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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not article-worthy. There is disagreement about whether a redirect is appropriate. Anybody can create one, and if necessary that question can then be discussed at RfD.  Sandstein  06:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore "T-Dog" Douglas[edit]

Theodore "T-Dog" Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable as a character, has no references or real-world commentary.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. If there's anything salvageable, merge into The Walking Dead (TV series) page.JoelWhy (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. The character is already described there. The character has no independent notability, and there are no references to support any, so it should not be its own article. However, its a valid enough search term that it could remain as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• With the quotes and everything? I can see T-Dog, T-Dog Douglas, and Theodor Douglas as search terms, but not this title... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 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) 00:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool 5–0 Nottingham Forest (1988)[edit]

Liverpool 5–0 Nottingham Forest (1988) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

At least six users have said at WT:FOOTY that they believe this article should be deleted. The main reasons in that discussion are that the sources which assert notability are directly connected to Liverpool (other than one tabloid journalist giving his opinion that it was the club's fifth greatest performance). —WFC— 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC) —WFC— 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Adam4267 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is well written and well-sourced, but in the overall scheme of things the match was not notable. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a run-of-the-mill league game, it's one of the most significant matches in LFC's history. The idea that a match has to break some sort of numerical record to be notable seems arbitrary to me. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very well-written, and indeed a model for how our match articles should be worked on. But nonetheless, it doesn't presently do enough to establish its notability above and beyond routine coverage of the sport. I'd love it if there were some external wiki for match reports that we could transwiki this to. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Must have been their "Firest" (sic) hour. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - when I was fourteen, I played the game of my life. I was on fire. Every tackle I made was timed to perfection, every pass was direct, and the highlight was basically running the entire length of the field and scoring an absolute screamer in the top right-hand corner. 10/10 if I do say so myself. But, alas, despite the quality of the performance, no reliable third-party sources covered it in any significance - just like this match. GiantSnowman 10:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dismal comparison. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe he forgot to mention it was an FA Cup match at Manchester United. Honestly Snowman, get a grip...:) ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 06:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Run-of-the-mill#Sports and the other comments above. Forest are my least favourite team in the whole world, and while I would love to create [[Category: Nottingham Forest thrashings]], I can't see any sources that mark this game out as particularly notable. — sparklism ^hey! 10:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Weak Delete after the addition of further sources. However, despite the coverage now shown in the article (much of it reliable), I am still unconvinced that, apart from the obviously great performance from LFC, this was a match of any particular significance. Nothing was won or lost, no records were broken, and no remarkable incidents occured. — sparklism ^hey! 15:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no justification for this match being notable. It did not decide a league title (like Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal), set a record (e.g. Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord), nor was it a big shock (Bayern Munich v Norwich City). Number 57 11:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the match lives long in the memory of many Liverpool supporters, the lack of sourcing is a concern. There is little next to nothing about Nottingham Forest so the reader will find it hard to construe information; what did their manager say before and after the match, what formation did they line up, who did they miss, et al. If, going by "performance[s] is considered to be one of the best in English football history", unsourced -- then that alone would just set a precedent. I mean, I could in theory write an article on Arsenal beating Portsmouth 5–1 in the FA Cup and how it was in line with the "magnificently fluid Ajax of the early 70s". But the match had little of any significance (only to those who were actually at Fratton Park that night), partly because Arsenal were knocked out the following round. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would say that the Daily Mail and Guardian sources confer notability. Also, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the Liverpool and LFCHistory sites because they are not independent; we have various football articles that extensively refer to official club sites. Finally, Henry Winter is a respected journalist, and his article should be given some weight. Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the second point, I accept that you probably do not intend this as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. But there is a big difference between using club-related sources to cite facts, (which subject to meeting WP:SELFPUB is common even in featured articles), and using them to assert notability. —WFC— 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there has to be a reasonableness to any arguments for deletion, based on the reality of many other football articles, and I think it is simplistic to simply dismiss these sources. In any case, Art has now added a number of other sources, and I would ask anyone who voted delete to reassess their view in the light of these sources. I believe the article meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even the GNG is not a guarantee of being kept (as technically just about any Premier League match meets the letter of the GNG), but I agree that a much stronger case is now being made. I would agree with this call for those who have looked at the article to look again. I would say I have gone from delete to leaning delete. My gut feeling is that keeping on the basis of Finney's comments this would open a floodgate for people to look for quotes from famous people to justify all sorts of games – Watford 2–2 Reading in 2008 would unquestionably merit an article along those sorts of lines – but I do accept that a far stronger case for keeping has been made now compared to when I nominated. —WFC— 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have added a further 7 references from media sources. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has this match shown itself to be important to the sport as a whole, not just the clubs involved? I would say probably not. – PeeJay 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the new sources added to the article. And as Eldumpo states, Henry Winter is a respected journalist, not "one tabloid journalist" Mentoz86 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Have to agree with the arguments here, the sources don't point to a lasting historical legacy, which exists in the Arsenal and Newcastle games. NapHit (talk) 14:29, 4 June 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 (G5). --MuZemike 06:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick The Tock Clock[edit]

Tick The Tock Clock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I can find no evidence that this game even exists, much less that it's notable. If this isn't a hoax, it falls far short of meeting the general notability guideline. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Either this game is non-notable, or it has been identified here under the wrong name, or it never existed. A board game from a major American manufacturer in the 1970s would surely have left some evidence of its existence on the Internet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 30 May 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bearden[edit]

Jonathan Bearden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines; sources (apart from IMDB) are all dead links or not relevant. The newspaper coverage appears to be unavailable online now and may contain some information, but is probably only local news. Peter E. James (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are not WP:RS. Google returns blogs, social sites, or other people. News hits are all behind paywalls, but summaries indicate they are standard stuff like obits, local social events, etc. Nothing that could be considered significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Note that The Last Days he appeared in was a super-low-budget war film, not the Gus van Sant film. And it's not clear which film called The Box he was in because (like some other films on his filmography) it's not listed in his IMDb page. And whoever created the WP page has never heard of disambiguation. He's simply nowhere near being notable, with no roles in major films. Even if he did play "Business man" in Muckfuppet, which sounds a classic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as subject fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. I've tried several intensive searches of the Daily Home archives and can't find an article about Jonathan Bearden or any article with the cited titles. (The lack of exact dates is also problematic.) Sources need not be online in full-text nor need they be free: offline and print sources are perfectly acceptable... but they do need to exist. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The EL issue cannot be resolved, as the non-notable links & their associate material constitute almost all of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of open source computer hardware suppliers[edit]

List of open source computer hardware suppliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Just a list of links, no encyclopedic content. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 05:33, 12 May 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 May 14. Snotbot  t • c »  16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question "non-encyclopedic" is not a sufficiently specific reason for deletion. WP:LISTN would seem to be the relevant criteria. Did the nominator attempt to assess notability WP:BEFORE nominating this article?
  • This article is clearly a directory. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reason specified for deletion invalid; lists are not excluded from valid content per se. JulesH (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this can be used for anything other than a directory, if I wanted to find a mechanic that uses only tools of a certain brand, I'd look in a phonebook, not the encyclopedia. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 03:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article does the job a category is supposed to, but for now I think lists have their place as a way for new users to find the same information as categories via the search box, which has no auto-suggest for category pages currently. AltiusBimm (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no specific or compelling reason given for deletion. I don't see a point in WP:NOTDIR that clearly applies to this. —Kvng (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this definitely runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR, it's just a list of places that happen to sell open source computer hardware. That'd be like having "List of places that sell golf balls"; open source computer hardware is extremely general to the point where it's not particularly notable if a particular place sells it. If it's not notable that a place sells it, we don't need a list of places that sell it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is potentially notable and not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (WP:NOTDIR point 7) because of Windows refund. --Kvng (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which point in WP:NOTDIR is the problem here? Have you looked at WP:LISTN? --Kvng (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just read WP:NOTDIR and it isn't clear to me this list is any of the things listed there. Looks more like a WP:LISTCOMPANY of which I don't know what are considered non-controversial examples -- are lists in Category:Lists_of_manufacturers considered such? Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clear out the external links, which are WP:PROMO and the main factor making the article directory-like. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting this article is unnecessary as the issues mentioned can be easily resolved by rewording the article.Ziiike (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've nothing against lists, but this is clearly a commercial directory. --Dmol (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This falls under WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, not WP:NOTDIR. Cleaning up the list to comply with our external links guidelines would eliminate 95% of the article. ThemFromSpace 01:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tagged the article as having WP:EL issue. Article fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY under point 1 only if WP:EL issue cannot be resolved. Requirements under point 2 appear to have been met. Rather than deleting now, I think we should give editors opportunity to correct this. --Kvng (talk) 12:36, 31 May 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  05:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swadesh list of Slavic languages[edit]

Swadesh list of Slavic languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The topic and 98% of the contents of this article belongs at Wiktionary, and already exists there at wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists for Slavic languages. At the talk page of the article is explained what the purpose of the article creator was, and why he or she believes that for that reason, this should remain on Wikipedia. However, the first point of the three arguments is covered by Wiktionary, and the second and third point are not the "Swadesh list" etcetera; but a discussion of "the changes that underwent the languages or branches from Common Slavonic to the modern day languages." This may be a good topic for an example, there certainly are plenty of sources for this topic, but it should not be placed at this article but somewhere else, e.g. at Slavic languages#History or at Proto-Slavic. So I propse to either delete this article (because the vast majority of it already exists at another project, and the small remainder is not an explanation, an encyclopedic treatment, of the topic of the article, i.e. the Swadesh list, but uses the Swadesh list to discuss another topic), or to change it into a redirect to the Wiktionary appendix. Fram (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists for why Swadesh lists, by themselves, are not encyclopedic. My reasoning for creating the article currently under consideration was to demonstrate how Swadesh lists could be presented alongside article prose to be encyclopedic. I'll leave it up to others to determine if this is still a fair pursuit 6 years later. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this article contains sourced, encyclopedic information above and beyond the bare Swadesh list, and that information would be inappropriate at Wiktionary. Angr (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it contain any "sourced, encyclopedic information" about this Swadesh list though? Fram (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect Most of it belongs in Wiktionary, and substantially more detailed info about the history of Proto-Slavic can be found in the article Proto-Slavic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. This is another type of article, like lists of flags and popular culture articles, that Wikipedia does especially well compared to traditonal print encyclopedia. It's not original research - Morris Swadesh has done it for us, and what the creator has done here is a synopsis. It is sourced, and can be sourced even better. I looked at the appendix in Wikipedia, and found it has too much information. This is "the right height", as Governor Romney would say. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable academic material. Even the nom agrees it does not all belong in Wiktionary. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 5 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schagen FM[edit]

Schagen FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unreferenced article about a local radio station. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BROADCAST. SpeakFree 13:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the website, Google translated to English [1], they started in 1992 as a tolerated version of earlier pirate broadcasting, but eventually, in 1997, secured a license from the Dutch government, and broadcast over the air (as well as cable connected transmission from cable companies) with some programming originating from their studios. They are heard in at least three towns in northern Holland. They are a low power (250 watt) transmitter, but they appear to satisfy the common outcome of AFDs in recent years by having locally originated programming transmitted by a licensed transmitter. Editors fluent in the local language might be able to search for newspaper coverage, or to evaluate secondary coverage such as [2], which says they are supported by a tax on local residents as a public broadcaster, [3], [4], [5] and [6] to see if it qualifies as independent and reliable sourcing. The last ref says that in May 2009, they were the third most popular broadcaster in their region, due to their local news and music programming. Edison (talk) 17:57, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:17, 29 May 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) 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Piotr[edit]

Derek Piotr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

My original prod was "Notability issues, mostly self-produced, references only to own site/producer". Anon has added a broken reference, that even if worked would probably not be enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. the igloomag reference is probably the best of the lot and its not clear to me it is a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• sources and references added, does this do the trick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.192.217 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The sources added are Derek Piotr's web site and Derek Piotr's twitter feed. These are not reliable sources, and are not useful for establishing notability. What is needed is stuff like magazine and newspaper articles. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to Cut and Paste Mix Tape Vol.1[edit]

How to Cut and Paste Mix Tape Vol.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I only found the Allmusic review in the article for significant coverage. Multiple sources are needed and Allmusic reviews almost every album. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Release by notable artist that has received sufficient coverage. Allmusic review already cited plus it was reviewed in Hot Press. The Guardian: "His seminal How To Cut & Paste series showcased a tongue-in-cheek mixing style. Hip Hop Connection voted him 'one of the top three DJs in the world'". This series of releases is considered important, e.g. The Age.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 26 May 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, →Bmusician 22:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As stated above, this is part of a notable series of releases, and there is enough independent significant coverage to establish notability. Roodog2k (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• possible merge Even if notable, there is surely no need for two articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 5 June 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. Yhe issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to Cut and Paste Mix Tape Vol.2[edit]

How to Cut and Paste Mix Tape Vol.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is a non-notable album just like its predecessor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Cut and Paste Mix Tape Vol.1. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Release by notable artist that has received sufficient coverage. Allmusic review already cited. The Guardian: "His seminal How To Cut & Paste series showcased a tongue-in-cheek mixing style. Hip Hop Connection voted him 'one of the top three DJs in the world'". This series of releases is considered important, e.g. The Age.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 26 May 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, →Bmusician 22:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As stated above, this is part of a notable series of releases, and there is enough independent significant coverage to establish notability.Roodog2k (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge Assuming it's notable in the first place, I do not see why there should be two articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 5 June 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. General consensus that the sources provided are insufficient. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wakatipu Aero Club[edit]

Wakatipu Aero Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete. Promotional article about a non-notable aero club with a commercial arm. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 May 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, →TSU ^tp* 15:54, 29 May 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, →Bmusician 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Per: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first ref is worthwhile. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Bo significant coverage about the club. With respect to the references above, aside from the first, they aren't really about the club nor is there any depth of coverage. As to the first ref, that looks more like an event announcement than an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, judging from the lack of a by-line, it's likely a press release. It's the second that comes close to being a supersource. The rest are trivial mentions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 5 June 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. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EMARO[edit]

EMARO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage for this education program. Google News and Google Books had no results. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly can't tell about how the program is advertised, but it's the 5th year that this program is taking some 30 master students from about 250 applicants. I believe this page should not be deleted. First, because the program exists and we have studied it, so there is no reason why it shouldn't exist in Wikipedia (We've got extensive pages on fictional characters in Wikipedia, why would a page on a real program be deleted?). Also, we keep getting a lot of questions regarding EMARO and how the program is etc in facebook. This means that people actually search for it and I believe we all agree "looking it up in Wikipedia" is much more preferable than asking on facebook! Shahbaz Youssefi (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That only works if Wikipedia has verifiable information to report. Far from "there is no reason why it shouldn't exist in Wikipedia", a thing doesn't belong in Wikipedia if the world at large hasn't independently documented it, per deletion policy. The fictional characters, you'll find, are documented. Literary critics and analysts write about them, in some cases at great length over several centuries. Show that the same is true of your program. This is an encyclopaedia of the documented and known, not of the merely real. My house is real. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this program that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither the article nor this discussion provide any grounds to believe that this passes WP:GNG.  Sandstein  06:02, 6 June 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russell J. Wintner[edit]

Russell J. Wintner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wintner's name has been mentioned only in passing in maybe 2 or 3 news articles about digital film or 3D, because he was a mid level manager at Technicolor and an executive at a small film tech company. But to meet the notability criteria, he would have had to have been the subject of these stories, not just a name that cropped up in one sentence for a quote. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 May 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, →TSU ^tp* 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No significant media coverage that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 29 May 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, →Bmusician 22:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Agreed, I'm not finding significant coverage of him either. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 30 May 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pantriagdiag magic cube[edit]

Pantriagdiag magic cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails our notability guideline. Not a single reliable source could be found for this. No books mention this (the only one that does is a "book" by Betascript publishing which is a Wikipedia articles republisher), no news articles, and the web pages that mention this are either based on Wikipedia or unreliable. Searching for "Pantriagonal Diagonal magic cube" yields the same meagre results. Article is seven years old and has been tagged as unreferenced for over two years now. Fram (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm far from an expert on the subject of the article, however, I can say that I can find no reliable sources that discuss this concept. Pretty much the only places that even mention it are just mirrors of this wikipedia article. Not only does this fail to meet the GNG, this just reeks of Original Research. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No hits in Google scholar, no verifiable non-wiki hits in Google books (it gets four hits but two are wiki clones and two can't be searched), appears to fail WP:NEO. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No hits in Google scholar, no non-wiki hits in Google books, apparent WP:NEO and WP:OR. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if it is not OR, then it is a hoax. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 31 May 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Askia-Williams[edit]

Regina Askia-Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

1. BLP notability 2. failed verification (couple of weak refs ok) Widefox (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep... She is a very popular actress in Nigeria under her maiden name, Regina Askia. Her biography should actually have a redirect for Regina Askia. Nigerian and Ghana media have a lot of articles on her. She did several films a few years ago. Nigerian cinema is now called Nollywood, some articles say she was one of the first Nollywood stars. Her soap opera role was also apparently quite well known in Nigeria. She is cited in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Women as a notable Nigerian actress [14]. She is mentioned along with one of her movies in a book on African cinema [15]. An English-language Nigerian news publication in the United States, Newswatch, mentions her as a well-known actress [16]. She was one of the most highly-paid actresses in Nigeria, N300,000 for a film called Festival of Fire [17]. Nigerian actresses just don't rake in the kind of money and international publicity that Angelina Jolie, and other Hollywood actresses do. But Nigeria has a huge population, and Askia is well-regarded there. Don't let her career change to registered nurse fool you -- Once Jolie gets to a certain age, her acting roles will dry up too, lol. She got an award in 2007 in Washington from the Celebrating African Motherhood Organization (CAM) [18]. I'll try to clean up her bio and add sources.OttawaAC (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG. Needs editing and some clean up, but it is not a junk bio and is best kept. Deletion should be a last resort, individual has prominent roles in 'foreign' films. Wikipedia isn't limited in its scope. Her other work is also good, if not notable itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 30 May 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 seems to be that sufficient sources have been added to show notability DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation convention[edit]

Translation convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

A widely used film style. Surely some highfalutin film critic has written on this subject at length and given it a fancy name. But the author of the article seems to think references are unnecessary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As described, a translation converntion is an often used device in film and literature. The non-RS site TV Tropes offers some information and context that could lead to reliable sources dicussing this. In reading the article, I realize just how widespread a convention this is and remember the Stargate (film) film NOT using it, and how the television series and spinoffs began using it as an unexplained "given" that, except in some few rare cases, eveyone else in the universe spoke American English. Actor David Hewlett does not here speak toward the identified inconsistancy. Contrarily, a film like Apocolypto uses native-sounding dialog and then uses subtitles of whatever language is the film audience. This device of translation convention must certainly have gotten enough coverage to show suitable notability, and I agree with nominator that it may be known under a different name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • Ah... [19][20]
• Delete. This may be a valid topic, but this article is WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. The searches MichaelQSchmidt suggest indicate that this conceit is well known, but there's no indication that it's a recognized subject of film study. Pburka (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My additional "Find sources" do not bind editors, as they were offered in trying to determine what might be the better title for this "valid topic" and to encourage we extend our searches beyond a problematic title. We do not need any topic to itself be a recognized subject of film study just so long as we can determine the topic of various translation conventions are being discussed (under whatever title) in enough reliable sources so as to determine as notable. Again... still working. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per related CFD without prejudice to RS. However, Ephraim Katz's Film Encyclopedia has an entry for "foreign version" (WP's international version is similar but only about Japanese videogames), mentioning Anna Christie (1930 film)'s relation to this topic. But I don't have an urge for article creation right now, nor using said creation as a coatrack for this OR. Someone will write enough about it in RS someday. JJB 06:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Still delete with no diss to Uncle G. This AFD is now a better article on the topic than the article itself. I would love to see Uncle G's article created but until that happens there is hardly anything to keep about the current article, which seems like a different animal altogether. If kept, it might need more readable text in tags than there is in the current article. Somewhere in WP there are tags for "move to uncertain location", and "expand from this recommended source" (which would link to this AFD page of course). JJB 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep References are unnecessary for statements of the obvious. If editors wish to develop the article, they will not have difficulty finding sources from The speech of the "barbarians" in ancient Greek literature to Translation goes to the Movies and Cinema Babel. Our editing policy is to improve not to delete. Warden (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not that much work is involved, MichaelQSchmidt. Two minutes' work found Kozloff 2000 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKozloff2000 (help) and Bleichenbacher 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBleichenbacher2008 (help) was a few minutes after that. The main problem is that the subject is not named with this title, not that this subject has never been discussed by scholars. Miller 2010, p. 140–141 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMiller2010 (help) gives several nonce titles used by one or two film critics and scholars, such as Hunt for Red October effect and intratextual standardization, but multilingualism in film seems to be one that is used across sources and by multiple people. A sub-topic (for a section in the article) is, as discussed by Lippi-Green 1997 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLippi-Green1997 (help), Bleichenbacher 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBleichenbacher2008 (help), and others, is to what extent this is, or promotes, linguicism in film.

  But the major topic is of course the language contact and the classification of the ways in which film-makers approach multilingual dialogues, from presence to elimination. There's actually quite a lot to write on this subject, as can be seen from the length of Bleichenbacher's treatment of it if nothing else. It's a shame therefore that this article is badly written and is pretty much another case of cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, with a name taken from a non-expert-written wiki (TVTropes) whose authors are unidentifiable and the content simply plucked out of thin air, rather than both the name and the content following from what expert-written sources by identifiable scholars say. The latter approach would never have brought this to AFD. The former approach has, with an article that really gives no hint at all as to what actual scholarship says on this topic and doesn't actually increase a reader's knowledge from reading it.

  Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kozloff, Sarah (2000). "Structural and Stylilstic Variables". Overhearing Film Dialogue. University of California Press. pp. 80–83. ISBN 9780520221383.
  • Bleichenbacher, Lukas (2008). Multilingualism in the Movies: Hollywood characters and their language choices. Tübingen: Francke Verlag. ISBN 9783772082702.
  • Lippi-Green, R. (1997). "Teaching children how to discriminate: What we learn from the Big Bad Wolf" (PDF). In Lippi-Green, R. (ed.). English with an Accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. pp. 79–103.
  • Miller, Joshua L. (2010). "American Languages". In Rowe, John Carlos (ed.). A Concise Companion to American Studies. Blackwell Companions in Cultural Studies. Vol. 30. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405109246.
• If the topic is valid and sourcable as shown, what do we title the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd personally go for the third of the redlinks that I gave, multilingualism in film (with of course the obvious multilinguialism in movies redirect), simply because that was the name most commonly used in what I read. Hunt for Red October effect and so forth were just nonces. There are other names in the literature that at the very least should be redirects: polyglot cinema, multilingual film, and polyglot film. (I've given you a lot of names to search for ⇗, haven't I?)

    None of which (apart from multilingual film which has an ambiguous usage) should be confused with the multiple language version films of the early 20th century. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Uncle G. I have no idea if there's a better name for this story device. Please note it should not be exclusive to film.  The Steve  10:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an overarching subject of multilingualism. Things like multilingalism in literature probably shouldn't be incorporated into this subject, though. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:N and Uncle G's far more in-depth research showing this valid topic (by whatever name) as being discussed in multiple secondary sources. Thanks Unc. Deciding a better title does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 18 May 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  09:17, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Research has saved the article, establishing it's a notable topic under some name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 30 May 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porscia Yeganeh[edit]

Porscia Yeganeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable person -- having checked via findsources it is clear there is no basis for notability here, no way to turn this into a properly sourced article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is enough volume of work to support a claim of notability. The article outlines this volume quite well. There isn't one source that shouts notability but there are a number that make the case to a reasonable degree. Stormbay (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify which of the sources currently in use meets WP:RS? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost all of the sources here are completely unreliable crap, being mostly links to the commerce websites of clothing store chains, photography blogs and/or primary sources. There may be enough "volume of work" to support a claim of notability, but there aren't enough sources to support it — and the sourcing, not the sheer volume of raw unsourced or poorly sourced content, is what carries the day in the end. I'm willing to reconsider this if real reliable sources start showing up, but right now, as currently written, it's a big fat delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while this article may need work, I think Porscia is both notable and has credible sources. My addition to the page 2-3 days ago was trying to improve the article and provide potential references for other users to potentially use. To address the problem for credible sources, I can see a number of articles created by credible authors Flare Magazine, Afro News Canada (more information about this on Porscia Yeganeh talkpage), Rockstar Weekly, Reach Magazine Canada] and also Milanice. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • — JP22Wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For the record: the Flare and Reach references are to very brief blog entries which do little more than mention her name; Rockstar Weekly is a link to a single photo, not to any real referenceable content at all; AfroNews is marginally better than the previous ones but still pretty slim; and Milanice could potentially support an article about her company, but fails to provide significant enough information to properly support a biographical article about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of content this is a fair point. Looking at the afro news article in particular this does discuss her work and some of her early life, so surely this can come under the bracket of a reliable reference? In terms of finding other sources, I have read on the talk page and seen there is a book about her, which I put under further reading. I am trying to source a copy of this, as I believe this might hold some credible information in it. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then the article should focus on the company with a minimal biography of Yeganeh. Incidentally, I have been emailed off Wikipedia by the subject of the article, assuring me that she is notable and drawing my attention to the aforementioned book (which apparently was "without my authorization" and the publishers are "being sued"). As she is reading this, may I direct her to WP:CONFLICT - she ought not to be editing her own article! Mabalu (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cautious delete/comment - Couldn't find anything much on a Google last night. If credible sources come to light, then all well and good. The article does appear to be almost exclusively edited by its subject(using at least 3 IDs) or by people closely associated with her, which isn't good practice. However, I have NFD'd the Barbie image files as they violate copyright law (the picture of doll clothes off a doll I don't think violates any copyright). (see COM:VPC#Dimension of derivative works Mabalu (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I come to the same conclusions as Nomoskedasticity and Bearcat. The sources there now are mostly unusable, and they don't actually support much of a biography anyway. The subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, from what I could find. She doesn't approach the higher bars at WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This is an observation, but many of the comments made, say that if more reliable sources came along they would reconsider. This hints to me (I'm not putting words in mouths so correct me if I'm wrong) that this article is notable, or on the verge of. If this article was to be cut back to its bare minimum, leaving only content referenced from ^[1] & two articles from ^[2] (and maybe others) is everyone agreed this might be acceptable? I am willing to make these changes today should anyone agree. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these sources, I think you'd be far better off trying to write and source an article about her company, instead of a biographical article about her as an individual. The sources just don't support much in the way of personal information about her; the ones that are useable are pretty clearly about the company rather than her as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even the Reach article titled Designer Focus: Meet the talented fashionista Porscia Yeganeh? That kinda sounds like its about her, which means she's been in Reach more than once...  The Steve  04:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article itself demonstrates the subject does not meet the notability tests (above) when it resorts to attempts to inflate the subject's significance by the loosest of associations (for example, "The store carried a number of signature designer labels including Calvin Klein, Kenneth Cole & Tommy Hilfiger", "This relationship was the beginning of the startup journey where many of the signature fashion designers are based, including Prada, Gucci, Dolce & Gabbana"). The sources cited are poor evidence of notability; certainly the Afro News article reads as promotional rather than reporting. Of course the subject has a duty to her company to promote herself, and it has been suggested that some recent development of this article was commissioned by her or her company (see halfway through WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#possible_paid_editing_for_Jill_Kenton). This would put the threat to sue a book's publisher in an odd light, as that book is nothing but a print-on-demand collation of Wikipedia articles (see Books_LLC) that if it ever was printed would contain this very article. Is there a suggestion that this article needs her "authorisation"? NebY (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at afro news article you've discussed, this isn't judging the writing style of Afro News, surely its more important if it is a credible source? As discussed on Porscia's talk page, this newspaper was established back in 1984. Again surely this article can be built around the facts on the Afro News Article. However the notability discussion may still remain. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:13, 21 May 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  09:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (amending earlier and now striken out 'cautious delete' vote to a more definite decision) after careful consideration. I'm done with this debate now. Mabalu (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while some good points have been raised, I do feel this article could be rewritten around two articles. Due to the work carried out in her field (which is summarised here), I feel she is also notable. Also I must mention that the article was created nearly 4 years ago, and we are only now discussing its notability? Personally I think it falls into this category, and should therefore remain as an article in some form. JP22Wiki (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've already !voted above; you can add comments, but not an additional !vote. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the GNG based on sources given in the article, particularly the 2 magazines, which are actually about her.  The Steve  11:37, 24 May 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, →Bmusician 22:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete Notability is established in relation to the sources presented. Sources are not notable for her, could make a minor case for her company.GuzzyG (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat's analysis above of the sources shows that they fail to establish notability. Would you perhaps like to try to show why his analysis is wrong? You could address the points that some of them are brief blog entries, another simply contains a photo -- etc. These "keep" !votes are remarkably weak. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry i must have skimmed over that, recanting my !keep vote and changing it to a !delete vote.GuzzyG (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The best of the lot is Afronews which is a community paper. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete borderline notability at best, with borderline references, and a highly promotional article--look at that last paragraph. almost a G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 5 June 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.  Sandstein  06:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Khan (academician)[edit]

A. A. Khan (academician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think WP:PROF is satisfied. The closest criteria to be satisfied is "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." But I don't think Ranchi University qualifies as a "major academic institution". Muhandes (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think he doesn't reach the minimum notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I contested WP:PROD deletion because I thought that there was an important issue of interpretation here that requires discussion. When WP:PROF criterion 6 refers to a "major academic institution" does it mean a world-renowned research institution, which Ranchi University may not be, or an institution that teaches lots of students, which it certainly is? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To avoid WP:BIAS I don't think "world-renowned" is right. I interpret it as "renown in its country", maybe top-10 or top-20. Ranchi University is around the bottom of the top 50 in India, which in my opinion is not enough. --Muhandes (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From my experience with previous AfDs here, a large university like this one certainly qualifies as a "major academic institution". Meets WP:PROF#6. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect to your experience with previous AfDs here, does this mean that you interpret "major" as "large", rather than "important"? Here is a list of past VCs of Ranchi University, minus the ones with proper articles and the ones which were "acting": Vishnudeo Narayan Singh, Sharang Dhar Singh, A. F. Markham, George Jacob, B. N. Rohtagi, Nandeshwar Prasad, K. Abraham, R. S. Mandal, A. K. Dhan, Shaligram Singh, N. L. Nadda, K. C. Bose, Bishwanath Prasad, Sachidanand, Lal Saheb Singh, A. K. Singh, K. K. Nag, L. C. C. N. Shahdeo, P L. C. C. N. Shahdeo, S. S. Kushwaha, A. A. Khan, L. N. Bhagat. Is it your opinion that Wikipedia should have a stub article on each of these with the only text as "X was the Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University from Y to Z"? --Muhandes (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that a university with 90,000 students certainly ranks as "major". My above "keep" !vote is based on the fact that I think that he's notable under PROF#6. However, we should indeed not ignore WP:V. If there are not enough sources to write an article, than we cannot have an article however notable the subject. In that case, merging may be the best option. But I find it difficult to believe that it would be impossible to find sources on somebody who heads such a large university. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps this should be merged. The University is certainly notable. I believe that a list of Vice-Chancellors, either included in the University's article or as a stand-alone, would be a better solution than a dozen stubs of Ex-Vice-Chancellors. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A list is already included in the article. Indeed, the current article adds nothing to the list, except a wikilink to an article... which says the person is a member of the list. --Muhandes (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As well as WP:PROF we need to consider whether Khan meets the general notability guideline. I don't have time to go through them all now, but there would appear to be plenty of coverage of his activities as vice-chancellor found by this search. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Phil Bridger remarks, there does seem to be a fair amount of press coverage of the subject's activities as vice-chancellor. I would add that this article, on his appointment as vice-chancellor, mentions that he was previously pro-vice-chancellor at Ranchi University and that this one, on his appointment as pro-VC, gives his full name, Anwar Ahmad Khan, and details about his previous career - which, however, I have not been able to cross-reference with other sources. PWilkinson (talk) 15:25, 26 May 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, →Bmusician 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Head of a university meets WP:PROF. I interpret major" as ruling out presidents of small unimportant colleges and the like, but this is a university with 90,000 students. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Looks like he meets Prof#6 and possibly the GNG. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I can see that a university with 90,000 students may be viewed by some as major, Ranchi U is hardly a good example (the books to student ratio is probably a good indicator here). Next, I don't trust that 90,000 number (which is uncited). Delhi University has 115,000 and is a much larger university. Then there is the fact that universities in India are organized differently from the universities in the US. They consist of independent colleges only very loosely affiliated with the central university body. And, when all we know about the individual is that he was the head of this regional university, I'd say we don't need an article on him. (it also makes it likely that the 'major' assumption is wrong. One would expect a major university to have an already notable head.). We could easily add his name to a "list of vice chancellors of Ranchi University" or some such thing. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not distinguished as a scholar, he would be as an adminsitrator. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the university's own website list of VCs, and a short piece in a parochial newspaper, there just doesn't seem to be any information about Khan. There are many newspapers in India and one would expect some mention in a newspaper, in a Calcutta one like The Telegraph perhaps, when his tenure ended in 2011. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked above to over a hundred mentions in newspapers, the majority being in The Telegraph and many of the others in The Times of India. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that and stand corrected. My search on The Telegraph website produced only one, peripheral, mention. --regentspark (comment) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism in Guatemala[edit]

State terrorism in Guatemala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article provides no information that is not covered in greater depth and with better references in 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and articles in Category:Human rights in Guatemala. I would think a main article for Human rights in Guatemala, at least, would need to be developed first before branching this off. As it stands, the article does not even assert that a relation between the coup and the concept of state terrorism as its title would imply, and nearly all editing activity in the last 5 years seems to be a back-and-froth as to whether to title it "allegations of." - choster (talk) 20:35, 22 May 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 May 22. Snotbot  t • c »  20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 May 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, →Bmusician 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested by the nominator, but, after all, that is not the purpose of AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't suggest any rename. I said that the article as it stands is worthless, and that it does not make any sense to expand it without first covering a more general topic under a different name. Otherwise, I would not have nominated it for deletion.- choster (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- While I know nothing of the subject the article on the Coup is clearly a well-written NPOV article. The very title of this stub fails WP:POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 2 June 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) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illumination: the Undergraduate Journal of Humanities[edit]

Illumination: the Undergraduate Journal of Humanities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

PROD removed without reason given. Non-notable journal. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 20:09, 28 May 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, →Bmusician 22:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of reliable third-party sources. I'm not sure WP:NJournals is the right guideline for this sort of publication but there's no evidence that it passes WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't sure about NJournals either, that's why I didn't include it in the nom. As you say, doesn't meet GNG (and even if NJournals would apply, doesn't meet that either). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 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) 01:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aka Manto[edit]

Aka Manto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

One of the article's references is a blog post. I haven't looked at the other one, but it is from a site called "scaryforkids.com", which probably isn't a reliable source. The article is a copyediting mess, and Google News doesn't return a thing about this urban legend. Interchangeable 16:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some rather scathing commentary on the article's talk page. If you want to search for sources properly, try the Japanese name, which in the Japanese Wikipedia, at least, is ja:赤い紙、青い紙#.E6.B4.BE.E7.94.9F.E7.B3.BB. That article cites some sources. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is potential for development.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not kept purely on the basis of potential. And without reliable sources, rather than blogs and children's sites, we have no building materials. Interchangeable 22:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 May 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, joe decker^{talk to me} 21:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable in Japan, english resources are going to be almost non-existant which is why I am going to post the link to the Japanese Wiki for this. [21] We have several sources here, numerous cultural references which covers the supposed origins and details of it which was around the 1940s. While it is a weird myth this is one which should be expanded rather then deleted. Oh.. and the copy-paste of the legend has to go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In part per the rationale above by User:ChrisGualtieri. The Japanese Wikipedia article ([here) has citations to book sources; translation for use in the English Wikipedia article is possible, and would to better source the article. This Google Books search also yields results: "赤マント" -inpublisher:icon. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:10, 30 May 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. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners)[edit]

Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO. As far as I can tell this person has not been the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources, as required for inclusion. It's difficult to find anything about this Eric Benhamou, but even searches for ""Eric Benhamou" -3com -palm" turn up nothing. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : while I have seen some (limited) coverage of Pricing Partners (deleted since), which might then have met GNG, I have not seen anything reasonably conclusive about this Eric Benhamou. Premature article at best. --Azurfrog (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new version of Pricing Partners has been created to avoid the salting - Pricing Partners SAS - it's currently at AFD. SmartSE (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK understood your point. Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) page can be deleted then... Anyway, at the end of the day, Smartse, you are the administrator and I am just a poor contributor. --Paul.cabot (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi all, I made a research on Bloomberg and found two Eric Benhamou, the former CEO of Palm and the CEO of Pricing Partners. So this article should stay. --Yuxinmao (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — Yuxinmao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep : I found interesting to know the life of people that have created their company. So according to me, we should keep it. --Paul.cabot (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)— Paul.cabot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Didn't you say it should be deleted before? SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What I said Smartse is that if you want to delete it, I will not be able to say no as you are the administrator and I am just a poor user and I will say OK, this is life. But if you ask whether I want to keep it or not, I say yes keep it without hesitation as I found the subject interesting. This is it! --Paul.cabot (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I am an administrator that doesn't give me carte blanche to do as I like. First, articles are kept or deleted on the strength of arguments related to our policies and guidelines. Your argument of "it is interesting" isn't very strong compared to mine and Azurfrog's that there are not enough sources. Second, the decision to delete or keep the article will be taken by another admin, not by me. SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry smartse, I was not clear about my argument: it is interesting so I take the point that this is not very strong formulated like it is. What is interesting is how someone who has a common background decides to create a company. It is interesting to know the origin of the person and what he has done before. This is relevant and gives a better understanding of the path followed. This is what I found interesting. --Paul.cabot (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned by others, even less notable than the firm. Clearly a promotional creation, intended to double the number of articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just part of a persistent spam campaign, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pricing Partners SAS. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 5 June 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 Reverted to disambiguation page per Uncle G. Non-admin closure. Acebulf (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nawar[edit]

Nawar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Nothing in the article establishes it as notable or encyclopedic. It should be a redirect to Nawar people.—Biosketch (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• … or it could be taken back to the disambiguation that it once was before someone scribbled on it. Always check an article's history before nominating it for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.—Biosketch (talk) 18:52, 30 May 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. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing Partners SAS[edit]

Pricing Partners SAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is a highly promotional article with a likely background in socks. A very similar version was deleted earlier, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"pricing partners", but I'm a bit hesitant to speedy this one since it appears to claim importance and has some...'references'. But those references do not appear to be very reliable or neutral, or to bring this up to notability. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the article is quite fair. The references are true and checkable references. The article is neutral as it contains competitors. I do not think this article should be considered for speedy deletion. You can search on internet and could see that Pricing Partners is a real company. It has signed with numerous clients. See for instance its press release. And it is only a 25 employees with a notoriety much above this level. I believe the article is therefore appropriate. Let me know what we can do to make it more acceptable but I can tell that it is much better written than many articles on companies that hardly have references. Thanks, --Paul.cabot (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have even changed the reference to be reference that does not need any subscription. But look, the feature about Microsoft is very reliable as it is from the Microsoft website itself. This is rocket solid and I do not see why this article should therefore be deleted.

Thanks in advance for your time. Regards --Paul.cabot (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've had a look for more reliable sources and found a fair few e.g. [22] [23] and there are a fair few of articles on factiva published by Banking Technology. It's difficult to say though whether these are sufficient to show that WP:CORP is met, as they generally have the look of regurgitated press releases rather than real "significant coverage". I'm sitting on the fence for the moment, but leaning towards delete unless some more solid sources can be found. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should say what I consider "solid". I'd expect a notable company related to financial services to get at least a mention in an FT or Forbes article, but I couldn't find any. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I unerstand that it is difficult for you to state whether the WP:CORP is met but I believe this is met.

1. this company has strong reputation but it is still a 25 employee French company so it is not surprising that it is not covered by the FT or Forbes source that you are mentionning. But to give a famous example, Instagramm page was created in April 2011 and did not have sufficent coverage according to your principles. But things changed after the Facebook deal. So your criterium seems too strict.
2. the article is objective, rely on real sources, mention competition. Overall, these are objective true facts that can be checked on relyable sources. And clients of these company are not small companies but big names. The ICBC client win can easily be checked on Internet. Another interesting client win is Socgen that can be checked on internet. SocGen Corporate & Investment Banking taps Pricing Partners for derivatives valuation So with that respect, the company is not an unknown company but a company with sufficient notoriety.
3. this article would presummably not have been nammed for deletion if there was not a speedy deletion earlier this month, wouldn't it?

I understand that this is hard to tell but I would recommend you go on the other side of the fence. Many thanks for your time. Paul.cabot (talk

• Overall, the conclusion may be: Pricing Partners has sufficient notoriety. Eric Benhamou is not relevant so we keep Pricing Partners and delete Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) page. Does it make sense to you?

--Paul.cabot (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy so I'll have to be succinct in replying:

1. Having only 25 employees is a likely indication that the company is not notable. Regarding your example, WP:OTHERCRAP and WP:CRYSTAL are relevant.
2. That's irrelevant as without showing that the company meets WP:CORP the content is unimportant. We are here to discuss notability, not whether the article is neutral.
3. Even more irrelavant.
4. We judge each article on it's own merits - Eric Benhamou appears even less notable than Pricing Partners, but we won't do a deal to delete one and not the other. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Seeing as no more sources have appeared, I now think the article should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just noticed that Pricing Partners is salted suggesting a pretty concerted effort to create an article here. If this closes as delete, further applications of salt may be needed. SmartSE (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company fails WP:CORP. I did not find much in the way of independent reliable sources. Sounds like interesting software, but its ultimately WP:TOOSOON for a WP article. None but shining hours (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi Smartse, understood your point. It was not a deal that I suggested but rather a way to solve this issue (smile). And as noted, we will have problem with the fact that the page may be salted. --Paul.cabot (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)— Paul.cabot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Accept I am working in finance and this company is defintely quite well known. It should be accepted like what is done on other software with similar notoriety: Murex, Calypso, Kondor Suite, etc.. --Rowena.Queddeng (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)— Rowena.Queddeng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFF; if the company is definitely quite well known then it would receive coverage in indepedent reliable sources. None but shining hours (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a query on Bloomberg and found related news to Pricing Partners. I did the same test on Finextra and found again some results. Overall this company deserves a wikipedia article --Yuxinmao (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — Yuxinmao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Can you give us the links? SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Sure Smartse. Bloomberg is a private application, so I can only post here a screenshot of the application: File:PricingPartnersNews.png. Smartse, Concerning Finextra, you can just go to finextra and type in "Pricing Partners". Let me know if you need more guidance on this. Thanks, --Yuxinmao (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image is copyrighted and should be hosted on an external server. Commons is for free files only. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the basis of the Bloomberg sources provided just above, which are on their face almost entirely press releases, or mentions in articles about other companies & I strongly suspect based on press releases as well. In my experience, that's typical for Bloomberg. I consider the awards minor. notability in this field is however not necessarily determined by size, DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Persistent spam for a smallish market research firm. Repeatedly deleted, repeatedly recreated by an almost-SPA who denies conflict of interest rather unconvincingly. (I wonder if someone should take a look at Paul.cabot's only other focus of repeated edits, namely Calypso Technology, where most of his edits were deleted as spam and almost got the article speedied.) Repeated appearance of SPAs at AfD to urge a keep. Smacks of a really determined spam campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 5 June 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 WP:SNOW. Clear keep, some improvements as noted can be made. (Non-admin closure) --Chip123456 (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigasus (politics)[edit]

Pigasus (politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

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

I came across this topic in my routine check of CAT:HOAX. Although I have seen enough to convince me that it is not a complete hoax, a search for sources leads me to believe that this is just a minor publicity stunt that was part of the larger, notable 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity. I found one, maybe two reliable sources that mention this pig, but it is only mentioned in passing as part of a discussion on the protests as a whole. All other claims made in this article are either sourced to blogs or completely unsourced. Therefore I believe this article should be deleted as failing the notability criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment Presently the article is full of silly jokes and counterfactual statements, violating WP:V and lacking reliable sources. But certainly there was press coverage of the "Pigasus" swine candidate put forward by Yippies in 1968, and he is as fitting a subject for an article as the various pets of famous people, such as Presidential dogs and cats, whose articles have been upheld in numerous AFDs. I will see if sources are available at the online sources to which free access is available. Edison (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources and no evidence of notability. Please see article version before recent hoaxer's cleanup attempt (yes, he was a Muslim pig known for his charismatic speeches and landmark court case.) Back in the real world, from the single real cited source looks like some students pulled a short-lived prank that got a brief mention in a newspaper's "lighter side of things" image caption - the only "reliable" source. Most of the article is hoaxery-jokery by Nelsondenis248 (talk · contribs), drawn from a joke web site, a blog entry, a fictional book ("The Illuminatus Trilogy" as a source, really?), and just gunk made up by the hoaxer. Even the only "reliable" source talks about the pig in a joking manner, giving a grand total of zero serious sources. I will change my !vote if notability can be established, though with little hope, as the hoaxer seems to have scraped the bottom of the barrel pretty thoroughly. 88.114.124.228 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have you tried a WP:BEFORE Google Books search, such as using the terms "Pigasus" and "Yippies"? There's a significant number of books out there. AllyD (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is part of the enduring historical record of the 1968 Presidential campaign, and is still frequently referred to in articles about the 1960's, as a notable mass media event. Edit out any hoax or poorly sourced text. Some sources with coverage, which could be used to make a reliable sourced stub out of the present hoaxalicious mess Many of the sources are behind paywall, so someone with library access could delve into them to verify the depth of coverage. "Yippies pick pig for President" Boston Globe, Aug 24, 1968, 555 words (payment required) Chicago Trib, Sep 30 1968 ":Yippie Pig retires from race" 281 words, payment reqiured) , LA Times Aug 17 2000 (payment required) "He calls them a light-hearted attempt to bring back "Pigasus," the swine that Hoffman's yippie ... "OK, the pig isn't the original Pigasus," Greenwald concedes. ", Hartford Courant, Oct 1, 1968 (payment required) "Pigasus, the presidential candidate of the Youth International Party Yippies is ... Pigasus was taken to the anticruelty society, the Yippies were taken to jail. ", Christian Science Monitor, Aug 12, 1968 (payment)"They plan to nominate a pig--called Pigasus--for president. Pigasus will be shipped here from Denver for the occasion. ..." , Boston Globe, Aug 10, 1968 "The YIP will have closed convention Pigasus has the nomination locked up and Is already working on his acceptance speech Peck said 100000 YIPs would ..., LA Times, Apr 13, 1969 (payment) "The exodus ended the attraction of the farm which gained some fame as a hippie -yippie haven and was the home of Pigasus, the hog which yippies ran for ...",LA Times, Nov 17, 1987 (payment) "As a founder of the legendary '60s commune the Hog Farm, it was Romney who nominated his prize hog Pigasus as a candidate for President during the ..." (this was not George or Mitt Romney), The Economist, Jan 7, 1999 (42 words about Pigasus 1968 candidacy), [24], New York Daily News, Aug 20, 2008, "Pigasus was purchased by folk singer Phil Ochs. But when Rubin ... Unfortunately for Pigasus, he was never seen again; there is speculation a cop took him ... Page 9 of 25) I(In a 40th anniversary review of the 1968 Democratic Convention, a New York paper saw fit to devote 75 words to the pig.), [http://www.neurope.eu/article/political-dirty-dozen-worlds-weirdest-parties paragraph on Youth International Party, with 2 sentences on Pigasus, Daily Beast blog,Jan 14, 2012 with 199 words about Pigasus (page 12), Silicon Valley's Metro, Sep 13, 2001 (compares Pigasus favorably to Al Gore's 2000 candidacy, saying "at least Pigasus was alive.". Then let's look for Pigasus' 1968 candidacy at Google Books:[25], [26], [27], [28], [29],[30], [31], [32].[33]. There are many more results: that's just the first page, and on page 20 the results just keep coming. Edison (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see through the paywalls, sorry. I see The Economist reference: a joke "His platform, naturally, was garbage" - no further information. "neurope.eu" makes a two-sentence mention, one of which is, again, a joke. "metroactive.com" mentions the pig's name, makes a joke about Al Gore, and mentions the pig's name again. Am I just unlucky that the only sources I can see are trivial mentions and jokes? Not that I am against having an article about this, just that is there reliable sourceable academic content or just one-liners? 88.114.124.228 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be able to get through paywalls to be able to see that if the name of the topic is appearing in the titles of newspaper articles, these aren't just one-line mentions. There were entire newspaper articles about it in 1968 and it's still being mentioned half a century later in encyclopedias of pop culture. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more than a mention of a name to see if there is more than a one-sentence joke to be had. Though I still think the subject might be encyclopedic, just that I have yet to see a non-joke source, and 95+% of the article is still ill-sourced and joke-based (did you know the pig had a clear platform on eating people? And the pig was not aware why he was being paraded? And, as sourced to The Illuminatus! Trilogy, the pig swallowed handcuffs that were being put on him?) 88.114.124.228 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, seriously - if you would like to see something like that it's a reason to put your own elbow grease into it, not a reason to ask the rest of us to serve it up to you on a silver platter. Nevertheless, I have added a ((find sources)) for "Pigasus" "Yippies" to the top of the AfD. Try for example the Google News search, which racks up dozens of hits, but you can press "free only" on the left hand side and easily find things like The Montreal Gazette for August 23, 1968, "Chicago cops squelch piggy nominations" --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duuu...de, serisously! With all the elbow grease you are calling for, the article still has obvious crap such as an image of a flying pig representing Pigasus. And that's just one of the dozen obviously made up things in there. I am not about to take the uphill battle of removing crap from a 95% crap article with me having the burden of proof for every spoonfol of crap I remove. Which is where this article is at this time: mostly written by a blatant vandal, and then being fixed sentence-by-sentence by ...I don't know who. What I would do is blank the page, then add only things that can be reliably sourced without gunk like a fictional novel and the lighter-side-of-things image caption (which, even after all this, still remains the principal "source" of the article). 88.114.124.228 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to work on the article, then just don't. Clogging up the AfD process with frivolous nominations about notability in which you haven't even bothered to look for any sources is an abuse of the system and asking other people to go get the sort of sources you "want to see" and then ignoring it when I actually go do your work for you is making this look even more like you're just trying to be vexatious. AfD is not here to furnish you with a way to goad other editors into researching and writing encyclopedic content because you can't be arsed to yourself. Changing my !vote to Speedy Keep. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realizing that you actually aren't the AfD nominator 88.114.124.228; at first I didn't notice your separate !vote and thought you were the nominator and had accidentally logged out or something. But it turns out that you're just the one who placed the ((hoax)) template on the article (not inappropriately) and argued for "deletion as the most obvious way to improve the article" in the talk page.

However, the same points apply - the editors involved in an AfD disputing notability of an article's topic are expected to research the topic to evaluate its notability; this is why all of the specialized search links are created at the top of the AfD during the normal creation process. If you don't want to spend the effort to investigate the topic outside of Wikipedia then you shouldn't be commenting on a notability-based AfD. If you are genuinely concerned about persistent unrepentant vandalism and "long-running hoaxery" you should follow the steps for responding to vandalism. Note also how not to respond to vandalism. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Google News search provided the excerpts I included for the paywall articles. The books cited (and many more I did not bring over from Google Book search) include some more extended coverage, which I recommend be used to replace the fantasy novel presently cited as a source in the article. Attention by several editors may be needed to make sure that the nonsense stays out of the article after it gets cleaned up and de-hoaxed. See pages 48-54, 4 paragraphs in a book about animals in politisc, pages 153, 156, 178, breif coverage of the arrests at the "nomination", [34] which has 2 long paragraphs (with a physical description of the hog) The Yippies media events were not just a "joke" as you state, but detracted from media coverage of more serious demonstrators against the Vietnam War. ]Edison (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ‣ Yes, copious sources in newspapers and books, and the nominator should be severely trouted for not performing WP:BEFORE or even just looking at the links already in the article such as the one to the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User:Edison has provided a great list of sources (please see above). There is a lot of material here - I will be reading through it, and it will be great if other editors can assist. The New York Daily News is a good source, and I placed that in the article [35]. As I indicated in the Pigasus talk page, any help with sourcing/improving the article is greatly appreciated! Thank you, User:Edison. This is a great help. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have sources for your assertions such as the pig being Muslim and the pig giving speeches on the subject of cows and being a charismatic speaker in general, etc etc? 88.114.124.228 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The material you just alluded to is no longer in the article (nor has it been in the article, during the entirety of this discussion). Please feel free to contribute to the article, and improve the article, as other editors are trying to do. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• At this time, does the article still contain hoaxery such as a pig writing memoranda referring to presidential candidates eating people? Even after all this, most of the article is still hoaxery you put in there. Do you feel it is appropriate that you insert blatant hoaxes into Wikipedia and demand that other people clean up behind you? How about the article featuring a flying pig with a caption "Pigasus out on parole" - do you really suppose we should believe you have ever been acting on good faith? And the article has more and more and more of your hoaxery remaining. And you keep playing innocent, do you? 88.114.124.228 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your complaint seems overblown and based on your memory of the article as it was in a previous state. . Kindly take another look at the article. There has been considerable improvement in the sourcing, and considerable removal of things which smacked of hoaxery. It remains a notable piece of political theater. Additional editing may be needed, but the references cited above indicate the incident/animal are notable, since they have in fact been widely noted by reliable sources over a long period. Edison (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources; it passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison's outstanding efforts and reasoning.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have family that was actually part of this and it is indeed a verifiable part of activist history in the United States. I'd recommend getting in contact with Maury Englander as he traveled with Pigasus for a short period. Maury is a photojournalist and extensively covered many social movements in the 1960s and 1970s. --1440PST 31MAY2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.168.4 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per added sources and improvements made by Edison. Meets notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 19:42, 1 June 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. Now that the article has been debullshitted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbit[edit]

Cabbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The page makes fantastic claims about the existence of cat-rabbit hybrids behind the Canadian parliament without citing any sources, and also propagates other hoaxes. It is poorly referenced, with several citations not providing enough information to actually locate the source of the citation. It seems to mix up the fictional portrayal (which is again, mostly unreferenced) of cabbits with their actual existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyush Sriva (talk • contribs)

• Speedy delete>>. Hoax. One of the cites (previously) titled 'why cats breed with rabbits' actually links to an aticle called 'why cats can't breed with rabbits' - I changed it. TheLongTone (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the notability guidelines for cryptozoology?TheLongTone (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In particular, the article provides no evidence of verifiability, seems to violate the "no original research" policy, and also seems to lack notability. Piyush (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I dont think this can be called a Hoax as there are references to books in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the references themselves seem to be hoaxes, referring only to author names and titles. And the article makes its most fantastic claims (such as the claim that cats and rabbits can interbreed, which has a whole section devoted to it) without citing any sources. A majority of the article does read like a hoax. Piyush (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Redirect to Ryo-Ohki, is the term "Cabbit" used in the series to describe the character? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Hoax. The references directly contradict the article. And the book references are citing the physical features of the Manx. I also doubt that the term is used in the series Tenchi Muyo! to refer to Ryo-Ohki as the history of the character's article leaves the impression that its an informal name for the species. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Based on the protection logs, this article was protected twice due to a long-standing campaign to insert false information claiming that cabbits are real creatures and live behind the Canadian parliament building. The most recent protection expired earlier this month, and it seems that the campaign of false information has continued since then. I'm going to revert the false information and request permanent semi-protection for the article. The false claims that cabbits exist and live behind the Canadian parliament building should not be taken into consideration when deciding whether to keep or delete the article. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That explains a lot. Although the article still needs improvement in terms of addition of citations, I think it is clear now that minus the vandalism, it is most probably not a hoax. I am still not sure about notability and original research though. Piyush (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In fact, I'd recommend that the part of the article left after its heroic salvage by Calathan could perhaps best fit as a section in the article on Manx cats. Piyush (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still not sure about the notability of the article. But I'm not sure if the info would be useful for the Manx cats article... ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article still seems to be under a "vandalism attack". I just undid an edit which had unilaterally removed the deletion notice and also included the fallacious bits that were removed earlier by Calathan. Piyush (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The hoax is real, but the information being inserted into the article is clearly fake. I removed the Care of Cats had no reference to the Cabbit in it, but I could be wrong with a google check, until I get the 1959 copy in my hands, but information being inserted is being used to portray a myth as fact. While not exactly a major myth, cabbits have been popping up from time to time in various mediums including pot shots on similar ones being referenced to in the Simpsons. While Tenchi Muyo is the main show which featured a cabbit, the cabbit myth has been around since the 1930s. Also a personal webpage is actually better then the Wiki, but has at least one source from a paper about it and plenty of details. [36] The Cabbit myth is an old one, but as a hoax or myth it is a notable hoax and not one which should be labeled otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it appears in pop culture and what-not as often as you say, I'll vote Keep. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:00, 31 May 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. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pendleton Whisky[edit]

Pendleton Whisky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Very few reliable sources exist for the product. I would suggest incorporating the article's content into a new article, Hood River Distillers. yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect. If somebody wants to start Hood River Distillers, I agree, this could be rolled into that article and turned into a redirect. But absent that article, I can't support deletion. There are plenty of other sources, including this one which discusses how the Pendleton Roundup has played a role in making it the #1 Canadian Whisky sold in Oregon. -Pete (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic has received a great deal of coverage in the East Oregonian (See: Google News search); examples include: [37], [38] (there's many more). Importantly, the topic has also received regional coverage in The Portland Business Journal: Article: A premium wager. Also, since there's currently no Hood River Distillers article, a merge would be contingent on this new article being created, which there's no guarantee of actually occurring. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely deserves to be kept meets the criteria Finnegas (talk) 18:51, 4 June 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, majority was keep + 'short' is not a solid reason for deletion. Expanding on article would be good. WP:SNOW (Non-admin closure)--Chip123456 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Davies[edit]

Keith Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

very short Calu2000 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gene93k, shortness is not a deletion rationale. Looking at possible deletion rationales, the articles passes notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN particularly when coupled with related reasons why he has been in the news (although there of course shouldn't be undue weight on this in the article). There's room for improvement but I'm not sure that the Arnaud Amalric approach to article improvement works. Bencherlite^Talk 20:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - Absolutely no valid rationale has been stated to remove the article from the encyclopedia, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—No reason to delete + his status as a member of the National Assembly for Wales indicates that he is pretty clearly notable. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above welsh (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I would have expected MLAs, like MPs to be notable as a matter of course, unlike lcoal councillors. This article may be a stub, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 2 June 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. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maksymilian Leonid Dubrawski[edit]

Maksymilian Leonid Dubrawski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I'm a little unclear on this one insofar as notability is concerned. There are what appear to be primary sources, but I'm not turning up secondary sources for this Catholic bishop; the lack thereof tells me that Fr. Dubrawski does not meet WP:BLP. It's granted, I could be wrong, but this is what I'm seeing here. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm pretty sure that it doesn't meet WP:BLP, and I couldn't find any reliable sources in a quick Google search. yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 17:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A quick Google search in the Latin alphabet is certainly insufficient to determine that a Ukrainian bishop is not notable. Of the several potential spellings and variants of the name that I have looked for the most commonly used seems to be

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

I can understand enough Ukrainian to see that nearly all of those results are writing about the bishop of Kamyanets-Podilsky, not anyone else with the same name. Quite a few Polish-language sources (which I can read fluently) are found under the name

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

Other forms of the name that turn up a few sources are

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, which also catches "Leon Maksymilian Dubrawski" and "Leonard Maksymilian Dubrawski",

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

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

In all of these searches it needs to be noted that Ukrainian and Polish are inflected languages, and I have only searched for appearances of the name in the nominative case, so I have not found occurences where Dubrawski's name appears in other cases. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I was going to say "keep" on the basis that Catholic Bishops are inevitably notable. Are there not directories of the Catholic hierarchy that could verify what post he holds? If the article is verifiable, i.e. if Phil Bridger is right in saying he does hold the post claimed it is certainly a keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has a reference to an English-language source confirming that the subject is the bishop of Kamyanets-Podilsky. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of continuing consensus that verified RC bishops (& similarly of other territorial-vased churches) are notable . DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bishops of major denominations are usually considered to be notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:01, 5 June 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 Ben M. Baglio per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Diaries[edit]

Dolphin Diaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage for this book series. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ben M. Baglio. I tried to see if there was enough coverage for this series and other than one review by The Spectator, there hasn't been very much attention for this series. I do note that the author's page needs work, but I'm pulling up some sources for him to show that he might have enough notability to warrant having an article. (Even if it's only because his work as a whole shows just enough notability, but not enough for individual pages for each series.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 May 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, →TSU ^tp* 15:56, 29 May 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) 01:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Weigh In EP[edit]

The Weigh In EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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