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) 23:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gits[edit]

The Gits (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 cites one (broken and non-independent) source. It reads as original research from beginning to end, as none of it is cited to sources. Notability appears to be claimed by inheritance only. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Slam dunk easy keep; lead singer Mia Zapata was murdered and the subject of extensive news coverage, band members later formed the Dancing French Liberals of '48. A major, major band from the 1990s "second wave" of American punk rock. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THIS INTERVIEW with Gits member Steve Moriarty on the site of the Spanish rock mag Popular 1 notes they gave The Gits the cover of their February 2009 issue. Carrite (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band was the subject of a 2008 DOCUMENTARY FILM. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an MTV PIECE from 2003 on the arrest of a guy in connection with the Mia killing. Carrite (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's significant coverage of the band in Cinderella's Big Score: Women Of The Punk And Indie Underground by Maria Raha. Carrite (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gits lead singer Mia Zapata was the subject of AN ACADEMIC THESIS IN WOMEN'S HISTORY called Heavy Angel: Mia Zapata : Exploring the living memory of a Seattle legend by Margaret O'Neil Girouard of Sarah Lawrence College. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This piece from the SEATTLE TIMES (the main newspaper in Seattle) reviews the documentary film and gives some indication of the band's cultural importance to the Pacific Northwest. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a piece from THE SEATTLE WEEKLY, which is a pretty huge publication in its own right. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's coverage in ROLLING STONE, which should count as a so-called "Reliable Source" around these parts. Carrite (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER is another mass circulation mainstream daily newspaper. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And so on and so forth... Carrite (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carrite and per sources added to article since the nomination. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Have added ten add'l inline WP:RS refs--books, newspapers, magazine, websites--and there are certainly others. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. It's not clear that WP:BAND is met and the well-sourced material is almost entirely about the murder of the lead singer. The material would be more appropriate at Mia Zapata and much of it is already there. Dricherby (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:BAND is met by multiple releases on C/Z as well as simple GNG satisfaction by sources above. Mia was quite a little spitfire back in the day, she is still missed sorely. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep per WP:BAND and the sources added by User:Carrite. I find User:Dricherby's rationale above incorrect, since at least half the sources listed by Carrite are about the band, not Zapata. Replicating some of the information is acceptable - there should be some background about the band in the Zapata article, and some extra focus on Zapata in the band article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep Reliable sources abound, notability is clear. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:18, 9 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 Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JobServe[edit]

JobServe (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 notability for this company. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to be a major recruitment website, with a decent amount of detail in the articles at [1], [2], [3] and possibly [4] (behind a paywall so I can't see it). Dricherby (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Did the nom look anywhere but in the existing inadequate article? I found 2001 [article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4480528/Jobserve-in-the-dock.html] in the Telegraph , and their earlier article on an unrelated issue with the company listed there at the bottom also,as well as [5], and [6] * [7] are I think fairly reliable also, though interview-based.. Most of the several hundred other refs in Google News are undisguised [8] or disguised [9] advertisements. Additional, the site's owner is apparent on the Rich List, & the site was "the first dot com company to be awarded a Queens Award for excellence. [10]. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I did. Geez. Do you honestly think that "I found no notability" means "I found no notability in the article"? SL93 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and (to nom), perhaps consider withdrawing. Topic passes WP:GNG:

• Jobserve in the dock - Telegraph
• Big day for job hunters as JobServe Live hits down (From Daily Echo)
• Tiptree, Great Totham: 'I'm a dot.com millionaire!' (From Brentwood Weekly News)
• "Sunday Times Rich List - Jobserve hits £100m". Contractor UK. May 13, 2004. Retrieved May 7, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. And, since I'm being oversensitive to people being anywhere near uncivil today (I admit it), I would like to politely remind User:DGG that it is better-faith to assume that the nominator's WP:BEFORE was unsuccessful than to assume that they failed to do it, unless they have a history of it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment: Also, although the sources have been added, the article's current state is really WP:UGLY. That thing needs a LOT of work. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:33, 7 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. I'm not sure if this would make a useful redirect or not but if somebody wants to recreate this as a redirect then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindle Fire Rooting[edit]

Kindle Fire Rooting (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)

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Was already improperly speedy deleted, sending to AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as the nominator says, WP is not a how-to guide. BTW, that speedy was not improper - the version deleted in that manner was nothing but a list of external links. LadyofShalott 22:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Will strike that word. Looking back, I could have sworn it said something different than it does now, ie "how to guide" as rationale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And I was right, but it was for the redirect. See [11]. Apologies for the confusion. 22:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If the links are from WP:RS, they can be used as references for Rooting (Android OS). Scopecreep (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm not against an article on rooting the Kindle. However this is unencyclopedic and shows no sign of being recoverable. It's vague, fragmentary, has no encyclopedic description of rooting and the only half-decent content it does have is too close to HOWTO. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is a infant article that has many topics however, has not much attention. If more attention was given, this article would be better off than one editor just editing the whole thing. User:Atifniyaz (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to, and information regarding the rooting process of the Kindle Fire is not essential to Wikipedia's mission. It is not encyclopedic in nature. Even if the article was written according to the MoS, it should still not be considered for inclusion. Dylanstaley (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and then redirect to Rooting (Android OS). We aren't a howto. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this should survive as a redirect, it ought to be Kindle rooting, for capitalisation. Also how many countries have it branded as the "Kindle Fire"? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Nuke the article and redirect users to Rooting (Android OS). This is crafted as a how-to guide, and the only salvageable information here is that the Kindle can be rooted. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 00:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I like NINTENDUDE's suggestion of redirect to Rooting (Android OS), personally. Disavian (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be an acceptable alternative for this one. As for the redirect Kindle Fire Rooting Guide, a delete would be more in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 to redirct Ywarnier —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete WP:HOWTO. The only workable piece is copied from Rooting (Android OS). --Kvng (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to the closing admin: - see the opinion left on the AfD talk page by an IP editor. LadyofShalott 18:57, 13 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 the page deleted by author.  thesimsmania  17:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sladden[edit]

Jeff Sladden (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)

Sourced BLP but linked to the websites made by this guy, that are not independent or notable.  thesimsmania  21:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found one source from a press agency but not nearly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Dricherby (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , speedy if another admin agrees with me. Pure promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under ((dg-g11)) I've had the guy contact me on my talkpage asking me how to request the page is deleted as the article is inaccurate.  thesimsmania  17:06, 7 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 speedy delete. 17:40, 10 May 2012 Smalljim (talk | contribs | block) deleted page The Legacy Movement (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy Movement[edit]

The Legacy Movement (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 subject relating to the intersection of religion and retailing. My attempt to post a Speedy Delete was repelled, so I am taking it to a wider forum for discussion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search in Reliable Sources found absolutely nothing, so this fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. First Light (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as another business that sells stuff. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Fails WP:CORP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing anything that establishes notability. noq (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability per WP:CORP or any other criteria. West Eddy (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there are a few sources at Google news that could be added, but I'm unsure whether it's worth a crack at rescue. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable clothing company. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notability lacking. Neutrality^talk 15:39, 10 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 70s (TV series)[edit]

The 70s (TV series) (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. Non-notable television series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a notable, serious, television documentary series broadcast nationally in the UK by the BBC during primetime. It has an IMDb article and its narrator is a notable historian who has a Wikipedia article. I cannot understand why anyone would think it is not notable. The article needs improving, which I expected to be done by viewers. The shortness of the article is a reason to expand it, not to delete it. Jim Michael (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. You are a lazy nominator. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also misused a speedy deletion tag on this article earlier. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point: of the sources you give, the Radio Times is published by the BBC so not really suitable. But that hardly weakens your point! Dricherby (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true, the Radio Times is independent because the BBC sold it in 2011[19][20]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as keep, since SL93's sources have unquestionably established notability and no other argument for deletion remains.—S Marshall T/C 21:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable as per reviews I've just added.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per prior comments.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The arguments for keeping are convincing, the argument for deletion certainly isn't. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep — Notable topic. E.g. The 70s shows flare with 2.7 million viewers, The Guardian, 17 April 2012. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a BBC2 series, the 4th most watched programme on the channel w/e 29/4/2012 with 2.58 million viewers. [21] Why on earth would you want to delete the entry?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs)
• Keep, Very notable TV series, and from the amount of comments it's easy to say that the article should be kept.--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:19, 11 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 speedy delete. CSD G11. While the article is only borderline promotional, by deleting it this way a new article can be written that won't be subject to CSD G4. If somebody still wishes to try and fix this one, I'll be glad to userfy it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Gyan Foundation[edit]

Tej Gyan Foundation (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)

A shameless dollop of WP:OR and promotion, concerning a non-notable organization, supported by primary/unreliable sources and WP:SYNTH. Pol430 talk to me 11:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Encourage author to find better refs. Seems like the author is willing to do what it takes to fix the article. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'll try to fix it if it's fixable. But for that I need to understand the specifics of each problem posited here:

1. A shameless dollop of WP:OR
2. promotion
3. non-notable organisation in whose eyes? How many people out of our over six billion must consider it notable for you guys to agree that it is?
4. which are the unreliable sources (except perhaps the two primary ones)?
5. in what way does the article employ WP:SYNTH?

Knowing how busy everyone is, how can I get help to understand these issues for this specific article?

Cneeds (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you need answers then either take the time to read the rules and fix your article, or email me. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hg, I will email you next week as I am travelling at present. I have read all the relevant rules but will do so again to refresh and reflect on these specific points. Cneeds (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article needs cleanup, not deletion. I'm too tired to do anything much tonight, but quick comments on those five points:

1. Original research is basically any claim that isn't directly supported by reliable sources (see also WP:Verifiability). Specifically, that whole bit about the meaning of Tejgyan - since Tej is apparently a made-up word, I think the best you can do is cite a primary source (i.e. something by Sirshree) to verify what he says it means, and cut out all the rest. Also, the story of Sirshree's spiritual journey; has this ever been covered by independent sources?
2. The function of any article is to provide information about the subject, not to promote it. As a general rule, text copied straight from the organisation's website is rarely suitable. If you have a close connection to the company, you'll need to read WP:Conflict of interest. The tone of this article is an issue as well. It's important to try to discuss spiritual matters without lapsing into a spiritual style of language. Cold, hard facts are needed. What is a 'highly evolved society' and how does one go about creating it? What does this organisation actually do?
3. WP:Notability isn't about how many people know about it, but how much coverage it has from independent, reliable sources. It seems to pass the test, as far as I'm concerned.
4. I can't see any unreliable sources, but plenty of irrelevant ones. Sources are generally used to verify statements, not provide additional tangentially-related information. That's what the Further reading section is for. Primary sources are fine for verifying the company's motto and mission statement.
5. Synthesis is just a type of original research. Again, just tie the meaning of Tejgyan to concrete sources or get rid of it.

Hope this helps. I'm going to bed. DoctorKubla (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DoctorKubla for your insightful feedback and assistance. I hope (with help from Hg) that I will be able to correct all the issues within a week or so (when my travels will hopefully be over). Cneeds (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "I can't see any unreliable sources" — the India enews source is a press release and there were several more at the time of nomination. The only reliable source that gives significant coverage of the foundation is this one. I would say this one is of dubious reliablity. The others are either primary sources (and therefore unsuitable for conferring notability) or irrelevant—the books do not appear to discuss the foundation itself. Pol430 talk to me 17:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just went through and cleared out the useless bits (e.g., references that don't actually mention the subject, links to bookstores, non-existent categories, etc.) to see what was left. All I found was a lot of twaddle about "knowledge beyond carnal knowledge and ignorance, beyond knowing or not knowing" and such-like. The only solid cite I found was SRK's Happy Thoughts from The Indian Express, and even that isn't even about the Foundation as such. I don't have a high opinion of the one from The Times of India as it doesn't have an author, which usually means it's just a reprint from somewhere else (such as a wire story or press release). Zero Google News hits and zero Google News Archive hits. Virtually all the Google Book hits appear to be by the founder of the group, which makes them self-published sources. I'm not impressed by what I've been able to find (little to nothing), and this article is such a load of advertising ("Well-known personalities from all walks of life… have participated in programs organized by the foundation") and double-talk ("the mission of creating a highly evolved society through all-round self development of every individual that transforms all the facets of their lives") that it doesn't help, but rather, makes the situation look even worse.

  If you really feel the need to try to save this sad thing, start with a completely blank slate, and then add only information you can get from secondary reliable sources. My guess, based on my searching: you won't find enough to support an article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 10:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by relister: my aim in relisting is to give the article author a little time to improve the article following advice given here. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I consider it unfixable. The only way to possibly do it would be to start over. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the last person to edit the article, I couldn't agree more with this assessment. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dori. mabdul 19:24, 10 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. Neutrality^talk 15:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Shane[edit]

Marc Shane (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)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG. Article has been speedy deleted and recreated without modification multiple times. West Eddy (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt An unusually extended, yet typically sad, autobio. Extra points for sentence fragment in lead. Why do people insist on embarassing themselves this way? EEng (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There need be no modification as the information stated is accurate.

• Delete As above, no indication of meeting WP:GNG - none of the supplied references actually refer to him at all. noq (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon360 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those documents would help your cause. We need evidence of notability not of your name - please read that link and also WP:Autobiography. noq (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's WP:BIO standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Given the repeated creations protect against future recreation. QU ^TalkQu 20:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Falls far short of meeting WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 6 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. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuelmyblog[edit]

Fuelmyblog (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)

Only one reliable source is provided, and I can't find anymore. Does not meet the general notability guideline or the website specific guideline. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Added two more reliable sources to help with this discussion. Warebloke (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2012 (GMT)[reply]

• Weak keep per Warebloke's sources. They aren't brilliant, but they just scrape a pass of WP:GNG in my book. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG; not terribly important but scrapes notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this site has existed for almost 5 years yet the coverage is relatively little in that time of existence. Most coverage is small. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  04:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Topic meets WP:GNG per The Sun article and The Guardian article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun article is clearly either an advertisement or an editorial. Note the last sentence, "If you have a product or service you really want to see talked about on the web, this is one click that will surely pay dividends." That is a direct pitch for the service. No reliable newspaper editor would consider that a piece of factual reporting. Thus, it's either not a reliable source, or not independent. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I'm sorry Northamerica100 but I'm forced to agree with Qwyrxian about the first source you provided. Also, the second appears to be a blog and neither of them have bylines. I was almost fooled by the second one though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like WP:PROMOTION to me. This sounds like a Web directory based on voting or clickthroughs, or perhaps it belongs in Methods of website linking. But being the Technorati for the UK according to press releases, interviews, blogs, and other WP:NOTRELIABLE sources doesn't justify FuelMyBlog getting it's own article. --Joshuaism (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Colapeninsula SpeakFree 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakFree (talk • contribs)

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. -Scottywong| talk _ 16:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Maniac Agenda[edit]

The Maniac Agenda (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:BAND Yasht101 11:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a rescue operation going on on this article. Help would probably be appreciated. Peridon (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are not WP:RS or not independent or do not support claim or not about band. Blogs, press releases, social media. Nothing better found. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources added with publisher information with the piece of work itself that supports claim. Maniacman215 (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG.  Gongshow ^Talk 19:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the sources in the "References" Section appears to be from VH1, which is independent enough (VH1 not being itself owned by the band). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. The VH1 reference is a press release that doesn't even mention them. SpeakFree 12:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakFree (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Not notable in themselves, the VH1 reference is to an accomplishment by a group member which predates the group's existence by four years; no other reliable sources to meet the GNG or WP:MUSIC 1, no indication they satisfy any other criteria. Seems to be very early days in their career and they should have no trouble passing WP:BAND a bit further down the line. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 14:46, 15 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)} 18:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devdoot (film)[edit]

Devdoot (film) (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 notability for this film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Google searches on "देबदुत" and "debdut" turn up next to nothing, and there appears to be nothing about the film, or indeed any of the actors, on [22]. It would be easier to form an idea of notability if there were some indication of when the film was released (if it's more than 10 years old there's not likely to be much about it online anyway), but prima facie this is not a notable production. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, but leave open the possibility of recreation should reliable sources be found at a later date. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:14, 3 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:22, 6 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.  Sandstein  05:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quinvigesimal[edit]

Quinvigesimal (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)

It's not clear, to me, whether a base 25 numbering system would pass our requirements - but on account that the only application of this numbering system is found in Riven, I'm thinking it does not seem to meet our notability requirements, as it seemingly exists only in a single video game. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google gives only four hits on the entire web so not notable. Dricherby (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This base has no particular mathematical significance and the article itself states explicitly that it has no historical significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One or two sentences (at Riven) should be it. Deleet teh articel. OGM I sukc ta typign todya ;) - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No really, in base 25, you can't tell by the units digit if a number is odd or even, and 1/2 is a repeating quinvigesimal fraction. That's enough proof that the system is useless for general use, more so than base 8, base 12, base 20 etc.
  • The standard is notability, not usefulness, ability to determine whether a number is odd or convenience of expressing 1/2. (And, by essentially the same argument, decimal is useless because it makes it hard to determine whether a number is a multiple of 3 and hard to write 1/3.) Dricherby (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, so the standard is notability, not ability. So what? 1st, check out some formulae. You'll find more with a factor 2 or 1/2 than with a factor 3 or 1/3. So base-25 (or any odd base) is less useful than an even base. So any odd base will have serious issues in real life (2nd, Which in turn will lower its chances to become notable). 3rd, there is no single system which will not fail on any number; in fact, all systems will fail on (in a math sense)almost all numbers. So you cannot say base-25 is no worse than base 10, because if you did, no base system would be better than any other. All your base, - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Feh. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:57, 8 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluigi Quinzi[edit]

Gianluigi Quinzi (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)

Does not meet notability requirements per WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. West Eddy (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hasn't won a tournament at the senior level. As the player has just started his pro career, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON Bgwhite (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Player does not need to have won a senior tournament. Per WP:TENNIS it is sufficient if the player has participated in at least one main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments. But for this player I can only find participation in Futures tournament and for that reason it does not meet notability requirements. WP:TOOSOON indeed.--Wolbo (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to see here. As stated above no notability has been shown to exist. I see nothing for Davis Cup either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 7 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 (closing early). Neutrality^talk 15:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Robin Danger Action School of Culinary Excellence[edit]

The Robin Danger Action School of Culinary Excellence (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)

No indication of notability per WP:MOVIE or any other criteria. West Eddy (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; nothing in the way of notability at this point. Sounds like a fun movie, though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Puffery for some students' showreel. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Despite this article by a 4-life-edits-ever editor being sent to AFD just three minutes after being created, a lack of coverage in reliable sources has the topic failing WP:GNG and WP:NF. While it is quite rare that a student's thesis film is found notable, with screenings at festivals sourcability could change. Until then though, I think we'd be okay with a return to its author as a user's in-work draft. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 6 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Digital[edit]

Real Digital (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 platform has missed many launch dates dating to around 2008. no concrete evidence it will ever launch. most info is provided by sauces connected to article content. fails wp:crystal in a big way should either by userfy to creators userspace or erased. they did test a signal for a while however this vanished in march and has not returned. I still say it fails wp:crystal Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sauces, tasty... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.. Company holds a valid Ofcom broadcasting licence and is still trading normally on Companies House(additionally the Companies House data shows that the company became 'REAL Digital' in July 2009 so it would have been impossible for it to miss a launch date in 2008 as claimed). The article is backed up by links to a variety of reputable third party sources including Digital Spy, What Satellite Magazine and Companies House data.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ComeOnEngland (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. oh really then why has there former now disqualified director been posting on the digital spy forum under the name rapture tv a former company he was involved in claiming launch dates since 2008 until they blocked him. Just cause they changed the name officially in 2009 dont mean they have not missed dates. Sky comes to mind the official company name is bskyb however they trade as sky. Maybe do some research before comment in future. Also the licence list means nothing its littered with channels that have never launched(Ruth-2013 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. According to their website, the service has launched and boxes are available for sale.[23][24] However there hasn't been any independent coverage for over six months, which includes their launch and suspension of service. The few reliable articles included cover their conditional ability to offer Sky Sports, a presentation made at a trade expo and a report from Wotsat which didn't come true. Based on that, I don't think Real Digital currently passes the notability guidelines, although it could do in the future so userfication would be a good option. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has sufficient refs. Notability isn't temporary and isn't contingent on the service being a success. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.Point is this article should never have been made because its not notable yet,never has been notable and wont be unless the service has a full launch. Your not involved with the subject are you? (Ruth-2013 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep System most certainly exists, boxes have been sold and there has been a LOT of media coverage in reputable industry publications. Very many articles on here exist on things which haven't been launched (movies, books, albums) so that's not really a valid point. The article is extensively sourced, more so than most on here. --Kiand (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.Please provide 100% hard proof of a normal customer who has a box. You can't can you! I suspect we wont get a valid discussion on this subject because it looks to me as though employees of real digital are posting which I suspect the last two keep posters are.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Going from your attempted (reverted) edits to the article and, now, repeated attempts to claim everyone supporting a keep is an employee (of a company you claim has gone out of existance and hence has no employees??), its become obvious that this is a completely bad faith nomination. Suggesting a speedy keep decision. --Kiand (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No its not It is my belief its gone or on its way out due to the fact its satellite signal vanished months ago and was meant to be back 7 days later which has been and long gone with no return. Maybe you should research before posting if you did not know but I suspect you did as I believe you a real digital employee. Imagine if sky shut down there epg there would be a lot of very annoyed customers this alone should make people realize there is no prospect here and wp:Crystal applies. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL does not deal with anything in this case. The article is sourced and verifiable. --Kiand (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No its not! No verification of a date epg services will resume in the article anywhere and I challenge you to find it! The only one you will find is a historical date and its still not back. wp:cyrstal therefore applies. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep. To me, 18 sources and 2 template links look notable. It is a short-ish Article though, so perhaps we should expand it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Many of the reference come from Real Digital's website and Facebook page, without them the article would likely be considered original research. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage from reliable independent sources. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Yeah, most of the available sources on this are pretty press-releasey, but if they were actually broadcasting for half a year as the dates in the article indicate now that seems sufficient to me; notability is not temporary. It actually seems notable to me as such a tremendous PR bubble and flop and the article should convey what a cluster▒▒▒▒ it was. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:14, 15 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 speedy delete. The copyright violation required a quick close before the discussion could run its course. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Woods (professor)[edit]

Tim Woods (professor) (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 attempted creating this page with Twinkle, but apparently one of my searches was on the spam blacklist, so the page couldn't be saved. Regardless, this professor does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for biographies. A search using this tool for "Tim Woods" Aberystwyth University only retrieves works by Woods, and searches on the same tool for "Timothy Woods" Aberystwyth University or "Timothy S. Woods" Aberystwyth University retrieve nothing. I also checked Google News and Google News archives using the same search terms, all to no avail. On the description page of the sole image used in the article, the author of the article has identified himself as Woods, making Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest relevant policies to consider as well. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The things you stated Chris (&'Gene93k') it isn't entirely true, and I can't understand why are you saying all of those things... If you had really 'googled': Tim Woods Aberystwyth University or Timothy Woods Aberystwyth University, you'll get this on the front of the page: Aberystwyth University - Woods, Tim www.aber.ac.uk › ... › Staff - Tim has been the organiser of several conferences at Aberystwyth University, including the the British Association of American Studies 2003 Conference at ...

Also wiki states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)section 5 you will see. 5. "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." He is a well known academic, he happens to be the Dean of Arts at Aberystwyth University, Wales- UK.

My only mistake was that I didn't publish it(contribute the article) under the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) because I didn't know how to do that...maybe you can show me. But please have a look at it:

Check this out: http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/english/staff/tww/

--KaterinaM 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Kat2012 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For purposes of this discussion, I'd say to delete for failing the general notability guidelines due to lack of secondary sourcing. The bigger concern right now is that the article is a copyright violation: the text is from Woods' CV page, which is legended "©2012 Aberystwyth University"—and for which I'm prepared to speedy delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Ford[edit]

Leo Ford (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)

Article fails on all three bullet points for WP:PORNBIO: No significant awards to his name, no unique contributions, and no notable mentions in mainstream media.

• Keep - satisfies WP:BASIC - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Several independent published sources. Connection to the Smiths makes this an interesting article. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this article. Ground Zero | t 17:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The connection to The Smiths appears to be debunked per the talk page so I've deleted it. Also, there's no evidence that the depth of coverage in any of these sources is substantial. None of the sources are online, and the only link is dead, so the extent of the coverage in the sources cannot be verified. Judging the by the titles of the sources, my guess would be that the coverage isn't centered around Leo Ford. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The extent of coverage in the sources can absolutely be verified. Publishers and ISBN numbers are provided. You have just chosen not to leave your computer to verify the sources. There is nothing at all in WP:RS that requires that sources be online to be reliable: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." Wikipedia:Offline sources says (in bold text, no less), "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." In fact, you should not believe everything you read on the internet. An AfD cannot rely on your "guess" about what the sources say or don't say. Ground Zero | t 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Just like an AfD cannot rely on my "guess" about what the sources say, an AfD cannot rely on your "assumption" what they say either. This is the trouble with printed media when it doesn't have an online link such as to Google books. Many articles when they do quote printed media include the relevant quoted material to account for this quandary, which none of these cites do. Only two of them even mention the page, so these cites wouldn't even be acceptable in a traditional bibliography. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: If you disagree with what WP:RS and Wikipedia:Offline sources say about offline sources, you can propose changes to those policies on the appropriate talk changes and see if you can get consensus for the changes. Until that happens, offline sources remain valid, notwithstanding your preference for online sources. If you think the sources don't say what they are purported to say, Wikipedia:Offline sources has this advice: "Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source. They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source. Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy. Even if the library doesn't have that particular book or journal article, it might be available through interlibrary loan. Also consider posting an inquiry on the relevant WikiProject, because some interested editors might have a copy of that source. The volunteers at WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help you coordinate your search." Ground Zero | t 09:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. First of all, essays are not Wikipedia policy. WP:OFFLINE is not policy; Wikipedia does not require you to go to a library to challenge an offline source. Verifiability is policy however, and offline sources are not exempt. I never challenged these offline sources as being in bad faith (even though that's irrelevant), I challenged them as being unverifiable because they are. They are poor citations; had these citations been crafted in a more verifiable manner such as including the text of the applicable reference then they wouldn't be an issue. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Yes, Verifiability is policy and it allows offline sources, see WP:Verifiability#Access_to_sources: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." --Cavarrone (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: I find it bizarre that you removed the reference to a published source, Simon Goddard's book, and commented "Per Talk page cite". The "talk page cite to which you refer is a fan site. ("This site is unofficial and not affiliated with Morrissey. Morrissey-solo was created by me (davidt / David Tseng / david@morrissey-solo.com) and I have been maintaining the site with help from moderators and users that contribute to the site. I have been a fan since 1986 when I was a junior in high school. I'm currently a web developer working at Yahoo! and live in Los Angeles.") A fan site is not a reliable source. Ground Zero | t 01:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. You are correct, I mistook that source as being maintained by official representatives. It's not and therefore should not be considered reliable. I did remove the text again because it is a rumor. I'll elaborate further on the article's talk page, as that is the more appropriate place to discuss this matter. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 14:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

WP:PORNBIO, despite having a nice all-caps redirect, has not been established as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and quite properly so. To establish PORNBIO as policy would be to enshrine a bias against inclusion of information about gay porn and to establish a bias in favor of heterosexual porn. To see why this is so, one need only look at the current (re-!)nomination. Leo Ford was one of the most prominent gay porn actors of the 1980s. He died in 1991. PORNBIO would have us judge his importance based on whether he won a "significant industry award", such as the AVN award. Yet the GayVN Awards weren't started until 1998, eight years after his death. It's like assessing the importance of silent movie stars based on how many Academy Awards they won. Basing an assessment of importance on such industry awards introduces a bias towards inclusion of more recent actors, as the awards have multiplied and weren't given out (at all, let alone in great numbers) during the period of history we are interested in for this article. And a requirement that gay actors be featured multiple times in "mainstream" media again reinforces bias against appropriate coverage of gay subject matter: the correct criteria would be coverage in gay media (which of course Leo Ford had before his death), and in scholarly studies, or what passes for them, of gay pornography.

Is Leo Ford made "more notable" because he appeared in the first commercial production of a safe sex video? (Life Guard, 1985) (Escoffier, Jeffrey (2009), Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Running Press, p. 212) I don't particularly think so; he's notable because he was popular, but those who adhere to PORNBIO could assert—if they bother to do the research—that this is a unique contribution to a specific genre.

Is he more notable because Andy Warhol writes an unflattering review of a Leo Ford porn video in The Warhol Diaries? (Warhol, Andy (1989), The Andy Warhol Diaries, New York: Hachette, p. "Saturday, July 13, 1985") I don't particularly think so; he's notable because he was popular, but those who adhere to PORNBIO could possibly argue that it does. If they are aware of it, of course. But that's the problem: those doing the judging are unfamiliar with the subject matter, and haven't bothered doing the research they would need to do to make an informed decision about notability.

In a biography of Divine, Ford is described as the (then) "gay America's current wet dream. The six-foot, twenty-year-old blond was on exhibit everywhere: in gay movie theaters, on best-selling videos and in show-all magazine photo spreads. He was a highly marketable commodity as the most popular young stud in gay—and some bisexual—porno movies." (Jay, Bernard (1993), Not Simply Divine: Beneath the Make-Up, Above the Heels and Behind the Scenes with a Cult Superstar, New York: Fireside, p. 203) Does the fact that Ford was a sexual partner of a famous transvestite actor make him more notable. Well, arguably, though it doesn't seem to be taken into account by PORNBIO, but I would still suggest that it's Ford's ubiquity in the 1980s (as attested to by this passage) rather than that that would make Wikipedia a poorer reference if the information on him is censored out of it.

Does having an imdb page, such as this one, mean we should think more highly of an actor's notability? I think probably not, but the consequence of that is that Wikipedia will be a less informative reference source than is imdb.

Is Leo Ford more notable because such newspapers as the Bay Area Reporter and Frontiers covered his off-screen activities, such as fundraising for the KS Foundation? (see, for example, Allen White's profile, "Cover Story: Leo Ford" in the September 9, 1982 Bay Area Reporter). Does the inclusion of his September 1982 event at the Nob Hill Cinema ("porn sensation Leo Ford performed his erotic stage show with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to benefit the reprinting of the Sisters' War on VD pamphlet") indicate his relevance? (Román, David (1998), Acts of Intervention: Performance, Gay Culture, And AIDS, Indiana: Indiana University Press, pp. 14–5) Does the fact that his obituary appeared in The Advocate argue for his importance in gay culture? Yes, I think so; the difficulty being that people shooting "straight" from the hip—rather than having an informed opinion—about notability will be unfamiliar with the basic information needed for such an assessment.

As Ground Zero points out, there's no need for the application of a proposed, non-established guideline here in any case: the subject's notability is established by the "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" which were already cited when this nomination was made. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First of all, I'll dispel the fallacious claim that WP:PORNBIO is not an official guideline. It most certainly is, and has been for quite some time. The policy is currently being discussed in the talk pages, but that does not suspend the guideline. It will not be changed until there is a consensus agreement on a policy change, if there is any at all. Until then, WP:PORNBIO is the appropriate guideline to follow. Your issues with WP:PORNBIO should be discussed on the talk pages along with everyone else. Discussing them here is not constructive since there is already an ongoing community discussion on the policy page and it is also inappropriate since AfD discussions are not platforms to debate policies and guidelines.

• That being said, a pornographic actor doesn't need to satisfy all three WP:PORNBIO criteria, they only need to satisfy one. Leo Ford doesn't satisfy any of them. No awards, no unique contributions, no mainstream media features.
• Being popular doesn't make you notable. Being popular, being sourced, and being featured in sources makes you notable. I don't see any evidence of that for Leo Ford.
• The safe sex video you mentioned doesn't appear to be notable or significant. Life Guard (1985) has an IMDb page that doesn't mention Leo Ford and also has no description available.
• Having an IMDb page does not merit having a Wikipedia page. This is a common argument used for AfD discussions for non-notable actors and it is never successful. Wikipedia is not a specialized directory like IMDb and Wikipedia's purpose is not to replicate IMDb. IMDb does just fine at being IMDb.
• Leo Ford had a brief relationship with Divine, as is mentioned on his page. This appears to be Ford's only association with any sort of notability. I would suggest that this article be merged with Divine, but it's an incredibly insignificant part of his article. The only salvageable thing I can think of is a Redirect to Divine, but I don't really endorse that myself. I still think this page is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 00:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am generally in favor of tightening up the requirements for notability in this subject generally. But in this particular case, I think basic notability has been fully shown. The problem with those notable at the beginning of a field--before the later-customary ways of recognition become established--is an interesting one, & I don't remember it being raised in any context before. It will generally be taken care of once the historians & sociologists get to the subject, but in some areas that may be a long time coming. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per - wait for it - WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNORE. I propose that the argument raised above about the problems with WP:PORNBIO, especially the point about there having been no awards he could have won during his career, make it common sense to ignore WP:PORNBIO in this case. In my opinion, there's enough sourcing for him to satisfy (weakly) WP:GNG in any case. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Divine. The only legitimate claim to notability for this person comes from his association with the actor. There's nothing to indicate he was notable as a porn performer -- despite what Outerlimits claims, above, industry awards were given out for gay porn for most of Ford's career; for example, the XRCO gave awards for most of the 1980s, and AVN gave awards to gay porn beginning with 1985 releases (the GayVN name was created in 1998, but the awards existed for more than a decade before that. Industry "halls of fame" also recognize performers of the 1980s. The lack of recognition of Ford's work, by the porn industry itself, is a strong signal that he was not notable as a porn performer. Similarly, the extensive history of the genre cited in the article, Jeffrey Escoffier's Bigger Than Life, does not treat Ford as a performer of any significance, but has only a passing mention of him in a quotation from advertising copy for a film under discussion. The other book citations are even less consequential: one author saw him perform at a live sex show in San Francisco; Andy Warhol fell asleep watching one of his porn films. Nothing there resembling the "substantial" coverage required by the GNG. The urban legend that his butt appears on a record cover might be interesting, but it isn't enough to hang an article on, especially since it doesn't seem to have been considered substantial enough to mention in the article on the record itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just want to give this !vote a bump. I think it's the most compelling out of any comment so far and the additional research done was quite useful to back up the reasoning behind it. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 16:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily notable enough.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as far as I can see, a well-referenced article. Cavarrone (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not a real bio - it does not even contain the person's real name. This is just a shameless commercial plug to sell more movies. BO; talk 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What does using a pseudonym have to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 13 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 Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G5. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamists in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising[edit]

Islamists in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising (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 should be pretty cut-and-dried. User:Klavisioni, the page creator, is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of User:ChronicalUsual, a blocked editor who has created upwards of 60 socks now to continue his POV-pushing crusade in Syria-related topics. The only other substantial edits to this page were also made by socks (though one IP, User:149.154.159.142, remains officially unconfirmed). I would speedy this the way I've done other articles CU socks have created, but that IP user keeps deleting the speedy template claiming no one can prove he's the blocked user in question (CU uses an open proxy server to dodge potential rangeblocks and attempt to confound CheckUser, as administrators have noted previously). Anyway, the page is absolute POV bogus, it's almost entirely the work of a user editing in violation of a block, and it should be deleted posthaste. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Even tough most of the work seem to have been written by a banned user, it is still true and is sourced. Kudzu is member of a small group who is trying to edit out any mention of extremists islamists in the page related to the Syrian problem. The page is very relevant to the situation. If there is some problem with it fix it, but as a page it is fine and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving us ChronicalUsual's perspective, as usual. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 6 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Noutri[edit]

Ta Noutri (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)

Notability, seems to be a defunct yahoo group with no sources, see also Sylvia Etienne In ictu oculi (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't even find evidence that this site exists. Nothing pops up on Google. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 16:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The website's dead, occupied by a domain squatter; I can't find any evidence of notability. Dricherby (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we're given no reason why this is a notable website. Ducknish (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that this site/organisation ever achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable. The official website doesn't exist as well. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:links are dead, if they ever lived. Abulubada (Abulubada) 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ta Noutri used to be a website, not just yahoo group, but it does not exists any more... it had transformed into SEMAT Ankhty. I planned to recreate it and move on new article-name, I just didn't have time to do it.
  Long story short, I do not have (as author of the article) any objection against deletion. It needs to be completely rewrited and renamed... do it from here or from zero doesn't matter.
  Therefore voting is not necesary... just do it.
  The-first-author-of-the-article 20:42, 11 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. Regardless of where one lives, Notability for Wikipedia purposes is based on available independent, reliable sources, and if there are none, then the topic generally does not belong here. Rlendog (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky blue mall[edit]

Pinky blue mall (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 mall by SPA. I've already left them a message about their username, but regardless, Wikipedia isn't a business directory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the mall. Can't see its significance, it is just another mall. Not to mention the content seems complete copy-paste from some source. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 14:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unsourced article. There is no indication that this is considered a major mall by the standards of Lagos, one of the largest urban areas in the world. It sounds more like the equivalent of a strip mall in the U.S. And even for major malls, Wikipedia would not include a store-by-store description of the product lines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Seems to me as a spam. There is really very few, poor sources about this article. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My searches for reliable sources got only one passing mention. A Google Images search suggests that Pinky Blue is medium to large indoor mall, but I can find nothing verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont delete . The article has been edited accordingly. There isnt much information generally about Nigerian shopping malls or complexes on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetotravel2012 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete . if you do not live in Lagos, Nigeria, you cannot authoritatively access what mall is notable or not.I live in Lagos!(Franky2001talk

• What we use to determine what is notable and not notable is WP:CORP, which is the guideline for determining which companies should be included, and which aren't. If you can demonstrate how this passes this criteria, as we expect of all companies, please tell us. If it doesn't, then it is generally not considered "notable" for the purpose of including an article on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The topic at this time appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. After several searches, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this article, but it is only a passing single mention of the mall. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:42, 8 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford murders[edit]

Bradford murders (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 thinking this is a case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I appreciate there's a case to argue that serial killers are inherently notable, but I honestly do not believe this one is. There was one flurry of coverage at the time of the arrest, and a second when he pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Nothing else besides. There's no WP:PERSISTENCE. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Griffiths, made during the height of the news hype, produced an overwhelming keep consensus. I'd suggest that was directly influenced by the temporary press coverage at the time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The article is well sourced and the extensive coverage in UK national media clearly establishes notability. I do not believe that WP:NEWSPAPER applies, as the article reads to me as a non-sensational summary of a historical event, not a newspaper report about the latest happenings. Dricherby (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's perfectly well enough wirtten, but is it notable? That is the question here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely! As per WP:GNG, the case "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (multiple articles in UK national media discussing solely this case). As per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, ongoing coverage is not necessary to maintain notability. Dricherby (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, a quick Google News search for "Stephen Griffiths Bradford" gives references this year: an article in the Daily Mail about the Griffiths slashing his wrists in prison (2012-01-22) and a BBC piece about policing prostitution in Bradford, with Griffiths mentioned in the introduction. I think this satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE. Dricherby (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very heavily covered in the media and therefore clearly notable. A quick read of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER will establish that this article does not fall within its scope. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was the top news story at the time for several days before and after the arrest and trial. This is more than routine coverage, so meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NTEMP: If something was ever notable then it's notable forever, and this is not a biography.—S Marshall T/C 20:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Benchmark for news-based articles is WP:EVENT, and this passes it easily. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per GNG and EVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is about what a serial killer did. I am glad to say that such are rare in UK, so that this is notable. However the article needs to be recast inot something more than a series of news clips. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 12 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eirik Mortensen[edit]

Eirik Mortensen (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)

Contested PROD, by the author Theprestige82 (talk · contribs) with no rationale given. The article is a possible hoax but was declined as speedy G3. Nevertheless the player has not made his first team debut therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as admin who contested the speedy (not a blatant hoax) - definitely non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it's not a hoax then it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a Norwegian, I have really tried to find out if this is a hoax or not. According to the list at the bottom of this article, Eirik Mortensen was not one of 75 Norwegian footballers below 22 years playing abroad (including amateur level) per February 2012. This article from a random Norwegian localpaper from March 2011, tells me that there had been a Eirik Mortensen in Japan from September 2010 till that date, but nothing about him playing football. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks suspiciously like a hoax to me, but in any case it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 19:37, 6 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 Speedy non-controversial close, redirect page to existing article. matt (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Council election, 2012[edit]

Reading Council election, 2012 (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 duplicate page, there is another page with election results available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Borough_Council_election,_2012 ReadingLad (talk) 19:20, 5 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djplaydoh weir[edit]

Djplaydoh weir (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)

Lack of notability as per GNG (and possibly also fails WP:MUSIC), I cannot find an independent source by Google search. Article initially was nominated for BLPPROD, after which a source was inserted (which was from Facebook). Also possible autobiography/COI. jfd34 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Probably also a hoax as the article's creator has inserted an introduction about a fictional Japanese character who "developed strange powers which have thought to have been derived from chronic gayness". Dricherby (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not sure this article is about a manga character or a DJ, or a DJ named after the character. Search for either doesn't provide any content for an encyclopedia. The only reference provided is a facebook page, and the article is created by a user with the same name. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 15:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per Samar. I can't imagine this being anything but a hoax. --APShinobi ^{My Contribs} 23:38, 6 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Price comparison of major chains[edit]

UK Price comparison of major chains (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)

We are not a mechanism for price comparisons, per se. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Outside our scope. I couldn't find an exact mention of price comparisons on "What Wikipedia is not" but the article would fail as being either a blog or a directory.--Dmol (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTCATALOG explicitly says "Wikipedia is not a price comparison serice". Author admits page will contain OR, though doesn't use the O-word. Dricherby (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dricherby; the statement is quite detailed about Wikipedia not being intended for use by someone interested in comparing prices. dci | TALK 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article isn't of an encyclopedic nature. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 16:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a price comparison service. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably well-intentioned but totally unmaintainable and unencyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 03:31, 8 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. However, the fact that no article on him exists on the Hungarian WP is not a reason to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan Bokros[edit]

Istvan Bokros (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)

Cannot find any reference anywhere. There is no similar article in the Hungarian Wiki which otherwise is very inclusive on this topic, and no matches found with Google. ELEKHH^T 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 06:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: huwiki does not have this article. Also, no websites write about this person. ThereFOUR (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The reasons above seem valid, although the lack of an article in the Hungarian Wikipedia is not necessarily enough to warrant deletion. I would agree, however, that there are not enough reliable sources mentioning this subject to keep it on Wikipedia. dci | TALK 16:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 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) 00:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bez's Madchester Anthems: Sorted Tunes from Back in the Day[edit]

Bez's Madchester Anthems: Sorted Tunes from Back in the Day (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. This album fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close No arguements have been presented for deletion other than the nominators, after 14 days of listing. Lugnuts (talk) 13:26, 6 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 - as has been noted below, article's claims of notability and not supported by reliable sources. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G-WAN[edit]

G-WAN (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)

Previously deleted following a discussion. The current version is a substantial improvement IMO and includes an independent reference showing notability. Previous spam elements have been removed.

The article was nominated for speedy as it was a re-creation of an article deleted following a discussion. I declined the speedy on the basis that the article had improved significantly. However, I am nominating it again for discussion given that it had only recently been discussed (March 16).

Suggest: Keep. Delete and salt RA (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest taking it to WP: DELREV instead of here. AfD exists to delete articles, not explain why they should be kept. I would make a speedy keep close (because you, the nominator, have failed to advance an argument for deletion), but I don't know how and people would yell at me for closing a discussion too early. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not totally familiar with all the deletion protocols but it sounded to me like WP: DELREV was the more appropriate option too given the previous deletion. In any case, I would favor deletion because the fact there's an About.com vignette written by a guy who downloaded it does not seem like any improvement over the original deletion discussion. To give an idea of how unheard of this is outside of this guy/company's own promotion, yesterday when I was looking into this I did site searches on both Computerworld and Infoworld and got zero hits for both "g-wan" and "trustleap" as well as getting nothing substantial in the first few pages of a general Google search. I am an internet software developer and I have never heard of this web server. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel there's a bit of confusion here. True, G-WAN doesn't have a lion share of web server market, but :

1. You get quite a bit of hits typing "g-wan" in Google, like: (a) tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/29/.../g-wan-another-free-web-server (b) cplus.about.com/b/.../g-wan-superfast-webserver-for-c-scripting.htm (c) nbonvin.wordpress.com/tag/gwan/ .. etc, etc..

2. You get a lot of hits and discussions regarding this web server on StackOverflow.com/ServerFault.com -

and some of the authors really like the "C-scripts" features. The server existed since 2007, and there are actually production sites using it.

3. "Trustleap" is not the right term to search for - it's just the name of the legal entity in Switzerland, as I understand, not a product name.

4. Some of very large CDN's in the US - like Limelight - actually use G-WAN for certain very intensive tasks like Edge Queries/Beaconing.

5. Anyway, I am trying to make a point that G-WAN is not some very un-noticeable piece of software which has no value. It existed for over 5 years, and there are quite a few people who used it and liked it, not "just "downloaded it".

I respect the previous editor point of view, but would still like to see a reasonable consensus. It seems a lot more natural thing to do than just blindly deleting it. The current G-WAN entry has really nothing "promotional" in it other than asking to have an entry for something which has been developed for over 5 years, and actually shows some very good results compared to traditionally-architected servers. Novel approaches should be noted, not ignored - that would be a more positive take on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.253.33 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — 75.144.253.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep We use G-WAN for Comet applications, and I would say, speed-wise, it's a even faster than lighttpd. True, the C-interface is a bit unusual for web development these days, but if you're a strong C/C++ programmer - you'll have fun playing with G-WAN. — 108.71.88.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Pretty much the same as the last AFD. The only sources here are to blogs, unreliable sources such as about.com, and salem-news.com, which is not a newspaper - it describes itself as a 'exclusively Web news organization'. These are not the multiple reliable sources required by the General notability guideline - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article about G-WAN should have been on Wiki many years ago. And I am surprised people take a one-sided view of what G-WAN is. It's not really a web server like nginx - this is not the point of inclusion or exclusion. It's an ecosystem of modules around a multi-core kernel, like one of the fastest NoSQL solutions you can get:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2376846/which-key-value-store-is-the-most-promising-stable StackOverflow clearly shows how valuable it can be for NoSQL applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.56.1 (talk) 20:22, 2 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  06:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting because the "keep" opinions by the IPs are unhelpful; they do not address our inclusion criteria per WP:GNG etc. Can we have opinions by people familiar with our standards, please?  Sandstein  06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but improve the article. G-WAN is a well-known piece of Internet technology with likely hundreds of reputable sources discussing it. It'd probably be easier to just go Google it than to discuss deletion. Omnibus (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You say that there are "likely" hundreds of valid sources, but could you just link to one? The product's development team who is/are posting to the article's talk page can't seem to come up with much more than blog posts and forum discussions, nor did my Googling or targeted searching of IT industry trade magazines before this weird deletion nomination requesting that the article be kept was made. If the product's developers are having trouble getting industry publications that already cover fairly obscure web servers to cover their product, Wikipedia isn't the place to start. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In just a cursory glance at the article, more than one has already been linked for you. Surely, if you are interested in a technology article like this you have heard of Netcraft, StackOverflow, and About.com? I would hope so. Here, it was covered on About.com and notability is not temporary as per Wikipedia guidelines so "once is enough". Omnibus (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I will say that I was surely wrong about the hundreds of notable sources. It's certainly becoming a hot topic on web tech forums for having relatively little mainstream coverage. None of this is particularly relevant of course, since just one GWAN-specific About.com article makes it notable enough for inclusion given the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG Omnibus (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, web forum mentions or a guy at a content farm having downloaded it once do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". (Like, seriously? About.com? A site whose current headline is "Your Perfect Prom Look"?) Netcraft coverage would be a single substantial source but where is the link you're talking about? I am getting zero hits in the Netcraft.com site search and a Google search of that domain. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; all the listed references are random one-off 'we benchmarked this' or blog posts by random people on the internet. The salem-news.com link is sort of notability-establishing, but it reads basically like a press release. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article probably needs to focus on G-WAN being a tool rather than a "narrow-defined web server". Looks like a great low latency solution for Trading and Scientific apps. Here's the discussion: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7683793/what-is-the-principle-of-low-latency-in-trading-application

• The preceding unsigned comment was made by User:Sfmist (contribs), the creator of the current G-WAN article, who in the talk page identified themselves by signing a message with "Kind regards, G-wan team". --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First, Stack Overflow is a web forum, and so is not considered a reliable source. Postings there do not build the case for notability. Secondly, the author(s) of G-wan have been sanctioned in the past for advertising at Stack Overflow, (He posted to complain about it here) so we must consider any postings there that reference G-wan to be highly suspect. - 75.130.105.1 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4752 - Looks like a very cool server. Here's a LinuxJournal article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.56.1 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC) (([reply]

— Duplicate !vote: 69.164.56.1 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Are you referring to the spam in the comments section?

I'm getting the feeling there's little or no reliable sources out there on this. I've stuck me suggestion to keep. --RA (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google search for "g-wan web server": 2,440,000 results. Also, the About.com notability - a site which existed since 1995, and has 50 million unique visitors in March-2012 (behind Wikipedia.org with 88 mln) - could not be categorically dismissed: About.com. But, arguably, some of above-cited references may lack an objective and impartial view of the matter. Suggestion: distill the article and some references, tone down the discussion, and keep a revised version. Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Google search results for:

• "a-wan web server": About 8,030,000 results (0.29 seconds)
• "b-wan web server": About 5,600,000 results (0.21 seconds)
• "c-wan web server": About 4,010,000 results (0.28 seconds)
• "d-wan web server": About 3,410,000 results (0.29 seconds)
• "e-wan web server": About 2,770,000 results (0.25 seconds)
• "f-wan web server": About 2,430,000 results (0.27 seconds)
• ... etc.

Apart from the About.com reference are there any independent sources for this software? It doesn't look like it. Also, I am losing faith at the number of single-purpose accounts casting keep !votes here. --RA (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ok, this is just a search query glitch, but "g-wan web server" (literal string) yields - 121,000 results. Including a number of Software Magazines published in France. Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of which, incredibly, seem to be self-published sources or web-spam. "...a number of Software Magazines published in France" Link please? --RA (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sfmist account has added a link to the article: http://www.programmez.com/actualites.php?id_actu=7925 which does go to the site of what would probably be a reliable source, but the page doesn't appear to be a magazine article and seems to be a bullet list of marketing points rather than anything technical. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 2 links: (1) Decouvrez-le-serveur-Web-G-WAN, (2) Web-Ultra-Rapide Salisburylawn —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

And also in Ubuntu Programming Reference (under 'Interpreters'): help.ubuntu.com/community/Programming: G-WAN: Fast C Interpreter. (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Salisburylawn[reply]

The programmez links state that they are reprinting information from the vendor, the ubuntu link is to a page on their community wiki, which anyone may edit. In fact, we can see here] that an account belonging to the developer of G-wan added that link to the ubuntu page. These are not reliable sources, so they don't build the case for notability. That these are the best sources available is disheartening. - MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the About.com reference, these are terrible sources. Indeed, I'm getting a bad taste of WP:SPAM about all of these "references" and the way they are being pushed — not only here but on the referenced sites themselves. And, I really dislike the idea of Wikipedia being abused in the same way that these community forums (StackOverflow, Ubuntu Community Help, etc.) seem to be. In particular, as someone who in his daily work relies on and contributes to the good will of those communities.

Notability is not something that can — or should — be achieved through persistent spam across open web communities. Delete and salt. --RA (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion may be (probably will be) re-visited in the future I want to reiterate that I am amazed that anyone regards About.com to be a relevant source in this discussion. Even if you consider that section separate from the overall "Your Perfect Prom Look" and content farm nature of the site, cplus.about.com is just some guy's blog, not a journalistic or academic editorially-reviewed or peer-reviewed publication. He even has a page entitled "Other Blogs You might find Interesting". If we were going to consider blogs significant coverage - which they aren't - the one from the university professor would be a better and more authoritative source. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think About.com isn't quite "just a blog" as you say, as only actual experts or semi-experts in whatever field are chosen to be editors and they are paid editorial staff instead of hobby bloggers. However, based on the fact that I can't find any mention of G-WAN at Netcraft when it was referenced here by our friend and I too thought I had seen it there; and mainly because I have a feeling that our friend is voting for himself under different pseudonyms... I'm striking my "Keep" vote for now. I consider About.com to be about half a notable source, not quite getting this one up to par yet. Omnibus (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the entire About.com site isn't a blog, only the linked-to cplus.about.com is what is referring to itself as a blog, and I could go along with calling the overall site a content farm generated by semi-experts with no editorial process. I found the Netcraft link eventually: it was added here by the Sfmist account and was a link to uptime.netcraft.net displaying how long the domain gwan.ch has been up in amongst the readings for a list of other domains. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. If that type of Netcraft "reference" were accepted, nearly every site on the Internet would be included in Wikipedia. I had thought I'd seen it mentioned in the web server roundup along with a myriad of minor players behind Apache and Nginx and lighttpd/Litespeed/Cherokee/etc., but there's no sign of that type of reference at Netcraft yet. Omnibus (talk) 01:33, 14 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. There is a weak consensus that the sources provided are sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Popescu[edit]

Dumitru Popescu (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)

Notability is not established. The links included in the article are either dead, or promotional, or make no mention of Popescu, or are blog posts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article hid its light under a bushel, but then, looking for such is what nominators are supposed to do WP:BEFORE they nominate. Dumitru Popescu is head and founder of the Cosmonautics and Aeronautics Romanian Association (ARCA). ARCA has never won a X-Prize; however, their participation in the numerous X Prize Foundation events has received international coverage from MSNBC, Astronomy magazine, and Space.com, and lavishly detailed domestic coverage at Cariere Online, as can be seen with no more than a Google News search. Anarchangel (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been somewhat expanded, wikified and cited with six additional secondary sources . Anarchangel (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not specifically about him, except for one: the ludicrous "Cariere" cruft. Dahn (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. To say nothing of the fact, already stated, that the article now has substantial third party citations, and WP:BIO cannot come here to the AfD and either tell us which part of it is relevant to this article, or why. Anarchangel (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: the one source on his biography is actually unquotable, per WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he seems to meet BIO Academics 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, for the Popescu-Diaconu stabilization method, among other contributions, as well as BIO 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association - president and founder of ARCA.  The Steve  06:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His team has. And this according to an unreliable source, that I've taken the liberty of removing to highlight the puffery problem. Dahn (talk) 22:55, 7 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, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Cosmonautics and Aeronautics Romanian Association, possibly to the X-Prize subsection. Much of his notability seems to be inherited from ARCA or the things he's designed; he himself doesn't get much coverage. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's every bit as notable as the organization, which he founded. someone who designs or oiginates notable things is notable. That how people in his profession become notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the GNG, lots of sources, seems to be a well known rocket designer. Notability not inherited from the things he designed?? - That's like saying the author isn't famous, but his books sure are... The Steve  08:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into the Association article - all claim to notability is inherited; the difference is made by "bio" sources that simply fail WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's that cleared up, then, and we can all go home. Supposedly there ARE NO sources that can possibly cite this article, because all sources not directly about him are trivial coverage, and all sources directly about him are "bio" sources. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: coverage is woefully trivial, except for a promotional piece that's basically a blog post. There is no reliable source covering him to any appreciable depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 7 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  05:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- it's rocket science.

  Seriously, references establish him as one of the leading experts in his field in his country. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which references would those be? The passing mentions made here, here, here and here, or this crufty puff piece? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- He the organization's main spokeperson and is almost as well known as ARCA. Dragos muresan (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it through sources, please. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two cinema movies are enough? I added them to the page Dragos muresan (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, simply appearing in a film does not establish one's notability; WP:ENT needs to be met for that. What we need is evidence he passes WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I for one am not seeing that, only disparate passing mentions. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I might add that those films are themselves of questionable notability: anyone can write an imdb entry; the other two "sources" are promotional material for the two films... Dahn (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you decided by yourself to delete the references AND the paragraph about the movies he is in AND the link to the image with himself. I am not an expert in wiki rules but shouldn't be a consensus about what should be kept and not? Shouldn't an admin take a look at this? Dragos muresan (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • From Wikipedia:Notability_(people) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".

http://spacefellowship.com/news/art12913/part-two-dumitru-popescu-builds-his-dream-rocket.html

http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/2005-08-26/omul-zilei-dumitru-popescu.html

http://www.alfanews.ro/2011/dumitru-popescu-arca-%E2%80%9Etrimiterea-omului-in-cosmos-ramane-obiectivul-principal-al-organizatiei%E2%80%9D.html

http://www.fishingtonpost.ro/2012/02/12694-invitatul-saptamanii-dumitru-popescu/#.T6ifD-t1Dp4

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".

http://www.space-tourists-film.com/en/home.php

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." - Popescu-Diaconu gravitational stabilization method ARCASPACE#Popescu-Diaconu_stabilization_method Dragos muresan (talk) 04:51, 8 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 speedy delete. 07:12, 10 May 2012 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Net friend (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Net friend[edit]

Net friend (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)

Article appears to be an essay of some sort. Sole reference is what appears to be a blog, but is entirely in simplified Chinese. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, personal essay with no reliable sources. JIP | Talk 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to friending. The article right now is purely OR and is not encyclopedic, but the article title itself would be a good redirect to friending since it does actually pertain to the content in the friending article. Other than that, everything else needs to be tossed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - essay/how-to content, and redundant to the well-developed existing article on Internet relationship (which Online friendship redirects to). I'd suggest redirecting to that one if this really is a notable term. Robofish (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — not encyclopedic A:-)Brunuś (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 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 Withdrawn Yasht101 11:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

On the Radio (Green Day album)[edit]

On the Radio (Green Day album) (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)

Fake? Yasht101 04:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Only if they hacked iTunes. Dru of Id (talk) 08:14, 6 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 Speedy close; housekeeping request as per my comment below has been done by user:DGG. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zasloff[edit]

Michael Zasloff (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 was trying to fox the title of the page and created a new page rather than use the "Move" function which I just found out about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.eisen (talk • contribs)

• 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 6. Snotbot  t • c »  03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G6 per this AFD. So tagged. Mistakes can be corrected fairly easily around here. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ...aaaaaand it's been taken care of. Time to close up! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:48, 6 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.  Sandstein  07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop Scots Highland Company[edit]

4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop Scots Highland Company (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 Bduke (Discussion) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I had considerable problem submitting this to AfD as the title of the article had a slash in it, which confused everything. I moved the article to remove the slash and I hope I have fixed up the AfD pages OK. I will check all the other links. OK, to the details. This article has been discussed in relation to a merge at Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Nova Scotia. A paragraph has been added to Scouting and Guiding in Nova Scotia. There was some support for making this a redirect there, but that was also opposed, both the mention there and the redirect. So I decided to bring it here. Individual Scout Troops or Groups are rarely notable and many have been deleted or redirected over the years. This article however covers other ground. It has several references, but none of those that are easily available talk about the troop and the content of this article. As was said on the merge discussion this material is better suited as a full article for submission to a scholarly journal or a historical society journal. I would accept a redirect, but am more inclined to say it should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rather good job of amateur local historical research, but we don't do that. Not actually more notable than any other small such local group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson ranch[edit]

Stetson ranch (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 housing development. The only sources I could find for it were real estate websites, and there's nothing that even approaches significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability, or at least none provided by reliable sources. dci | TALK 16:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete searches don't turn up anything that would allow this article to pass WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found no significant coverage, SL93 (talk) 21:07, 6 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)} 18:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese Association in Southeast America[edit]

Nepalese Association in Southeast America (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 organization, also looks to be copy pasted from somewhere, and largely promotional. Shadowjams (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A regional, not national association; I could find no additional sources besides the one in the article, DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 7 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 redirect to Nancy Rue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Robbins[edit]

Lily Robbins (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)

Author and book have no Wikipedia pages therefore not notable. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 17:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I agree that the stub certainly does not give the impression that there is any notability here, I wonder why you didn't PROD this instead of immediately going to AfD 7 min after the article was created by a rather new editor. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of an article ≠ lack of notability. That being said, a preliminary Google search indicates that the author might meet our notability standards. I'm going to do some more looking in that direction (with the idea that if the author is notable enough, this title could redirect to the author's article). LadyofShalott 03:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nancy Rue. LadyofShalott 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless article. Gives no information at all. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Nancy Rue. Not a shred of evidence that this fictional character has any out-of-universe notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as the reasonable solution. Normally we would redirect to the book, but as she is the character is an entire series, a redirect to the author is more rational. No reason no keep as a separate article, no reason not to have a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Nancy Rue, providing references can be found. Simply redirecting to Nancy Rue will cause confusion as there is currently nothing on Rue's page about Lily Robbins or the Lily Series. --Wavehunter (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no verifiable evidence of notability to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redirecting to Nancy Rue would not make sense, and that article does not even mention this subject, nor is there anything to indicate that this subject is important enough to Nancy Rue to warrant a mention in that article. Nor is there any evidence of standalone notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 14 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)} 18:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Glenn Hinson[edit]

Kenneth Glenn Hinson (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)

Criminal does not seem particularly notable. EchetusXe 13:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. GNews has dozens of articles. Pburka (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment err? How does this meet WP:Crime exactly? I will quote the the guidelines:

For perpetrators 1.The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. 2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. ref- Example: Seung-Hui Cho.

• Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. (my emphasis)

Hinson was convicted of rape in 1991, as were no doubt tens of thousands of other rapists, but the only considerable coverage Hinson has received has been for another trial for rape in 2007. He was acquitted and the case was forgotten about. No sustained coverage, not guilty, nothing beyond bog standard reporting of topical news.--EchetusXe 09:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as run of the mill. Sadly, one out of six women have been raped, and an untold number of men in prison, or by priests, or coaches at Penn State. I don't see how this rapist is notable. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give me guidelines which points towards your personal assumptions?--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One single conviction for rape doesn't make a person notable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that this artticle should be kept because it does pass WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The deletion arguments here are weak at best.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, stand by my keep argument. I find news coverage of the subject in every year from 2006-2010, inclusive. Some of the coverage is international. With further work we should be able to find coverage going back to the 1990s. The sustained coverage satisfies WP:GNG. I also note that the nomination is weak at best: "doesn't seem notable" isn't a sound argument. Pburka (talk) 14:45, 5 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, →Στc. 00:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Convicted 20 years ago, more recently charged with with new offnse and acquitted. Attempt at dangerousness committment failed. Oh, and the same judge both times! Nothing here. EEng (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:PERPETRATOR. I notice this guy has now been sentenced to prison again for gun crime, but Wikipedia isn't here to document every criminal's sordid history - there are lots of multiple offenders in jail! Sionk (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's no indication that the subject meets WP:CRIME; nothing separates him from the crowd, he simply seems to be a run of the mill criminal. Ducknish (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:CRIME and no other basis for notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Despite no conviction, his situation appears to have sparked legislation in South Carolina to give repeat sex offenders the death penalty [25][26]. Did these bills pass? --Joshuaism (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what it sparked, unless coverage of the sparkee happens to also contain substantial, reliable, blah blah blah coverage of the subject under discussion here. EEng (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And about 142/275 words (52%) in the Fox News piece and 52/430 words (12%) in the ABC news piece are about Kenneth Hinson. Seems substantial to me, even if the outrage was misguided and he was set up by two skanky teenagers stealing pot out of his drying room. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:47, 14 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Nordic Walking Association - INWA[edit]

International Nordic Walking Association - INWA (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 article only references the official pages of the organization, no reliable sources here. Furthermore, the page is promotional and trumpet's the organization's (self-proclaimed) values and scope. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 20:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]