used in English - is the diachronic study of written language. Are there any secondary sources for his philology work? Many people get university degrees.) He was certainly a member of the elite of Norway by dint of his family relations (choosing a cultural path), but this is insufficient reason to have his own article in WP. Should everyone who had a few novels published in Norway in the 1960s get their own English-language WP article? Of course, it would be possible to answer 'yes', but I would argue that WP would soon fill up with junk. Also I have just found out that when he got given the Bastian Prize by the Norwegian Association of Literary Translators in 1963, he was actually the chairman of that organisation! That suggests they did not have many other suitable candidates. As you say, he was in the establishment elite, and that was because of family connections. What he actually did in his own life was not notable in broader terms. He should be mentioned in the article on C J Hambro and the article on the Bastian Prize - that's all.Mountainousgoat (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article seems to be being expanded to include absolutely everything that supporters of its existence can find out about this chap, including who he was the grandson and uncle of, where he was buried, etc. (Why on earth should that go in?) Even if we were to accept the viewpoint that inclusion in the second most comprehensive Norwegian-language encyclopedia, and winning a Norwegian translation prize in the early 1960s from a translators' organisation of which he was chairman, indicate sufficient notability for him to have his own WP article, the inclusion of this amount of information in his article is verging on the ridiculous. All things in good proportion!
  - Please could an admin have a look at what is happening to this article. And please also can someone argue against the points I have expressed above in good faith, if they disagree with them, rather than just tipping everything they can find about the chap into the article.Mountainousgoat (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that this is also a single purpose account. Geschichte (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed it is, and I am asking that my points be considered. The entry in the other encyclopedia mentioned, and the single-event award of a prize in 1963 by a very small organisation of which he was chairman, in a small-population country, are not in themselves sufficient to demonstrate notability over and above what might justify the addition of a few words to his mention in his father's article. Nor does having a degree in philology justify being described as a philologist in the article title, when he did nothing notable as a philologist. So your contribution above does not do justice to your opinion that the article should be speedily kept. I repeat my request for a fuller engagement with the issues by those who support 'keep'. Let us all consider all points and issues on their merits. Multiple reliable secondary sources demonstrating the notability of his novels would be welcome.Mountainousgoat (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, as established among other ways through an entry in a printed, general-purpose encyclopedia. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Meco above. Lord Roem (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alexandra Burke discography. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Alexandra Burke[edit]

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

Is this really necessary? There's little value in a comprehensive catalogue of songs by an artist who's released one album. All the information here is or should be conveyed in the articles for each song and/or the album. – hysteria18 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good example of WP:TOOSOON. She indeed has only one album, so a list of songs recorded isn't useful at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above --Kristjan Wager (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I haven't even added in her unreleased songs yet. I'm very against this being deleted. Why can't it simply be re-directed in the mean time like it was for the last 10 days? It's funny how people want to delete things when they want to. I proposed that an unnecessary disambiguation page be deleted but it was re-directed, then a proper article like this is nominated for deletion? I really don't get the logic of people sometimes. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexandra Burke discography. As soon as her second album is released, I will be re-creating this article. There is no reason why this can't just be redirected. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now Only one album released. — Status (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Witness Insecurity[edit]

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

This article was created by a know blocked sockpuppet. It has a severe lack of referencing and citations. Most of the references aren't reliable (the are from IMDb). The content sounds slightly promotional and I question the actual validity of the information in the article. Ceradon ^talk_contribs 17:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ See below for upgrade to keep. It's a real film with a few notable actors. North8000 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed from "weak keep". Newer work and sourcing on the article has clarified the situation.North8000 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combining the two titles:

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

Working title

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

New title:

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

Story title:

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

Keep Article created in January 2011. Author was blocked four months later for an unrelated issue. His block one year ago notwithstanding, I looked at and gauged the topic itself. Issues brought up by the nominator in regards the original version were addressable. Mis-use of IMDB has now been replaced by reliable sources and the "validity" of the article's content has been properly confirmed.[5] The film had a festival premiere in October 2011 as Witness Insecurity, and only two weeks ago began its theatrical distribution under the title Snitch. We can wait as its now theatrical screenings recieve additional coverage, and allow its further imptovement over time and through regular editing. Perhaps, now that someone able to address concerns has taken a hand, the nominator might consider a withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CG-1432 Crash[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH ...William 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not a stub has some content and would be best included in the history section of Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod.Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Moscow (band)[edit]

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

Not notable, refs do not establish notability. May or may not meet point 5 of WP:BAND, depending on your opinion of their label, however that's still not a guarantee of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search for coverage found (in addition to the bio and reviews at Allmusic already in the article): OnMilwaukee.com, Des Moines Register, Daily Iowan, AV Club, Boston Phoenix staff blog, Portland Mercury staff blog, The Stranger, Little Village, City Weekly. Not all substantial coverage, but there's plenty there to pass WP:GNG and WP:BAND criterion 1. --Michig (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In accordance with point 5 of WP:BAND, this band has released 4 albums on Alive Naturalsound Records, a notable independent music label that has released albums by other artists such as The Black Keys. Alive Naturalsound Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.247.196 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the whole, there appears to be enough coverage (the Allmusic sources from the article plus the above links) to meet criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 07:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Pases WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced; no claim for notability; unanimous view for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shot (Card Game)[edit]

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

No indication that this game is notable or more than something made up one day. PROD removed by author. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game does not appear to be notable, as a Google search shows nothing (search for Shot (Card Game)). The article may be an advertisement, and it is mostly rules on how to play the game, both violations of WP:NOT. —Hue Sat Lum 17:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as utterly non-notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oizea[edit]

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

Contested PROD. My reason for PROD tagging was: Non-notable neologism. No sources found for notability of term. The concept is covered in existing articles including Leet; the phenomenon of substituting letters with numbers is much older than Carino's book. bonadea contributions talk 15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one hit for "Oizea code" in Google books, and it's an OCR error for veuf (French for widow). A search for "Oizea" alone returns about 280 hits, but again they all appear to be OCR errors. As bonadea suggests, substitution codes of this type are common, and Leet-speak is better covered elsewhere. Cnilep (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zone of Alienation (band)[edit]

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

Article was deproded, but still fails WP:NMUSIC. Lacks reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no good refs. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No policy-based arguments for deletion have been put forth either by the nominator or by those who support deletion; taking into account the fact that this article was created as a consequence of two other AfDs and that this deletion discussion is just the latest manifestation of a recent pattern of disruptive activity, I think that it should be speedily closed. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC events[edit]

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

This page was created to replace individual UFC pages by the consensus of two people after literally one day of debate. Udar55 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeleteThis style of article is just a pointless conglomeration of what otherwise would solid stand alone pages. It doesn't even show the results of the fights which honestly is the only reason people would look at the page. I don't understand why this push has recently been made, but it's an absolutely terrible idea. The previous style of an article per event was perfect, why change it to something so stupid? There is absolutely no value on this consolidated page. Pull lead (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains well sourced prose. Also, the nominator hasn't cited a Wikipedia policy or guideline that the article violates and appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article was done in haste, has no useful information, the old articles were superior to this one in everyway, it fails to list the most important part of the article, which are the fights, and most people are against it. This new article is a giant wall of meaningless text, and lets be honest, the old way was perfect, and it worked, this does not cut it, and is also titled terribly, even if this article worked, it should be like 2012 UFC events or UFC events in 2012. The only ones who support this abombination are the ones who created it and their cronies. Change it back. And yes, you TreyGeek, and MtKing, have violated the policy you try and shove in our faces. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Speedy Keep - This article was created via the implied requests of admin User:DGG when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 and admin User:Beeblebrox when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9, both of which have already publicly supported the direction that this article is taking at ANI [6] and other places as well. It has also been discussed extensively at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 2#Omnibus articles What we have here is a group tantrum that isn't based in policy, but rather, is a "keep it the way it was at all costs" campaign. The rationale for nomination is invalid from the start and doesn't specify any criteria that the article fails nor policy it runs afoul of. The nominator is either not aware of or doesn't concern himself with the weeks prior to this article's creation, and the thought and consideration from multiple admins and users that went into it, and his oversimplification of "two users" is either mistaken or misleading. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that they are admins, and that they suggested this by implication doesn't have any bearing on the worth of this article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that they closed the last two AFD's saying that someone needs to create this exact article does have bearing. If you read the other AFDs and closing statements, and the other items I linked, it would make more sense, which is why I provided links. This article was created because two closing admins determined that merging them to this article (at that time, not created) is meaningful. And they have both since agreed that this article is in keeping with their closing statements, ie: it was their interpretation of the consensus of the community. In short, this article exists because the community had previously decided it should, in two separate, recent instances. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you make a pretty good point there. I've just never heard how it came into being used to support continued existence. I guess I just felt that saying "admin" twice was sort of name-dropesque, as though it would give this article clout, if you see what I mean. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I'm not always the best at communicating. To delete this article, in essence, is to overrule those two previous and recent AFDs where there had already been established consensus. More importantly, this doesn't prevent any event that is really notable from having its own page. The nay-sayers don't understand this. It just consolidates everything and serves as a spring board, so the lesser notable stuff can be KEPT instead of deleted. Ironic that this will result in more MMA info, not less, yet they are arguing against it. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should remain because it passes WP:GNG, period. It can coexist with the stand-alone articles. Whether or not those articles remain is another matter. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Keep - I was against this idea before when it had just the prose. There has always been the question of notability for these events, but with the results also entered in as they were before. I commend whoever did this. I can live with it just fine. Why have separate pages when one page will tell you the same thing? Jahahn (gab) 17:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Perucca[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. Other criteria are moot. Shirt58 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If that's all there is to say about him, it's not a lot. "coordinator for external relationships" doesn't really cut the mustard, but according to Venetian National Liberation Movement he is the Directive Council. I think that article (and others about Venetist organisations) could do with a tidy-up of their English. We might be missing something in the translation. He may well merit a line or two in the organisation's article, but not an independent article. There appear to be nine links, three of which have the word blog in them. I'll leave it to another to delve. I am open to changing my mind; always am, except concerning onions and celery. Peridon (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3'd as a blatant hoax. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 1078[edit]

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

I can find no references in English or Japanese on the internet that this unit existed. Possibly a hoax. If this is deleted, the several references to this unit the same user placed on other pages should be deleted too. Michitaro (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a hoax: it if was real I'd expect tons of hits to reliable sources in this search. Instead I get nothing. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leviathan number[edit]

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

This number seems to have no significance, and I don't think it deserves the coveted spot amongst the Large numbers D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to lack the mathematical significance required by WP:NUMBER, and it also presents the false appearance of some veiled numerological significance. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it's mentioned in one or two sources (I haven't checked the book), there's no evidence of why it's significant. Why is it based on 666, other than the fact that 666 is mentioned in the Bible? Even if 666 is significant, why (10^666)!, rather than say 10^(666!)? I can see the significance of numbers like Graham's number, another large number, as this is used in a proof of something, but this has no notability at all. An optimist on the run! 12:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific World 2012[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant per WP:GNG. The Miss Asia Pacific World 2011 pageant was a scam all way trough with even the winner resigning over it. These kind of pageant should not be included in the Wikipedia. I say Delete. BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific World 2011[edit]

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

A pageant that is non-notable per WP:GNG. Also the pageant got no attention except the fact that the whole pageant was accused of being a set up from the start (even the winner resigned over it). With a few contestants also leaving the "pageant" under threats from "organizers". I say Delete. BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific World[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant per WP:GNG. Got no attention beyond the fact that the whole pageant was a set up from the start. Even the winner resigned over it. And a few contestants left the pageant under threats from the pageant "organizers".--BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I think we can count in these articles in the same nomination:

Miss Asia Pacific World 2011.

Miss Asia Pacific World 2012.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't looked through all the sources, but it shouldn't matter why it was in the news. Negative publicity is still publicity. Whatever else this pageant may be, it doesn't seem non-notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well let's call it what it really is. Its a scam "pageant" troughout with zero recognition in the pageant world.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable yet, information about the pageant mostly from the pageant organizer (website), paid press releases, personal website, and websites that may harm the readers' computer. The references cited in the Miss Asia Pacific World 2011 and Miss Asia Pacific World 2012 were mostly from Facebook.--Arielle Leira (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though this page was created by myself, but I would like to say delete. According to what Arielle Leira said, yeah sources are not reliable, go on delete the page. :) DeshintaChandra (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young (Pro Cyclist & Triathlete)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability per WP:NCYCLING or WP:NTRIATHLON.

Claims that these criteria are even close to having been met need close examination. For example, 10th place in age group at World Championship presented as 10th in World Championship, where ranking was actually 177th; repeated (now deleted) claims of having participated for Team Milram in high profile road race cycling events easily disproven by reference to published start lists and squad listings.

Requests for sources have been routinely deleted by creator, and PROD was deleted without any reason being offered.
Page is recreation of similarly unsourced, Peacocky and ungrammatical article on same sportsman created, and deleted, by Milram 2010 and Milramteam.
Creator, clearly a sockpuppet of those named above, has been repeatedly informed that his/her username is in breach of WP:GROUPNAME. Kevin McE (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. My proposed deletion on the same grounds was contested without explanation by the article's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is the fourth attempt to list this person, after Robert Young (triathlete) (started at AfC Nov 2011), Robert young (1982) (12 Mar), and Robert Young (pro-cyclist) (17 Mar). The creator is now trying to blank the page, as happened with previous versions, but as directed by the ((afd1)) template it should not be blanked until the AfD is concluded. We should let this run so that the dodginess of the claims is recorded and any future attempts can be speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4. JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. I'd say not a snowball's chance in Brownsville, but it actually snowed there a year or two ago. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Austin Perry[edit]

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

Much as I have read and reread this article I can see no reason for the subject passing WP:Notability; plenty of nearly met and third cousin of notables but the article presents no acts of hers out of the ordinary for a landed gentrywoman of the time. Fine ( and well-written) for a genealogical site but not for Wikipedia Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crusoe8181, Emily Austin Perry has a fully published biography written by Light T. Cummings, the Texas State Historian. Emily Austin Perry did far more than own land. Emily influenced and interacted with many famous people and, in Texas, is herself famous too. This was not just an article about just another landowner. This is an article about a famous pioneer woman who greatly built Texas at a time when women still needed men's signatures on contracts. Deleting this article would retroactively discriminate against this women rather than recognize her achievements. Emily Austin Perry was a truly notable figure. My guess is that you may not be from the US or from TX, and that perhaps you never heard of this woman-- whose home and grave is itself an official Texas State Historical Site. It also seems like you are missing the forest for the trees of this article. Perry was one of the largest Texas individual landholders and irrefutably the wealthiest woman in Texas.[17] She was actively involved in management of the Austin estate, including investments and land,[28]:164-5, 196-7 actively involved in a time where male signatures were still required on contracts and women could not vote.[36] [edit]Support of land planning, railroads, and industry Perry was very involved in the urban planning and settling land. For example, she was one of the founders of the San Luis Company, which managed the development of San Luis, including the initial sale of 450 lots, development of streets, building a bridge, and construction of a lighthouse.[28]:177 Perry raised capital and invested in the first attempt[28]:176 to build a railroad in Texas: The Brazos and Galveston Railroad Company, chartered by the Congress of the Republic of Texas, on May 24, 1838.[28]:176[37] The rail was initially to go from Galveston Bay to the Brazos River, and later plans were for the rail to go from San Luis Island instead of Galveston Bay.[28]:176[38] She was the largest shareholder of the first railroad company in Texas.[17] Perry was at the helm of the development and planning of San Luis. Perry not only owned the league of land which contained Dollar Point, she also managed the development of the town of Austinia, located within that league.[37] Austinia is known in the present day as Texas City. Perry loaned money to Gail Borden (as in the founder/pioneer of Borden Milk Products) to buy his first herd of cows.[17] [edit]Support of religion Perry played a key role in founding the first Episcopal Church in Texas. In 1848, she donated to a visitor to Peach Point, Episcopal Bishop George Washington Freeman of Arkansas, in order to help launch the Episcopal Diocese of Texas.[28]:201 In addition, she paid to underwrite Leonidas Polk's trip to Texas from Louisiana.[28]:201 Polk was the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana and later served as a General in the American Civil War, ultimately having Fort Polk named in his honor. Perry also donated the land on which the Union Church Building was originally built; this one structure served as a prayer center for Methodists, the Episcopalians, and the Presbyterians.[39] [edit]Support of education Perry paid Thomas J. Pilgrim to teach her children;[28]:115[40] Pilgrim started the all-boys' school, Austin Academy,[41] in 1829, which was the first school in Texas. Austin Academy had about 40 students.[41] Perry deeded 1,500 acres (6.1 km2) of land for the support and founding of Austin College.[28]:184 In addition, she directed monies owed by the State of Texas to the Austin estate to Austin College. Perry agreed to support her family friend and Austin College Founder Reverend Daniel Baker (who had been Pastor of the Washington, DC Presbyterian church attended by Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams); she supported Baker in his pursuit of expanding religious foundations and education in Texas.[28]:183 Ironically, some of the land provided by Perry to support Austin College was later built on by a different academic institution: Sam Houston State University. (The irony here is the friendly rivalry between Stephen F. Austin and Sam Houston). Please remove your protest of this article. Thank you.Bull Market 13:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - I can't tell you how much I hate this challenge, but I'll try. This is the second worst of the year, following the challenge of Polyester... ONE: This is a historical figure, not a contemporary BLP of somebody on the make. This is worthy of note from the outset — a pre-internet figure. TWO: This is not a few throwaway lines, this is a serious piece of work, and well-footnoted. This also is worthy of note before the challenge ever should have been launched. THREE: There are multiple, independent, substantial published sources showing in the piece. FN1 is currently 404 on the net, but it is presumed to exist. That's the Sherman-Denison [TX] Herald-Democrat. FN2 is the Austin College magazine. That's TWO good sources. FN28 is a university press BIOGRAPHY of the subject. We're done!!! Jesus, how about a little common sense and at least a modest attention to WP:BEFORE?!?!? A big, fat, slimy trout for this nomination... Carrite (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "...the article presents no acts of hers out of the ordinary for a landed gentrywoman of the time..." We're not here to judge the merit or importance of acts. This is about whether a topic is notable in wikipedia terms and thereby worthy of encyclopedic biography, which is almost entirely related to whether an article topic is a subject of coverage in multiple published sources elsewhere. This one is WAAAAAAAY over the bar for that. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We get quite a few articles posted about early immigrants, about whom little can be said other than that they sailed west, or went west, built a farm, co-founded Bloggsville (pop 323) and died. Interesting in a minor way, but not the stuff of encyclopaedias. (Unless someone starts a SettlerPedia to list all that can be listed. An idea for someone to pick up on...) Emily here isn't one of those little known pioneers. A miserable looking beggar in that picture, but a lot of Victorians were, in front of the camera. (Well, you had to keep still for so long. You'd never get pics of us, never mind today's kids, if we had to. That hair style doesn't help, either.) But quite a character - and in her own right, which was unusual for the time. Looks to have had quite an influence on things. Plenty of references. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Texas Historical Commission sesquicentennial marker here. Dru of Id (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per earlier comments. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and slack jaw. With it being April Fool's Day, I suppose an AfD for Earth for "using only local sources with intimate ties to the subject" is due up any minute. - Dravecky (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unanimity that this person fails all notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simpseris Giorgos[edit]

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

Previously contested PROD, no evidence this individual meets WP:GNG or applicable football-based criteria. Cloudz 679 08:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 08:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search on Soccerbase and Playhistory yielded no evidence of this player's notability at this time. Cloudz 679 08:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A generic Google search does not return a fair amount of reliable third-party sources. The subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability guideline for association football players nor the general notability guideline. B music ian 14:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence at onsports.gr that Simpseris has played a league match in any of the Greek professional leagues, so he appears to fail NSPORTS. The article also fails GNG. Jogurney (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Jung Mu Sul[edit]

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

Cluster of four schools not notable. Also text is a copy from the web site. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as I would have marked this as db-copyvio of http://www.kungjungmusul.com/history.html to begin with. It also doesn't assert its own notability in any way, so there's db-a7, too. Whether or not the subject of the article could withstand AfD on any merits seems dubious, but this version is awful. Imban (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced and no evidence that reliable sources exist. Overwhelming consensus that this term is not notable and should be deleted. A redirect to Pink slime would not be a good idea since this term is not used in the target. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvage meat[edit]

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

Page creator removed PROD, nominating for deletion as the page creator seems to be on some kind of anti-pink slime crusade, and this article is actually more a dictionary definition of a term the user seemingly made up Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PR woman for pink slime uses the term and it is in common usage to refer to meat industry waste byproducts. I simply started a stub so that it can incubate on wikipedia.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pink Slime. The term is a non notable neologism, and the article may thus be simply too soon. The usage of the words salvage and meat next to each other are usually the verb and the noun in the accusative case, thus part of to salvage... meat. At present the sole references I can find to the neologism salvage meat are self published sources. Thus a logical solution is to redirect this stub to the real article. When and if the term becomes notable it may have its own article with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the nomination to be in bad faith IMHO since it was nominated just minutes after creation from a user the followed me from a dispute on another article topic.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. Unsourced, and appears to be have been written to support the jihad against BLBT. Utterly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Horologium (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think one must be careful of emotive language when discussing a deletion. Please treat this article on its own merits. Ordinary readers of Wikipedia do not look at what is going on behind the scenes. The article as it stands has no merits. The Pink Slime article has merits, though appears to be undergoing frequent changes right now. As with all Wikipedia articles consensus will prevail there, as it will here. The purpose of redirection is to aid members of the reading public, not to make a point. If folk enter this term into Wikipedia following media controversy then it is reasonable to lead them towards Pink Slime. That does not endorse the term Salvage Meat, it simply points them to the logical target of their search. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect. Fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. The only Reliable Sources I could find with the word "salvage" preceding "meat" didn't use it as a noun, but as verb/noun, as in "to salvage meat from bones." This article appears to be a possibly good faith attempt to use Wikipedia to WP:SOAPBOX against the dreaded Pink Slime. The article was nominated in good faith by an editor who simply noticed the creator wasn't very clear on Wikipedia policies, such as WP:GNG, WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:VERIFY and others. First Light (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. That's an easy call, no need to call into question motivations of either the content-creator or the nominator. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect as non-notable unsourced neologism. -- The Anome (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up term. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, we are not a dictionary. Second, it does have a wind of breaking WP:NPOV. Third, most of what I found in a quick gsearch, if you will forgive my pedantry, was 'salvage' as a verb, not as an adjective. Overall, while I am assuming good faith on the part of the author, something more concrete needs to explain what salvage meat is - maybe in more detail, but definitely with some good sourcing for the purpose. I have no prejudice to a new article if this comes about. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism dicdef. --Carnildo (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO, no need for redirect, and is it snowing in here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and consume.' MMMM this does taste kinda good.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, binge, and purge I think Imma be sick now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional subject. Consists entirely of unsourced fancruft and speculation. Crazy Legs KC 07:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect At the moment 100% original research ("more than likely", "looks similar to", "is possibly southern") and plot (WP:NOT#PLOT). A short, sourced description with possible real-world information can easily be placed in the main DH article. Nothing to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto (Future album)[edit]

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

Unsourced; no evidence or assertion of notability; musician may also be deleted, depending on result of AfD discussion. Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The artist is notable, cover art, tracklisting and release date have been confirmed ([7]), pointless deleting now when it's only a few weeks from release.--Michig (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The artist is not notable. Everything he has done before this is self-released. Future discography should probably go, as well.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-trivial coverage in multiple sources [8][9][10]; singles "Magic" and "Tony Montana" have charted. Subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Michig and Gongshow's sources. Enough third party coverage to establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:19, 31 March 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 March 31. Snotbot t • c » 06:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to a script edit conflict. B music ian 14:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 03:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Townsend Letter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Townsend Letter

Articles for deletion/Townsend Letter

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

Non-notable periodical with no credible assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A quick search of Web of Science finds only two instances where the Townsend Letter was cited in the professional literature. PubMed comes up empty. Alexa ranking is very poor (686,796 worldwide). None of these necessarily requires deletion, but they all point to a lack of notability. I worry there is not sufficient reliable and independent coverage to allow inclusion. On the converse, it is a long-standing publication with a claimed circulation of about 10,000. I would be inclined to keep if there were some coverage of the publication, outside of itself and a brief mention on Quackwatch. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:DGG's rationale in the 2007 deletion discussion. Here's an edited copy of his rationale:

This is basically a print journal, with some of the articles available online free. Based on Ulrich's Periodicals Directory:

1. It's not indexed anywhere except in Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, which is mainly UK oriented but is the most complete of the relevant indexes.
2. The publisher is unknown otherwise: this is their only title. It's a private operation run by the editor, Dr. Jonathan Collin.
3. It's a consumer magazine, claiming only 6000 paid subscriptions.

However, though not available through the Proquest & Wilson database hosts, it is available through the Ebsco and Gale hosts. The magazine's been going under slightly varying titles since 1983, which is a long time in this part of publishing. Ulrich's will serve as a source. Being in Ulrich's doesn't show notability, since they put in everything they can find, but it does document the basics. I think being in two of the four major online services is notability for a consumer magazine.

Regards, Unforgettableid (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I actually find DGG's rationale to be a compelling argument in favor of deletion. The fact that a periodical is available through a couple of catalogs is interesting, but not sufficient to create a well-written encyclopedia article. There is literally no more than two or three simple, descriptive, barely informative sentences that can be adequately sourced and written on this subject. It seems impossible, using existing independent secondary sources, to demonstrate much or any impact or notability here, and so I don't think we should have an article. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sound analysis in the prior AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My reasoning is probably going to be a bit controversial, but I think this is exactly the sort of article which shouldn't be deleted, as they can provide information about little known journals for which there is little easily available information. The balance is of course always in not going overboard and include every journal ever published, but the Townsend Letter seems to be mentioned often enough on the web to merit an inclusion. The next challenge is to make sure that the article is NPOV, and doesn't make the journal seem like more than it is, but that has nothing really to do with whether it should be deleted or not (and it actually appears to be pretty good on that front). --Kristjan Wager (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Copyright violation, and the notability issues (WP:N) were also not addressed. Sandstein 07:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thủy Pháp[edit]

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

Copyright and non-notable. Just a huge copy of a a groups website http://www.thuyphap.be/EN/welcome Peter Rehse (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant copyvio. Wondering why this one wasn't just marked for speedy deletion in the first place, too. Imban (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did this page (did not write the text) because Master Huynh Chieu Duong asked me to do so. The source (website http://www.thuyphap.be/EN/welcome) was written by Master Huynh Chieu Duong himself as he is historian of Vietnamese Martial arts (beside of being martial art master). Now that Thuy Phap is officially member of Vo Co Truyen Federation (http://www.vocotruyen-france.fr/index.php/fr/ecoles), we thought that a Wikipedia page has to be written about Thuy Phap. I can make a link to Thuy Phap website if you think it will avoid confusions about copyright, I just felt uncomfortable linking a source to its own source. I'm really new with Wikipedia (as author not user) and I've been working on the french version last month, but if I have to make some corrections or references to this one, I'll find time to do it. Wikris-en (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the guidelines at WP:N and WP:RS. Writing articles about yourself or your organization is usually not a good idea. Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following a quick discussion at WP:CP, I have blanked the article for investigation of the potential copyright problem. If, as it appears from the comment above, permission might be granted to use the copyright text, then this avenue will need to be explored. That should not interfere with the notability issue.--CharlieDelta (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing in English to show this art is notable. Much of the article is a history and description of Vietnam and has nothing to do with the subject. The only two sources in the article were references to movies so there's no support for any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Destorm. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be Careful (album)[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON. Found no secondary verification of this album's release — no confirmation of title, release date, etc. Deprodded without comment by IP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.—Kww(talk) 11:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Destorm - appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. -- Trevj (talk) 09:39, 19 March 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 07:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete - there are reliable sources which directly deal with the company in more than trivial detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EPAM Systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is not established. Another provider of offshore software engineering outsourcing services. The article is mostly based on primary sources, trivial mentions and TOP N entries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Keep - The sources provided do seem to provide more than just routine coverage of the company, especially [11], [12], and [13]. The article can be improved, but I do believe notability is established. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but did you read them? InformationWeek mentions the company once in an article about another company and Hoovers is a trivial directory entry (there is one for each publicly traded company). The problem with BusinessWeek is harder to explain: though the article is indeed devoted to company, but in fact discusses the business in Belarus with drawing EPAM as example. The underlying idea of WP:GNG is that notability of topic is presumed if it was found notable by reliable sources, but I'm not sure that using the company as example is exactly the implication of notability. Also worth noting the fact that it is entirely based on EPAM's employee's quotes. Still, even if so, it is the only source of multiple needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the previous AfD is an interesting reading: it was closed as keep with consensus on the facts that the article is edited and can possibly grow into useful content. Evidently, apart from content exclusion and minor updates of arguable appropriateness for encyclopedia, nothing has changed since. That is: there is no hope that this article will ever turn into useful encyclopedic content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no time limit on improvment. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources? The article clearly fails WP:GNG with only one source being arguably useful for the purpose of determining notability. That's not to mention WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the article formatting and proof-reading footnotes. All of the references imply the lack of this company's notability. The InformationWeek and BusinessWeek articles are of the kind "did you know such thing ever existed?", Global Services Media's article is "they merged, but even together they are hard to notice on the market" and the rest of references are directory entries or other passing mentions explicitly forbidden in WP:NCORP. In the lack of relies from people voting on keep side above I just can't get the reason this company can be possibly though to be notable for. BTW, all the Top N lists where the company received the place higher then 100 in its industry are conducted by unknown firms and rely on explicitly on list members' information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient to clear the WP:GNG bar. There is the BusinessWeek piece and the one or two other that go a bit beyond passing mentions. Sandstein 07:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Marriage[edit]

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

This title is not notable. There are very few verifiable sources, and little broad public discussion on it. As it is, the page reads as an advertisement for the book, with most criticism of it coming from unverifiable sources (blogs) Lyonscc (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The book was on the New York Times Bestseller List, which gives the book only some notability. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 23:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From what I've always understood, being on the NYT bestseller list doesn't really count towards notability and is seen as more of a trivial source. It does, however, make it much easier to find sources that would, such as reviews and articles. I'll see what I can find, but I'll warn you- if I can't find them then the NYT ranking by itself isn't enough.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could change my view if information could be presented. Internet search reveals no notable significance like the The Purpose Driven Life or any impact like Love Wins, A Book About Heaven, Hell, and blah blah blah. There is little chatter about this book. Basileias (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found multiple reviews and sources to show that this book has notability. I also revamped the article and removed some links that were by non-reliable sources or weren't really about the book, as the previous incarnation really was awful. It passes WP:NBOOK now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 14:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, really notable now. Thank you Tokyogirl79 for the excellent work. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think this is really borderline. It is notable in the same way as a large number of self-help books are notable, and I frankly think this is spreading the net a bit too wide. However, my personal opinion is not really relevant to what is generally considered notable on wikipedia, so follow the general concensus, this article should stay. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for both but I will be redirecting the former to the letter per WP:BLP as it's poorly sourced Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sun[edit]

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

Is this game inventor notable? Nothing I see suggests that he is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related article for deletion:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the guy, but the 24 game has merit and its page should be kept. Just google and read! --Paddy (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 24 Game. Nothing here justifies a separate article. Tigerboy1966 22:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the way this AfD is presented is very helpful. 24 Game should be separated from this discussion. Tigerboy1966 18:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I listed 24 Game as well because I also don't find it notable. If the feeling is that the game is notable but not the person, you can note that (as you kind of have) in your opinion. --Nlu (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It could well be that a person is much less worthy than something they invent or are involved in. Whilst the person may not merit a separate entry, their inventions should be assessed separately. It seems wrong to include discussion of the deletion of 24 game here. --Paddy (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 14:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oneiroid Psychosis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find anything through a Google News search on this group. None of the article is sourced except external links to self-published websites. Can't even find verification that some of the grouop's albums were release on COP International, at least not via a search on COP's website. Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Granted, the article is in sore need of a solid copyedit and removal of extensive (and unnecessary) ramblings on the lives of these musicians: the fact that "they had to literally cut a huge chunk of (Lars Hansen's) skull out to get to the hematoma" or that "Lars has been doing better and is active with music and back to making swords", are entirely irrelevant to the true subject in question (namely, the band itself) and serve no actual purpose besides from making the article look like a blog entry. It could really use better sourcing as well.

However, the very core of the article (factual information on the band, its career, discography et al) pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The band appears to have received in-depth coverage by at least two different secondary sources (that I could find - given my unfamiliarity with the band in particular and its musical genre in general, I wouldn't be surprised if more were available), namely:

Gothic Beauty magazine, issue 11 [14]
Zillo magazine, February 2006 issue [15] (magazine facsimile taken from the band's site, but authenthic coverage nevertheless). Unfortunately the contents themselves are not entirely accesible online; however, reliable sources exist and are available, just not a click away - therefore satisfactorily complying with WP:GNG.

Additionally, confirmation of the band's association with COP International is easy to verify by merely checking the albums' entries at iTunes [16] [17] and Amazon [18], thus complying with the requirements set at WP:MUSIC.

Last but not least, all of the band's material is available through each and every major retailer, including (but not limited to) Amazon, iTunes, Barnes & Noble and CD Baby, as well as all major streaming services, namely MOG, Rhapsody, Spotify and Last.fm. (while this may not enough proof of the band's notability by itself, it is nevertheless a significant indicator when coupled with the elements outlined above; as is the huge number of online resources dedicated to this band).

To sum it up, the article needs to be trimmed in favor of relevant facts, severely WP:WORDed and properly sourced; but notability seems to be in place. Best regards, Athilea (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With respect to the only two sources cited about the band above (Gothic Beauty and Zillo), it is impossible to tell what the coverage is of the group. I agree that the sources don't need to be online, but someone has to have read them to be able to report about the significance, if any, of the coverage inside. I don't know what Athilea means by the "huge number of online resources dedicated to this band"; if she's referring to the sales of their music, that just doesn't cut it. You can an awful lot of "music" on the web.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You don't have to talk about me in third person like I wasn't present :) Agreed; it'd be desirable to at least check the coverage dedicated by said sources, in order to confirm through WP:GNG its notability as already established, since the subject passes at least one of the criteria detailed at WP:MUSIC (having at least two albums released by a major record label). Which is the reason why I've asked the band via their website to provide scans of those publications (and others, if available) in order analyze and weigh their merit.

By "resources" I alluded not only the thousands of mentions at the web (online magazines, fan pages et al), but also the availabilty of all their material through each and every major retailer and stream service. These elements of course are not a source of notability in itself, but nevertheless an indicator when coupled with the other evidence presented above. I know "You can (sell?) an awful lot of ``music´´ on the web.", which is why I said so in the first place. Athilea (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no offense intended, although you weren't present when I added the comment (at least I didn't see you). :-) (Yup, I forgot the word "sell" - what I really wanted to say was that "you could sell an awful lot of awful music on the web, but that might betray personal bias.) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. With coverage in reliable sources apparently verging on nonexistent, it's going be difficult to have a satisfactory article here. The fact that the band has released several albums commercially and have at least received some coverage makes me look for a reason to keep rather than delete, but I don't feel strongly either way. I did find this chart placing, but I doubt that a chart compiled by 'CMJ's pool of progressive radio reporters' is really going to cut it.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here worth keeping $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS ENTRY

- If it's a matter of gaining credibility, here are some other interviews:

http://www.chaindlk.com/interviews/Oneiroid-Psychosis/

http://boolk.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/realities-inside-and-outside-%E2%80%93-an-interview-with-oneiroid-psychosis/ --LadyJhereg

More confirmation from LadyJhereg... Here is a link to the lyrics to all OP songs on Lyrics.wikia:

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Oneiroid_Psychosis - — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyJhereg (talk • contribs) — LadyJhereg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP THIS ENTRY

Proof of releases on COP International:

[http://www.copint.com/ddtonline.asp?searchstring=Oneiroid%20Psychosis

Barcode and Other Identifiers:

CD - Stillbirth

Barcode: 7 03513 00772 5

Matrix / Runout: COPI0308190

Other (Label Code): LC 02441

CD - Dreams (With Pollutions When Virile)

Barcode: 7 03513 00672 8

Matrix / Runout: 06182-9380-0

Other (Label Code): LC 02441

CD - Forever Is Forgotten

Barcode: 7 03513 00852 4

Matrix / Runout: COPE.040810.001

Other (Label Code): LC 02441 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.115.52 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) — 68.49.115.52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 14:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wouldn't argue too much with a keep. Problems with sources: brief mentions or interviews which are just reporting the words of band members rather than discussing their work. I really would expect more detailed coverage if the band were notable. Tigerboy1966 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

Seen this band around on the net for years. While the article itself doesn't contain footnotes, it's appears to be accurate based on articles I've read over the years, and based on the band's own page. They've been around too long too ignore, and from past readings they have made a place for themselves in the darkwave genre. I'd say absolutely keep. --SpiderFolk — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiderFolk (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC) — SpiderFolk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep – In addition to the sources already noted, I found a newspaper review of their album Stillbirth: Thompson, Stephen. Wisconsin State Journal. 16 Nov 1995, p. 7. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They Will Have Their Way[edit]

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

No sources, not notable. Deprodded with iTunes listing which is not enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charted in Australia. [19] Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have referenced chart success of the album in the article - establishes notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus hasn't changed. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen_Moorer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject doesn't seem noteworthy as per WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Merging this topic with the Pacific Repertory Theatre page seems to be more ideal. I've read this previous deletion nomination's debate, but remain unconvinced. I look forward to the ensuing discussion. Kkbay (talk) 19:10, 17 March 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 March 17. Snotbot t • c » 20:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 19 March 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Issues" gone over repeatedly at AFD two years ago, during which it was expanded and far better sourced than when it received its first nomination two years ago... a nomination that resulted in a "keep". Sure, and while consensus can change, the article is now well sourced and shows this thespian as receiving the coverage required to both assert and show notability. The nominator here being unconvinced of the earlier AFD's close notwithstanding, I see this thespian as being worthy of note through a meeting of WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, asked and answered. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This closed as a keep previously, notability is not temporary, and there is nothing to indicate that community standards for the inclusion-worthiness or lack thereof for actors have changed over the last two years. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minghao Xu[edit]

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

Is this filmmaker sufficiently notable? I must honestly say I can't quite tell, but there is something that doesn't quite feel right about this article's notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 17 March 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am ok with this staying, but it needs much better references. if someone, perhaps the article creator, can provide more information the california state senate award, and how often this is given out, or why it was given here, i would be more inclined to keep. if its a serious award, it stays. if its "national popcorn ball day" award level, it doesnt help.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hao Lulu[edit]

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

I do not believe that this "artificial beauty" is sufficiently notable. WP:15M. Delete. Nlu (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 19 March 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reasonable international coverage, and the story is somewhat unique, or rare, as we dont have many complete makeovers like this, esp. for someone young and not disfigured genetically or by accident. refs need a lot of work, of course.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've just added 4 more reliable sources that give significant coverage. Her name, both in Chinese and English, gets plenty of G hits. Pol430 talk to me 23:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I don't read Chinese the sources provided in the external links section look sufficient. However, this BLP needs inline citations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. !Votes for keep do not advance a policy based reason. The event was certainly notable, as many keep !voters have pointed out, but none have proven this list is notable in itself. v/r - T P 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of passengers and crew aboard the final flight of LZ 129 Hindenburg[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial or a place for an indiscriminate collection of information, the three noteworthy passengers are already mentioned in Hindenburg disaster. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. The link in the article (?in the Hindnberg article?) provides a full list if anybody wants all the names.TheLongTone (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOT MEMORIAL is a good policy,and one of the defining ones of any encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The Hindenburg disaster was an extremely notable one, and though this is not a memorial, the article can be kept as long as it does not adopt an overly memorializing tone ("His loss will be remembered forever." etc.) Though the passengers may not have independent notability, nevertheless, the fact that so many people died certainly creates a collective notability warranting this list.

Besides, the nom's logic that this is indiscriminate does not hold. The importance of this disaster shows that the article is not one of the ebbs and flows of daily life, but a unique and verifiable event. Only if we documented (or attempted to document) information which does not warrant significant coverage in reliable sources would it fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is a degree of significance to these deaths.Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 00:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep highly notable disaster, roughly on par with the Titanic and 9/11 in terms of publicity (not impact), both of whose victims/passengers are listed here, (Passengers of the RMS Titanic). It may appear to be a memorial, but since its listing those who survived as well, its not.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major historic disaster. This list is focused and limited in size, criteria for inclusion are clear, likely to be of interest or utility to WP users. Definitely could use better sourcing, but this is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons set out by the preceding two editors. WP:NOTMEMORIAL really isn't relevant here, as this isn't an attempt to memorialize anyone (even though some of the people on the list did die). Also, I know we should be cautious about drawing comparisons to other articles, but I can't help but note that Wikipedia has lists of characters for every comic book, TV show, etc., and those are not going to be deleted — I think we should bear that in mind in considering the worthiness of this list relating to a truly major historical event. Finally, I don't think WP:NOT#DIR is a problem here; this list doesn't fall into any of the enumerated categories. Terence7 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Not Memorial - we do not make generally lists of people just because they died unless they are notable, Undue detail - those notable people in the crash are already noted in the main article without overlading it - no reason to Spinout. Per other stuff exists we should not be dragging in what unrelated articles cover. That said, for related articles, the R38, Dixmude, R101 and USS Akron (ZRS-4) are none the worse for not naming the passengers whether they survived or not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a lot of people will never have heard of the other accidents this one was a turning point in aviation history. Certainly that list of people is notable in its historic context. Agathoclea (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. As a table in the article on the Hindenburg accident itself, this works; as a stand-alone list, it does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of which it again would be a breakout due to the size of the list. Agathoclea (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indiscriminate. Memorial. "outside the scope of WP". Yawn. All cookie-cutter objections. And Memorial is SYNTH, attempting to attribute a motivation to articles. A list of the dead is the very definition of a disaster. How in the hell can anyone ever prove that an article is commemorating something by listing it? Anarchangel (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under what wikipedia is not: "A complete exposition of all possible details" - a list of the passengers and their occupations and age and other facts is Undue detail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another stupid rule, taken by WP:NOT editors out of its proper context in an ARB decision and unwisely taking the horrendous risk of forbidding completeness. However, most of the fault here, right now, is your vain attempt to SYNTHesize the aforementioned WP:NOT rule with the non sequitur of WEIGHT. Anarchangel (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to comment that a notable event doesnt mean that all the victims are notable and as has been said a list of non-notable passengers has no encyclopedic purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by deleting this. It adds detail to the disaster. 86.** IP (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because the normal consensus is not to fill wikipedia with lists of non-notable things, the same argument could be used to list all the people involved in every disaster and crime mentioned in wikipedia, I could understand some sentiment for a list of just the victims but to list everybody involved including survivors doesnt add any value. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Hindenberg disaster is notable, the list of people on it isn't. This makes no more sense than any indiscriminate list, be it of a tragedy or who attended a university.—Chowbok ☠ 00:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for lists of people who died in aviation disasters.Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list, I find it extremely unconventional to dedicate a whole article to. The comparison with the Titanic's Passengers article is a hollow comparison - that had huge amounts of prose, on the conditions, circumstances, layout - while this is just a bulletin of names. If this had been developed to that extent, to be more than an indiscriminate list, I might not think this to be unworthy of a dedicated article onto itself; but right now, as a list onto itself and nothing more, I feel it is WP:Undue Weight. As mentioned by other editors, it'd be more suitable to a table in the main disaster article, if this is the totality to its extent. Kyteto (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With The Hindenburg Disaster article. Airplanegod (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akoni Kama[edit]

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

Notability is highly questionable; can't find hardly anything about the guy, save for his appearance in a Disney Channel movie, which isn't even the stated reason for notability. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 17 March 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 06:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied G12 by MilborneOne (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1465112/Freddie-Sore.html). Housekeeping close. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Sore[edit]

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

The only source cited for this article is a dead link. I do not find any other reliable sources with in depth coverage about this person. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the link to [20], this shows the content to be a direct copy of the copyrighted source and has been deleted under G12. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article hijacked. No prejudice against a speedy renomination for the current version. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sun 'n Lake of Sebring, Florida[edit]

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

Article has no references, does not establish notability, is written like an advertisement, among other problems. Petiatil^»Talk 05:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 - article is an obvious piece of promotional puffery. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rollback - after checking through the article history, it's obvious that the article was hijacked two years ago by an advertiser: [21]. As a physical place/community, though, it appears to be notable enough for an article; reverting to this diff would resolve the advertising concerns and allow for the article to be rebuilt and referenced properly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have restored the body of text from December 2009. It is an unsourced stub, but such taxing districts often have articles in WP. Reliable sources about the district seem to be rare, but I'll see what I can find. -- Donald Albury 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Styajeet tambe[edit]

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

The notability of the person has not been established and lacks RS. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Lynch 7 14:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starmind International[edit]

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

This article has no more than a few trivial mentions as its sources. Google Books and News turn up nothing, and Search only turns up pages which are not worthy of being sources. It appears to meet neither WP:GNG nor WP:CORP, because all we know is that it is a partner of various organizations, far from a complete article. The page reflects that. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 03:39, 31 March 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 March 31. Snotbot t • c » 04:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that additional important sources have been added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Freyman (talk • contribs) 09:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article doesn't allow to get an idea of what is its topic notable for. It completely fails to demonstrate the significant impact this company had on the humanity. If there actually is something to write article about (which doesn't seem to be the case), the already existing content can only make the process more difficult. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, not sure why this was brought here from BLP-PROD since that is our recommended process for dealing with unsourced BLPs, but the sources are present and there seem to be no further concerns. - filelake shoe 13:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jarda Svoboda[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Biglulu (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did the translation from cs-wiki and then sort of wandered off. I have just added the one working ref from the original article and will find more later (I hope. I'd love to find something in ENGLISH but I don't see that happening unfortunately....) Florestanová (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original concern has already been addressed. Suggest nominator reads WP:BEFORE and becomes familiar with Template:Prod blp for similar occurrences in the future. Cloudz 679 22:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added reference are sufficient evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well known and notable Czech musician.[22], [23], [24] etc. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good information about Svoboda and his band Traband in English, it is the website of their label Indies Records (a notable and respected Czech label). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, please! I added the first reference about ten minutes after this AfD was listed! And the subject of the article is quite notable, as mentioned and linked to above. Florestanová (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 Since there's no substantial edits to the article aside from Tristan benedict's, I'm going to enterpret his comment as a db-author request. Further note to Tristan benedict, if you later decide to recreate the same article, it's likely to be nominated for deletion again Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matabele Campaign[edit]

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

Unnecessary, unreferenced and frankly inaccurate article (it wasn't the British Army for a start). Serves only an umbrella for two extant articles which are already well entrenched in Wikipedia, and easily accessible. I say delete. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've cleaned this up a little, but I still support deletion. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Delete away. Tristan benedict (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trugman[edit]

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

Fails GNG, primary sourced, reads more like a list. Otter Mii-kun (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could't find any reliable third party coverage anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) p b p 13:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ruffini[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources on this subject except for passing mention. No indication of notability aside from primary sources written by the subject which indicates he was "named a Rising Star in American politics by Campaigns & Elections magazine in 2008" and that Washingtonian Magazine "named him to its list of Tech Titans for 2011". The self-published source accurately claims that The Atlantic said he was "poised to become one of the most influential Republican political strategists of his generation", but that doesn't change the fact that there is little to nothing about this subject in the literature. If Ruffini is indeed notable as both a Republican strategist and the webmaster for President Bush's 2004 campaign, I would expect to find good sources on that subject. All I've found is passing mention. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn due to sources found by Milowent and Northamerica1000. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - per this substantial coverage and this insubstantial mention, as well as this New York Times article and this New York Times blog, as well as Salon, which has covered his opinions on various matters in the 2008 presidential election. This is not even including this New York Times blog, this Weekly Standard mention of Patrick Ruffini's opinion on a replacement for a United States Senator, this CNET article mentioning Ruffini's placement in a particular Google site and his status in The Next Right, and this book mentioning his role as the leader of Republican web efforts. I know that many of these are pretty short, but they give a rather complete picture of Patrick Ruffini. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 03:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of those sources say anything at all about Patrick Ruffini, the person. All they do is cite his opinions about politics. We don't write biography articles about opinions. We write biography articles about people. Unless you can provide a single reliable secondary source that talks about Patrick Ruffini as a person of note, I don't see how those sources can help support a biographical entry in an encyclopedia. The fact that there are zero articles about Patrick Ruffini as a biographical subject is a serious problem. Patrick Ruffini has strong opinions about politics. We get that. But we need sources that talk about him as a person, and the only ones that do that are self-published. Please consult any one of the 129 politics and government featured articles to see how we use sources to write biography articles. The fact is, we don't have any good biographical sources on Patrick Ruffini. So, why do we have an article on him? Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." None of these sources deal with the subject directly in detail. This has resulted in a large portion of the article being WP:OR. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:NOTE.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this !vote based upon a search for sources, or just those that were present in the article at the time and/or in this discussion? Please see my comment below in which I have denoted reliable sources that have been added to the article that are comprised of significant coverage about Ruffini. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not extremely notable, but I think there is enough coverage out there on him, he's a well-known GOP media guy and thus gets lots of press mentions. Stuff like this [25] is what tips the scales for me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the more I look, the more notable he seems to be.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considerable press mentions, profiled in the National Review. If his political life is of more interest than his personal life, that would make this a political biography. The early days of web presence in politics are likely to be a subject of ongoing historical interest. Trilliumz (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, considerable passing mention, with partisan profiles saying "look at what great work he did on this campaign" and "look at the good work he will do in the future". Meanwhile, not a single biographical source on the subject, you know, the kind of sources we need for...a biography? Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly aren't looking at the same sources I am. Also, Whorunsgov (Washington Post) has as much bio information as we need.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please. That's the only semi-biographical source about the subject that isn't self-published, although it does seem to be based on self-published sources. In other words, this is a tertiary source. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've found more reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage about Ruffini and have added them to the article:

Preston, Mark (March 19, 2009). "GOP follows Obama lead, embraces new media". CNN. Retrieved April 4, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Dailey, Kate (January 16, 2012). "Can online gaming influence a US presidential election?". BBC. Retrieved April 4, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. May I ask, how did you find those sources? I will withdraw this nomination. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sources were found using comprehensive searches other than results from Google news, which sometimes provides inadequate results. Maybe someday the "find sources" templates can be improved to include options for other news source searches besides just Google news. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced sub-stub and, after two relists, there has been no attempt to establish notability. Unanimity for deletion. Not mentioned in any other article so a redirect is not possible. TerriersFan (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K2 Zeppelin (snowboard)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, not notable product. Breawycker (talk to me!) 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 19 March 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, JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this mention but it isn't significant. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 02:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Braude[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The PDL is not fully pro and he has not received significant coverage, meaning this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TACA Flight 510[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No persistence. Runway overshoots are very common and most aren't notable, and this isn't. The most this crash needs is a airport or airline mention. ...William 00:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 00:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airport and/or airline articles - as noted, fails WP:GNG via WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In terms of commercial aviation, this is just a minor dust-up. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tow the aircraft back knock of the dirt, pump up the tires, give the passengers a cup of tea and delete the article as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little aircraft damage and a single destroyed house does not make something notable. This is Wikipedia and not the Aviation Safety Network WikiBase.Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Milbourne p b p 13:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see that the existence of a video taken from inside the passenger cabin confers notability, and there are no other claims to notability. YSSYguy (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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